Welcome to Gaia! ::

Actually, sex was used to show love for another person, however, they didn't do that until they were married. I don't think that those people back in biblical times were thinking "Yay! I'm procreating!" in bed. They were probably expressing their love just as much as couples do today. Besides if it were just a matter of procreating with no other feelings, people wouldn't be doing it all the time.

I don't see any forms of sodomy wrong, because if its used to express love it can be a very beautiful thing. Yes, there are other ways to show it, but sex can be one of the most beautiful ways to express love for one another, be it between a man and a woman or a man and a man.

As for different sex positions..well, I see nothing wrong with them at all. Sex is a big part of marriage, and what better way to keep the passion burning than to try new and exciting things with your partner? Besides, babies are still concieved through other sex positions besides just the missionary position.

Now, if people are going out and having sex just for the heck of it, just to have a joy ride for a night..that's not something I agree with, but I don't think that those people should be stopped from doing it, and I don't think that that will be held against them either.

Here is what I found from another guild I belong to Let The Fire Fall: A Christian Guild.

Unfortunately, I do not know which version of the bible this came from, though, I'm pretty sure it's in the NT. Anyway, in this passage we see that those who commit homosexual acts will not get into the kingdom of god, unless of course, they ask for forgiveness. This does not mean that a person who is homosexual, but does not commit acts of homosexuality, will not get into heaven, quite the contrary, they will, again, assuming there soul is clean from other sins. This passage refers only to those who commit acts of homosexuality, and other sins.

Here are some more

Now, I know the first two quotes are from the OT, and thus, they may not apply as well as others from the NT. Again, the 1 Cronithians, are the same, though, the wording appears slightly different, but the meaning is still the same.

The Romans, I think is trying to say that women commited indecent acts with other women, and men commited indecent acts with other men. Now, it is up to us to interpret what indecent means. Indecent could mean rape, or sexual harrasment of a kind, or even the act of sex outside of marriage, it could also mean homosexual acts, but it's not clear. If it means sex outside of marriage, that would cause the belief that if two homosexual people married, and committed homosexual acts, than it could be that homosexuality is fine. Though, here is one thought on the Romans passage, is that it may be implying that homosexuality is wrong, here's why, there are other parts in the bible that condemn sodomy (which includes a**l sex), and talk about how spilling your seed is bad. This means the only sex acceptable according to the bible that is not indecent is that which is vaginal, all others are basically bad according to the bible, thus homosexual sex is bad, also, the bible also states that two people have to be married to have sex. Now again, since Romans doesn't clarify what indecent acts mean, we cannot be sure if it means homosexual acts.

So, it is my understanding according to the 1 Cronithians and Leviticus passages that homosexual acts are sins. However, again, I am not sure how much the Leviticus passages apply, since jesus did come, and abolished much, if not all of the OT rules. Now, according to the Romans passage, I am not sure, it doesn't quite say that Homosexual acts are bad, though it may imply that homosexual acts are bad.

I do not know which version of the bible they came from, they are similar to the one I read, NLT though not exactly the same.

My best friend's boyfriend is Catholic. I'm going to be moving into an apartment with them this summer. I'm a little bit worried. He's devout, and I'm a devout Pagan. But from what my friend has told me, he's just as worried about getting along with me as I am with him. But anyway, back on topic... As far as I know, what he does is follow all the teachings of the church except for the ones that inconvinience him. That happens to be a perfect example of how most Americans treat Catholocism, and similar religions. He still accepts the eucharist. As far as I know, he CAN be excommunicated for this, however, most people are unwilling to enforce this. That's one reason American Catholics are often frowned upon by non-American Catholics.

To go slightly off topic, I myself have taken the eucharist, directly from a minister who KNEW I wasn't even Christian. What is my point with this? I'm not even sure. From one perspective this very fact points out minor hypocrasies amongst followers of a very strict faith. (no offense. Just sharing some facts) But from an opposing viewpoint, It also goes to show that religious tolerance is beginning to take root in places where tolerance was previously frowned upon. If you ask me, even though this is a direct violation of the Catholic faith, it's a good thing in the grand scheme of things.

Dark, I'd have to say you've proven me wrong in my thinking. I'll look into that more.

Murder, about your friend that accepts the Eucharist but shouldn't, because of the way we are today, that is sort of a personal desicion of his. If he wishes to recieve the body of Christ, and not atone for his sins, than that is between him and God.

Your last post seems to me like people are confusing religion and science again. The use of condoms, in the churches eyes, is a moral things, relating to my veiw on sex and pleasure. Medical science, though, has proven that using them is benificial. It all depends on which a person is more devoted to.

Thank you! There's a huge gay community at my school, and my friends and I have been trying to make people understand that for years, and no one gets it!

Here's something interesting. The bible does state homosexuality is wrong, I've read it. Howver it depends on whihc bible you're reading. Yes I have two bibles and one says somehting different to the other in the same part. This is a reason I do not find it very reliable. if I could rememebr where it was I'd tell you but osmehwere it has a list of some sins or bad deeds or what ever and it does have homosexuality as one of them in one version. So I don't see how you can use your bible to argue against it.