|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:37 pm
I'm confused. I'm debating one(or maybe two now) on homosexuality. They say it's good, while the bible clearly says no.
'Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination' Lev. 18: 22
'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them'
Lev. 20:13
And then there's the story of Sodom, and Gemorrah.
So, anyways, now their bringing menstraution into it, saying that the bible says not to touch women when they are. And they say it means NO TOUCHING WHATSOEVER.
So, what's up with that? Does it even imply to us anymore?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:41 pm
Obviously there are a lot of rules in the OT that we no long abide by. Is homosexuality one? Well, that depends on a lot of things. You have to take things in context of when they were written and that kind of stuff as well. Many of the pagan cultures in the area used homosexual sex as a form of worshipping the gods. Some used just sex in general. I do know there's a verse, I think in I Corinthians as well that makes mention of homosexuality as well.
In general, I feel like homosexuality is something your born with- its not a choice and I cannot see God punishing a person for being who they are. I also cannot see God having a problem with two people loving one another. If their relationship is focused on God, I don't see where the harm is. But those are my personal opinions.
In gereral, there's a lot of grey area relating to homosexuality.
But random: on the subject of not touching women when they're menstrating- women were sent into the Red Tend during their periods, so it is like they say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:47 pm
Yes, the Bible strictly states that homosexual sex is bad. It says this in both the Old and New Testaments. It does not say that you can't love someone of the same gender. That's my chosen interpretation.
Insofar as Leviticus' orders regarding a woman's "time"... you have to remember the hygiene of the day. It's like eating pork. In those days, you didn't know the risks of eating it uncooked. Likewise, blood attracts all sorts of nasty things.
It's likely that the orders about a woman's "time" were given in regards to the pagan religions that lived around the Israelites at the time... but that's not my field, so I'll let someone else who knows details answer that.
Do I think that there should be a strict 'No Contact' rule during that week or so in our current society? No, not really. But that doesn't mean that you should go play around in the... fluids... from that time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:55 pm
CrystalMind Yes, the Bible strictly states that homosexual sex is bad. It says this in both the Old and New Testaments. It does not say that you can't love someone of the same gender. That's my chosen interpretation. Insofar as Leviticus' orders regarding a woman's "time"... you have to remember the hygiene of the day. It's like eating pork. In those days, you didn't know the risks of eating it uncooked. Likewise, blood attracts all sorts of nasty things. It's likely that the orders about a woman's "time" were given in regards to the pagan religions that lived around the Israelites at the time... but that's not my field, so I'll let someone else who knows details answer that. Do I think that there should be a strict 'No Contact' rule during that week or so in our current society? No, not really. But that doesn't mean that you should go play around in the... fluids... from that time. There are different types of love. Like, friendship love, family love, and romantic love. Obviously, the first two would be alright for anyone. I'm talking about the third one, which would imply sex as well. And they mean any kind of touching(i.e. shaking hands, hugs). But, that does make sense. It would also explain that cleansing ritual they mentioned....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:15 pm
freelance lover Obviously there are a lot of rules in the OT that we no long abide by. Is homosexuality one? Well, that depends on a lot of things. You have to take things in context of when they were written and that kind of stuff as well. The entire 20th chapter of Leviticus deals with who you can't have sex with. It includes incest, bestilery(sp?), and homosexuality. We still abide to the first two don't we? freelance lover Many of the pagan cultures in the area used homosexual sex as a form of worshipping the gods. Some used just sex in general. Eww.... eek freelance lover I do know there's a verse, I think in I Corinthians as well that makes mention of homosexuality as well. Yea, you're right. It's something like 'Do not be be decieved, neither homosexuals, fornicaters, liars, nor thieves shall inheriet(sp?) the kingdom of Heaven. freelance lover In general, I feel like homosexuality is something your born with- its not a choice and I cannot see God punishing a person for being who they are.
I also cannot see God having a problem with two people loving one another. If their relationship is focused on God, I don't see where the harm is. But those are my personal opinions.
In gereral, there's a lot of grey area relating to homosexuality. What kind of love do you mean? 'Cause I'm talking about the romantic kind that eventually may lead to babies. If He doesn't have a problem with what I mentioned in the last sentence, why would multiple parts of the bible say it's a sin? freelance lover But random: on the subject of not touching women when they're menstrating- women were sent into the Red Tend during their periods, so it is like they say. Red Tend? what's that? confused BTW(just so we're clear 3nodding ), they mean any touching, even handshaking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:28 pm
masumi5 There are different types of love. Like, friendship love, family love, and romantic love. Obviously, the first two would be alright for anyone. I'm talking about the third one, which would imply sex as well. But why must it imply sex? You can love someone romantically without sleeping with them. (Of course, that's my opinion and I'm fairly asexual on that point.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:45 pm
Sexual and physical attraction to one sex or the other (or both) is something that a person is born with. It has alot to do with hormones that a fetus is exposed to during development and the makeup of the brain after birth. Contrary to popular fundamental belief, homosexuality is not something you choose.
God is a God of love. He preached love and tolerance and inclusion to all peoples, and calls us to come to Him just as we are. He does not make any exceptions to His law of love. Love God above everything else, and love your neighbor as yourself. Now, when it comes to romantic love as regards homosexuality, it's so very hard to say what exactly the Bible intends for us. Both the Old and the New Testaments make mention of it, but we have to take everything into account when trying to understand God's plan and will for our lives. Both during OT and NT times, sex was used by surrounding Pagan religions as a form of worship. Just as God said not to walk your children through fire because it was a form of Pagan worship, I believe one of the main reasons God outlaws homosexual sex is for the same reason.
But then there are verses about marriage, saying that a man will leave his mother and father and cling to his wife, and that the two will become one. Did God purposely leave out men clinging to their husbands and women clinging to their wives because He didn't see it as an acceptable union, or was it left out for the same reason that God leaves out "don't drive and talk on your cell phone at the same time"? Is it a product of the culture? These are all things you have to consider prayerfully. Read your Bible, pray for understanding of His Word. If you are true to your heart and what God is telling you, and you live by that, then you can't be condemned for that.
On that note, if homosexuality is indeed a sin, is it a worse sin than any other? Sin is sin, and every human being is going to sin, whether they are saved or not. This doesn't give anyone an excuse to live life how they please, however, hoping that they can claim on Judgment Day that "they didn't know they were sinning." Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it, and when the time comes you will be held accountable for every word you have said and be confronted with your sins (for the life of me I can't find the verse for this). But you are still saved. God will make you aware of your past sins the way He was aware of them, and then wash them away and admit you into His Kingdom. But homosexuality is no worse a sin (if it is a sin) than lying, stealing, cheating, murdering, or anything else.
I'm usually way more eloquent than this ... I don't know what's happened to my brain. >.o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:45 pm
CrystalMind you have to remember the hygiene of the day. It's like eating pork. In those days, you didn't know the risks of eating it uncooked. Likewise, blood attracts all sorts of nasty things. See now, this is the same argument I use FOR homosexuality. lol In the beginning, God needed a strong, healthy, numerous people. Can't do that if much of the population isn't reproducing. Also can't do that if they're getting sick from things in feces and whatnot. Which is probably why a**l was restriced altogether, not just for gay men. I've always been of the opinion that gay love and gay sex were not sins. I refuse to believe that God would make the human race, tell us to love one another, and then for a select portion of the population make them unable to express that love physically. Because, eventually, it's going to happen. If you're with someone long enough, you get the urge to make them happy that way, to make them totally relaxed and feel good. It's a powerful bonding experience, and I don't see why God would deny that to someone who just can't help that they're attracted to the same sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:45 pm
The red tent (sorry, I made a typo in my previous post) was where women were seculded during their time of the month. They would pretty much go in there and stay in there until their period ended. This is because they weren't allowed contact with men during that time of the month, etc. You should read the book The Red Tent, if you ever want some light reading. It's the story of Dinah, Jacob's only daughter and it deals a lot with the red tent.
And yes, I'm refering to romantic love. There are different kinds of love, but I don't see God have a problem with any form towards anyone. And romantic doesn't always lead to babies or sex.
In general there's a lot of grey area with the rules of the time. So many of them were to distinguish God's chosen people from others or for sanitary reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:46 pm
The Law isn't for sanitary reasons. It uses the words 'clean' and 'unclean' which in Hebrew have connotations of spiritual cleanliness. The Law was given to set G-d's people apart, as someone pointed out. However, this does not mean JUST the Jews, it applies just as much to Gentiles. I think that homosexuality is not something definate and set, and it's not something you're born with, and it's not a choice. It's a desire that you have (a sinful one), not a thing that defines who you are. Quote: Sexual and physical attraction to one sex or the other (or both) is something that a person is born with. It has alot to do with hormones that a fetus is exposed to during development and the makeup of the brain after birth. Your first argument I am inclined not to believe until it is fully proven and generally axcepted, and your second doesn't support your main point that homosexuality is inate. In response to the "G-d wouldn't make us so we love each other if we aren't allowed to theory" A- You don't have to love them sexually B- The Bible says we love to sin look it up C- If G-d HAD intended for us to love people of the same sex, why can't we all be transvestites like oeysters and slugs and such D- The Bible says that G-d is the same yesterday, todat, and tomorrow, why would his mind change E- If G-d HAD just intended the rule so that his people could reproduce, wouldn't He have SAID so in the New Testamant F- And the previous argument is kinda weak because there were estimated to be over 2 million Israelites at that time and finally G- The Bible says that G-d is without sin and has no part in it. G-d created us, so if it's something we're born with, that means G-d created that sin. That totally doesn't work. I too am usually more eloquent, but I am very tired at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:14 pm
The Book Never Written A- You don't have to love them sexually you. That is my point, as stated in my post in "Confusion". CrystalMind ...Everything that I have found in the English translations of the Scriptures seems to point to homosexual sex as a sin. The passages that immediately come to mind have already been listed. (Leviticus, Romans, etc.) The desire for Homosexual sex, as defined Biblically, is the result of mankind's sinful nature. (Romans 1:24-32) However, love is different. You can love a person without wanting to have sex with them.... David and Jonathan loved each other greatly, by all accounts, but they're both recorded as being fairly God-fearing, so I doubt that they were laying with each other. That's essentially my stand. Sexual love is really just lust when it comes down to it. You can love someone without wanting in their pants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:27 pm
The Book Never Written The Law isn't for sanitary reasons. It uses the words 'clean' and 'unclean' which in Hebrew have connotations of spiritual cleanliness. The Law was given to set G-d's people apart, as someone pointed out. However, this does not mean JUST the Jews, it applies just as much to Gentiles. I think that homosexuality is not something definate and set, and it's not something you're born with, and it's not a choice. It's a desire that you have (a sinful one), not a thing that defines who you are. Quote: Sexual and physical attraction to one sex or the other (or both) is something that a person is born with. It has alot to do with hormones that a fetus is exposed to during development and the makeup of the brain after birth. Your first argument I am inclined not to believe until it is fully proven and generally axcepted, and your second doesn't support your main point that homosexuality is inate. Believe it or not, homosexuality is subject to the same thing that every human behavior is subject to: Genetics. Because even if environment is a factor (Which it may very well be), it is your genetic compilation that decides how you react to that environment. And since God technically defines the environment, you can't really say that it's anyone's say other than God's. Quote: In response to the "G-d wouldn't make us so we love each other if we aren't allowed to theory" A- You don't have to love them sexually No, you don't. But to restrict a select group of people from being able to love their partner sexually and make them physically happy...That's tough to do and still do in the name of love. Quote: B- The Bible says we love to sin look it up Why, exactly, do we love to sin? Does God want us to sin? Quote: C- If G-d HAD intended for us to love people of the same sex, why can't we all be transvestites like oeysters and slugs and such I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Quote: D- The Bible says that G-d is the same yesterday, todat, and tomorrow, why would his mind change I dunno. Why would His mind change after The Flood? Or with the whole "sending everyone to Hell" fiasco? Quote: E- If G-d HAD just intended the rule so that his people could reproduce, wouldn't He have SAID so in the New Testamant F- And the previous argument is kinda weak because there were estimated to be over 2 million Israelites at that time So homosexuality is fine...I mean, we don't need any more people, so sex for procreation is bad. Quote: and finally G- The Bible says that G-d is without sin and has no part in it. G-d created us, so if it's something we're born with, that means G-d created that sin. That totally doesn't work. Have you considered the idea that maybe homosexuality isn't a sin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:46 pm
The Book Never Written Your first argument I am inclined not to believe until it is fully proven and generally axcepted, and your second doesn't support your main point that homosexuality is inate.
However:allpsych.com D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2]. At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind. . The Book Never Written In response to the "G-d wouldn't make us so we love each other if we aren't allowed to theory" A- You don't have to love them sexually The Book Never Written B- The Bible says we love to sin look it up The Book Never Written C- If G-d HAD intended for us to love people of the same sex, why can't we all be transvestites like oeysters and slugs and such The Book Never Written D- The Bible says that G-d is the same yesterday, todat, and tomorrow, why would his mind change The Book Never Written E- If G-d HAD just intended the rule so that his people could reproduce, wouldn't He have SAID so in the New Testamant The Book Never Written G- The Bible says that G-d is without sin and has no part in it. G-d created us, so if it's something we're born with, that means G-d created that sin. That totally doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:04 pm
Woah, back up there, Fushigi na Butterfly. First of all, don't be putting words into my mouth. I NEVER said God doesn't love them, or that they can't be saved. I AM SAYING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN. OF COURSE GOD IS LOVE.
And I'm talking about non-platonic love.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:25 pm
Hey there.
I know I may sound kind of rude, but I would just like to say that not being a homosexual is not in the Ten Commandments... why is that? xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
