Why?

[Archaeopteryx]

Without a particular stance I ask this simple question...
Why do some consider homosexuality a sin?

 

[Phinehas2]

Why dont you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why dont you?

I don't think I know enough to make a judgement on the sinfulness of homosexuality. Yet, ultimately, it is not for me to decide if it is a sin or not.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear bjspurple,

I don't think I know enough to make a judgement on the sinfulness of homosexuality. Yet, ultimately, it is not for me to decide if it is a sin or not.

Thanks for your response. Thank you also for being considerate enough when I answer your question with a question which isn't very good debating on my part.
However I would say there is a wealth of debate alreay in the multitude of posts on this topic which you could read. Also can I establish, if you dont believe its up to you to decide whether it is a sin or not, who do you think it is up to?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Without a particular stance I ask this simple question...
Why do some consider homosexuality a sin?

It is probably most, instead of some. But thats just speculation on my part as I haven't taken a poll

And it depends on what you mean by "some". It's safe to assume that a majority of believers condemn homosexuality simply due to tradition and/or light biblical study. Since the kjv literally condemns it, most accept and stand by it at that point. Those who are attempting to legitimize homosexual acts have taken it a step further by breaking the translations down back to the original languages, and blamed the homosexual condemnation on the translators. Also another method they've employed is that the act itself isn't sinful, but the context in which it is done causes the sin, such as ritual impurity. And also the famous "monogamous loving same-sex relationship" statement is often used.

My reason(s) for believing its sinful are pretty simple. First off, since open homosexual relationships weren't tolerated in the ancient jewish culture, its easy to see why they didn't address it specifically. The passages that do make a mention of homosexuality are always surrounded with negativity, or "sin talk" as I like to say. Secondly, if God blessed same-sex monogamous committed etc relationships, you'd think He'd mention it in His statements about marriage.
For ex. matt19:4-6 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

And my 3rd reason for believing it is sinful is that I believe its unnatural. The reason why I believe it is unnatural, is because it serves no function in procreation, which I believe our sexual drives are ingrained in us for. Some argue that same-sex relationships are natural and they physically "work", but its obvious to see the proper usage based on how the sexual organs between male and females correlate on their intended use.

And lastly there is absolutely NO biblical evidence supporting homosexuality/actions.

Hope this helps.

-dave

p.s. Now I'm going to prepare to be called a closed-minded fundie, bigot, or that I'm promoting hate or something ..lol

 

[tulc]

p.s. Now I'm going to prepare to be called a closed-minded fundie, bigot, or that I'm promoting hate or something ..lol

Actually I thought you did a pretty good job presenting your side.
tulc(well...I thought the "NO" was a bit dramatic but that's more a matter of taste then a real criticism)

 

[HaloHope]

p.s. Now I'm going to prepare to be called a closed-minded fundie, bigot, or that I'm promoting hate or something ..lol

To be fair Jet, I think you tend to put your point across, politely, reasonably and well. I may totally disagree with you, but I respect you as I dont think you are motivated out of hate or the "ick" factor like some here.

 

[Zaac]

I don't think I know enough to make a judgement on the sinfulness of homosexuality. Yet, ultimately, it is not for me to decide if it is a sin or not.

bj, it's good that you recognize that it is not man who decreed what sin is, but GOD.

The answer to your question rests with God and His Word. If you trust Him and His Word as Truth, the answer to your question is clear as His Word clearly answers it.

All that you will learn from others on this matter is whether or not they are in agreement with the One who has ALREADY given His truth.

 

[savedandhappy1]

WOW!!!!!

It is really neat to read a thread and see such wonderful answers and NO one had to get rude, crude and totally un anything to state them. Boy wouldn't it be neat if that happened all the time?

Jet_A_Jockey,
Wonderfully written. I may have to copy and paste your post when other topics come up about this. Wish I could say things that well.

 

[davedjy]

Those who are attempting to legitimize homosexual acts have taken it a step further by breaking the translations down back to the original languages, and blamed the homosexual condemnation on the translators.

...and rightfully so, the translators themselves have not universally agreed upon 1 Cor. 6:9, alone. What is agreed upon is that "nobody" knows what Arsenokoitai means, and for a translator to use "homosexual" in the translation, they are breaking the rules of Biblical Exegesis to do so. As I pointed out, at the time of Martin Luther, it was universally translated as "masturbator". It is still translated to this day as "male prostitute", and a promiscuous man.

Secondly, if God blessed same-sex monogamous committed etc relationships, you'd think He'd mention it in His statements about marriage.
For ex. matt19:4-6 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

That was in response to question from the Pharisees to test Jesus, you left out the first part, where the Pharisee asked specifically if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife, so he answered the question:

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

And my 3rd reason for believing it is sinful is that I believe its unnatural. The reason why I believe it is unnatural, is because it serves no function in procreation, which I believe our sexual drives are ingrained in us for. Some argue that same-sex relationships are natural and they physically "work", but its obvious to see the proper usage based on how the sexual organs between male and females correlate on their intended use.

It is in over 450 Vertebrate Species. Gays and lesbians are naturally attracted to only the same sex (unless of course they are bisexual). Arguments on procreation or design don't hold up on any scale with a debate on something being natural or not. We know from every credible mental health foundation in America that homosexuality is not curable/not changeable, and any attempt to change it would be dangerous.

 

[MercyBurst]

Without a particular stance I ask this simple question...
Why do some consider homosexuality a sin?

Because it doesn't win any straights to Jesus Christ. Jesus loves straights too you know.

That was easy enough to answer.

So which is better: justifying a cheesy lifestyle, or setting a good example that anyone can follow to Jesus Christ?

 

[tulc]

Hey cool! My post got reported for being a flame!
tulc(my first reported post on foru.ms! today I am a man!)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Very interesting points here. I'm glad everyone was able to articulate their ideas so well. I personally don't have a solid stance on the issue, but the points that you have mentioned are contributing to my understanding of it. Thanks

 

[MrPirate]

And it depends on what you mean by "some". It's safe to assume that a majority of believers condemn homosexuality simply due to tradition and/or light biblical study. Since the kjv literally condemns it, most accept and stand by it at that point. Those who are attempting to legitimize homosexual acts have taken it a step further by breaking the translations down back to the original languages, and blamed the homosexual condemnation on the translators.

And the fact remains that literal and contextual translations don’t support your position. Bu t Ii notice you are ignoring that and attempting to shift focus by making unsupported claims about the translators
Why are you ignoring fact that the translations you want don’t hold up to even passing scrutiny?
Why are you attacking individuals whose only crime seems to be that heir effort and hard work does not support your personal views?

My reason(s) for believing its sinful are pretty simple. First off, since open homosexual relationships weren't tolerated in the ancient jewish culture, its easy to see why they didn't address it specifically.

Racial equality not accepted by the ancient Jews…. by your argument this makes racism perfectly acceptable

Rights for the handicapped was not something by the ancient Jews…. by your argument this makes discrimination against the blind and wheelchair bound perfectly acceptable

Slavery was tolerated, even praised by the ancient Jewish culture by your logic we should accept and praise slavery

Polygamy was tolerated, even praised by the ancient Jewish culture by your logic we should accept polygamy

Or are you going to claim that all the other things somehow are “different” and it is only acceptable to use your argument to justify prejudice against one minority

The passages that do make a mention of homosexuality are always surrounded with negativity, or "sin talk" as I like to say.

The same is true for the 136 condemnations of heterosexuality.

Secondly, if God blessed same-sex monogamous committed etc relationships, you'd think He'd mention it in His statements about marriage.

If God approved of racial equality and civil rights…you would think he would mention it somewhere.

And my 3rd reason for believing it is sinful is that I believe its unnatural.

Ignoring the fact it occurs in nature

The reason why I believe it is unnatural, is because it serves no function in procreation, which I believe our sexual drives are ingrained in us for. Some argue that same-sex relationships are natural and they physically "work", but its obvious to see the proper usage based on how the sexual organs between male and females correlate on their intended use.

By your argument is morally acceptable to express hatred and discrimination against the infertile, survivors of cervical cancer, and women past menopause…or will these “unnatural” people somehow also be exempted from your position?

And lastly there is absolutely NO biblical evidence supporting homosexuality/actions.

As noted there is no biblical evidence supporting racial equality and civil rights. In fact the bible calls such things sinful

 

[Apollo Celestio]

As noted there is no biblical evidence supporting racial equality and civil rights. In fact the bible calls such things sinful

Where?

On topic, because the bible sez so! (To put it simply anyway, Jet_a_Jockey gave a better response so I don't have much to say.)

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Actually I thought you did a pretty good job presenting your side.
tulc(well...I thought the "NO" was a bit dramatic but that's more a matter of taste then a real criticism)

thanks tulc, you are right, I think I put a little emphasis to help show my personal opinion as well. and Happy Birthday old man!

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

hello dave,

...and rightfully so, the translators themselves have not universally agreed upon 1 Cor. 6:9, alone. What is agreed upon is that "nobody" knows what Arsenokoitai means, and for a translator to use "homosexual" in the translation, they are breaking the rules of Biblical Exegesis to do so. As I pointed out, at the time of Martin Luther, it was universally translated as "masturbator". It is still translated to this day as "male prostitute", and a promiscuous man.

The problem that occurs when there isn't a universal agreement on translation is that it leaves everyone to their own opinions. After arguing for ages about it, the focus gets obscured and we lose sight of the reason we are all arguing about it.

That was in response to question from the Pharisees to test Jesus, you left out the first part, where the Pharisee asked specifically if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife, so he answered the question:

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

I just picked one of the various verses that regard man and woman, I could go to Genesis also if you want. I wasn't pointing out the main context of the verses but just that even Christ Himself speaks of man/woman relationships in specific with no regard of same-sex ones.

It is in over 450 Vertebrate Species. Gays and lesbians are naturally attracted to only the same sex (unless of course they are bisexual). Arguments on procreation or design don't hold up on any scale with a debate on something being natural or not. We know from every credible mental health foundation in America that homosexuality is not curable/not changeable, and any attempt to change it would be dangerous.

I never said it was changeable, or even that it is something learned. And I'm sure you know by now that I know that people don't consciously choose their likes and dislikes.

The word "natural" is a very vague one, and yes you can argue that it is natural since it occurs in nature. The thing that makes it tough for me is those who argue that God wants them to have a happy loving sexual relationship with the same sex because they were born this way. I cannot agree with that statement, as I haven't seen any physical or biblical evidence that God "made" them that way. Also, the same could be said about those who believe that it is a learned trait, as there are some instances that attempt to link it with childhood trauma but it is nowhere remotely close to conclusive.

I do believe that God wants us to be happy, and to have happy loving relationships in life, in spite of some of the severe hardships that his most devout followers encounter(ed). This has absolutely nothing to do with sex. I believe that the sexual drive is part of our deepest most carnal urges. And also that it is there as a means to naturally push us to procreate and continue our species.

Thanks again for your reply dave.

 

[tulc]

and Happy Birthday old man!

Hey watch that "old" man bit! I'll put my teeth in and my hair on and come find you if I have too!
tulc(well...as long as it's not after 8:00 that is)

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I suppose I will reply to you, even though you seem to think you know me and you do not, and you also seem to think I have some sort of agenda against you.

And the fact remains that literal and contextual translations don’t support your position. Bu t Ii notice you are ignoring that and attempting to shift focus by making unsupported claims about the translators

I don't know how I am shifting the focus, but I already know I will not find a verse in scripture in the original language that specifically condemns all same-sex action. I'm not the one that is making leaps and bounds attempting to justify something so that it conforms to my lifestyle.

Why are you ignoring fact that the translations you want don’t hold up to even passing scrutiny?
Why are you attacking individuals whose only crime seems to be that heir effort and hard work does not support your personal views?

God doesn't specifically say that I shouldn't club baby seals over the head either, so with that logic I guess that makes it okay too.
I'm not attacking anyone, but now I think I understand why you take such a defensive position when I state my opinion. I never said that their work was in vain, as they make a good argument.

Racial equality not accepted by the ancient Jews…. by your argument this makes racism perfectly acceptable

Rights for the handicapped was not something by the ancient Jews…. by your argument this makes discrimination against the blind and wheelchair bound perfectly acceptable

Slavery was tolerated, even praised by the ancient Jewish culture by your logic we should accept and praise slavery

Polygamy was tolerated, even praised by the ancient Jewish culture by your logic we should accept polygamy

Or are you going to claim that all the other things somehow are “different” and it is only acceptable to use your argument to justify prejudice against one minority

what do these things have to do with sexuality again? I'd take the time and answer each question with the best of my knowledge, but I've come to realize it doesn't matter one bit what I say as you don't seem to be willing to discuss things without relying on a accusatory and defensive posture.

The same is true for the 136 condemnations of heterosexuality.

theres a big difference, as there are rules against different sexual acts in general, there are also statements that explain what context they are to be used in.

If God approved of racial equality and civil rights…you would think he would mention it somewhere.

I cannot deny that the Jews are His people, and since I've never lived in an ancient and very uncivilized world, I cannot intelligently comment on the methods they used and undertook.

Ignoring the fact it occurs in nature

I'm sure I've addressed this at some point.

By your argument is morally acceptable to express hatred and discrimination against the infertile, survivors of cervical cancer, and women past menopause…or will these “unnatural” people somehow also be exempted from your position?

I never once said or personally believe it is morally acceptable to express hatred or discrimination, but way to try to sneak that in there.
It's not about what condition a person is in, its about what their natural function is. I never classified people as unnatural, only some of physical (sexual) actions they choose to take.

As noted there is no biblical evidence supporting racial equality and civil rights. In fact the bible calls such things sinful

If you believe that sexual sins change along with societal views throughout history then theres no point in stirring the pot once again.

And lastly, I don't know what drives you to say that I am attacking anyone, or attempting to do anything. I'm only stating my opinion on the matter.
Have a good day.

 

[artybloke]

The problem that occurs when there isn't a universal agreement on translation is that it leaves everyone to their own opinions.

Why is that a bad thing? Problem is, some people don't know how to use the phrase, "we don't know..."

It's OK not to know something; we can always discover something in the future. But if we don't know something and use that to say "and we don't want to know", then that's bad isn't it? Or to insist that we know something when we don't, that's dishonest as well, isn't it?