Welcome to Gaia! ::

Can't really argue with that. Black and white it says it's wrong if it faulters your brother. But then again I find it faultering for me when peopl start laying down rules for me that I don't see the point in following. So by making it where I have to give up things to make them happy will make me faulter, as in bring me to a point of fustration. Isn't this just as bad as well?

Wow, finals put me back a lot this lats few weeks. So much has gone on. From what I've read from the sources listed supporting homosexuality, I find that all they have done is taken what was written in the bible, and filled in the gaps to support their side. Which on the other hand could be done for the opposite side, but the way I view it is if there were passages even mentioning the subject doesn't that mean that something is wrong? If homosexuality isn't a sin, then what is sexually immoral?

It seems that everyone is agreement that ***** and bestiality is a sin, some sources even claim that some of the anti-homosexual verses are really about *****. Are these the only sexual sins among adults? If so then why would Romans talk about sexual relations of men with other men, not boys? Are they raping each other is that it? These arguments seem kinda incomplete to me. You can find so many ways to reinterpret passages to support homosexuality, but where are the passages that explicitly support it? There are plenty that support heterosexual relations, but you could always reinterpret those too.

The way I see it is more twisting of the truth by satan. Look at what happened at that beginning, the snake told Eve it won't kill you, if you eat it you have the knowledge of good and evil, just like God. What he failed to tell her was that she would not die immediately but the consequences of eating that fruit would cause her to break her promise to God and his punishment would cause her to die eventually. What did we get from the fruit? The knowledge of more ways to sin and be punished. Now this knowledge isn't all bad, I would think God would want us to have this knowledge at some point, but when we were ready.

As far as people being born a homosexual, I don't deny that it is possible, but as far as God creating people homo.... I doubt that He would create them to be homo for their whole life. We are all born in to sin, it is up to us to change our ways to follow Christ. Just because I am born desiring to only act in my self interest doesn't mean that I how I am supposed to be all my life. I know of people who have given up homosexuality to follow God, it can be done.

The question we all have to ask ourselves is, what is God's nature like, how has He acted through out the bible? Then does this sin make sense as sin, does it protect you from something or is there a chance to harm you, prolong your life or lessen it, bring you closer to God or further? Through out the bible God made laws to make us safe and healthy and to bring us close to Him. This is what we must consider when we decide if something is sinful. Let me know if I need to clarify on anything.

To be attracted to the same sex is not sin. Yeah, it definately sets one up for sin, but it in itself is not sin. It is, however, a sin to act upon that attraction and to have "unnatural relations."
It's the same thing for heterosexuals. I am attracted to girls and it is my choice to lust for them (desire them sexually) or to resist temptation.

I suppose one could say that the bible addresses homosexuals as those that fornicate with the same sex.

As for your second sentence in the quote, that's pure speculation. Unless you show empirical evidence for such an outrageous claim, it's your word against God's word- and that's not a hard decision to make.

Here's something from Bible.org, a reputable site that is not in it for justifying sin:

Romans 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 54 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women 55 and were inflamed in their passions 56 for one another. Men 57 committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

54 tn Grk “for their females exchanged the natural function for that which is contrary to nature.” The term χρῆσις (crhsi") has the force of “sexual relations” here (L&N 23.65).

Natural Function? Let's see, man and woman were made to be together in marriage. So an unnatural function would be a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

55 tn Grk “likewise so also the males abandoning the natural function of the female.”

56 tn Grk “burned with intense desire” (L&N 25.16).

57 tn Grk “another, men committing…and receiving,” continuing the description of their deeds. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, 5 practicing homosexuals, 6

5 tn This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior. BDAG 613 s.v. μαλακός 2 has “pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship.” L&N 88.281 states, “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’ …As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.” See also the discussion in G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 243-44. A number of modern translations have adopted the phrase “male prostitutes” for μαλακοί in 1 Cor 6:9 (NIV, NRSV, NLT) but this could be misunderstood by the modern reader to mean “males who sell their services to women,” while the term in question appears, at least in context, to relate to homosexual activity between males. Furthermore, it is far from certain that prostitution as commonly understood (the selling of sexual favors) is specified here, as opposed to a consensual relationship. Thus the translation “passive homosexual partners” has been used here.

6 tn On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ἀρσενοκοίτης states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ἀρσενοκοίτης in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with μαλακός, the passive male partner.” Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG.

Also, if you're going to analyze this, don't cherry-pick.

Why does your signature include a vulgar joke about having sex with Jesus, my Savior? Not only is that bound to cause others to stumble, it is blasphemous to misuse his name, or to profane it. The Lord's name is holy. Do you testify to this?

My thoughts exactly. That's why I asked her if she copied and pasted it. Sure enough, yup.

But who is to say a person's actions are good and Godly? Is not God that only one who can decide on that? Anyone claiming openly and loudly that he is a good and Godly man is more likely than not to be wrong. I myself claim only to do my best in following in Christ's footsteps, and even by saying that I feel uneasy. I could probably do better than I do, but I still claim I do my best because that is what I believe.

And let me throw something in your court; why tell others about his point of view when you imply that it is only to make fun of him? To me, that doesn't seem like a "good and Godly" thing to do.

But I digress. You do have a valid point, even if I do not agree with your methods completely. But I do have to ask you, brad, why you again bring up "this hateful dialogue and profanity" again in your quote? Surely you could have found another way to describe the context of what you were talking about with putting the words back on the screen? I was the one who asked them to refrain from using that language, but why does it make it ok for you to put it back in your post? From what I can tell you disagree with using the words at all, an here you are doing that very thing whether you wrote it or just copied it; either way you are using it.

Again let me say that I don't disagree with what you were trying to say. I do, on the other hand, strongly disagree with your means.

Pssst.... Lazarus, could you please refrain from swearing. I know you've debated this in the cussing thread but Paul calls us to obey authority, who just so happens to be Lianthus and now me; and Lianthus says to control your tounge and refrain from using swear words. If you want you can use lesser versions of words like f***k, like "screw" or what not, but just please refrain from saying it in the forums.

Thank you!

Thanks Lazarus, I knew I could count on you!