Welcome to Gaia! ::

I do not like it and I will not support it, but the Lord says that it is not my place to judge. I also try to stay neutral on the subject in most threads due to the fact that you never know what's the status of the thread owner.

I believe that if a person is gay/queer/homosexual that is their thing and they will have a good man to man with God one day and they will discuss what the marriage policy is in heaven. I also remember that, yes, there are times in the bible that homosexually is called and "abominable sin" and one that can never be forgiven, but Jesus also says that he fulfilled the law and that the new law of God will be written on ones heart.

Funny fact... Did you know that almost all Christians are Homosectuals?

There is one place where explains mankinds sinful spiral downward. That would be Romans 1:18-32. Verses 24-26 talk about the sexual degragation. I do think from what I've read, and in the Song of Solomon that God did create sex to be between one man and one woman in a marriage relationship. From what I've read in the Bible anything outside of that context is adultery. So, in a sense the practising of homosexualtiy is just another form of adultery.
So, that is my 2 cents.

ham[k], I think you have a good reason to bring this up. I think that people who claim to be Christian and say they are for lifestyles that the Bible clearly condems is either a) Not Christian at all or b) is struggling with sin and is a Christian and just choosing to be stubborn about their own sinful behaviour. I do not mean to insult everybod but I know, from what the Bible says about sin and sinful lifestyles that that is true; and the truth can be hard to swallow sometimes, and for proof just read to yourself Matthew 23 where Jesus told the truth, and it was hard to hear.

Well damn aren't we hostile! Where to start...

Well for starters I agree with your sig Kuroi Christians do not have the right to tell others they can't be homosexual because of their beliefs I agree 100% because it's simply not their place. If you want to be homosexual then gay it up all you want. But what they do have the right to do, as I see this thread being atleast, is say that their religion condems it from the followers of their religion. Hell stealing is a sin and is not tolerated, but should we change that because people are cleptomaniacs?



When the hell did he ever say anything insulting. This whole, "If your beliefs contradict mine then your insulting me." is pure and utter s**t. The way you came about it was even worse. You couldn't even quote when he was being insulting, but instead made that little piece. Are you trying to piss people off?



I agree that people don't have to follow the Christian faith, and are here to debate why it's wrong, which seems to be more exceptabe that christians debating why it's right, but who are you to say that? Can you give quote in the bible where it's for it?



http://www.stephanos.net/writing/homosexuality.htm

That link should be enough to contradict that remark. Get you head out of your a** and read the bible before you start making comments like that. Sheesh.



So they were suppose to live on earth by themselves or are we suppose to sprout from the friggen ground? The bible only said Eve will go through pain that she was originallly was not suppose to go through. Not that they were never ment to have sex period. Proof please,.



You right they can't sleep with animals we all know that, that's why Eve was his companion. I'm sure he didn't give them a p***s and a v****a so they would have their own unique ways of going potty. This does not prove that they were never ment to have sex, it just shows that he needed a suitable helper and companion. Honesty why give them two genders?



What? So they were naked all the time because they weren't ment to have sex. No they were naked because they didn't have the knowledge that it was wrong. Plus they were naked in their own private world. Not in public while those people God said to keep thier clothes on were most likly in public. Like I said, if they were not ment to have sex then what happen to all those verses of man and woman being of one flesh?



Fleshly taken out of the verse you posted. Please explain why this is stated, and yet they don't know what sex was?



Honestly if your not going by the bible then this does seem logical for a person to choose how they want to live, but if your using it as an excuse to why homosexuality should be excepted in christianity then your being delusional.



Ok you just answered the question on how they did not have to resort to insest, but can you tell me how this upports your argument por favor?



And you were complaing about him being offensive. Now for logic, he beleives the bible says it's wrong. You don't The bible does say it's wrong. Yet you want to make excuses. If you want to be gay then that's your right, but please don't jump on the bandwagon and try to say the bible is ok with it.



So if someone is a pedaphile then they should be excepted as normal?

Also tone down the lnks and just give me the hard evidence on how it's excepted in the bible. No gay pride flags or hormones being active, just show me one or two links that will shut me up and make me take back all I just said. That is to much reading and I know you went through alot of trouble to find it. But no I'm not going through links saying the same thing over and over. I just want evidence on what we are debating about. So please show me which link is relevent to the bible excepting homosexuality. And don't say all of them because I have already went to a few and fount nothing. And I'm not going to them all. I want links to verses as well that support it. I went to mostly ones under Homosexuality and the bible and all it says is that verses are being misinturpricted, which is more of an opinion than a fact.



Please explain that antagram (or however it's spelt) because I'm not familiar. Also I love debating against people I disagree with so i promise you I won't ignore anything you say. I won't ignore your post. But since I'm not a christian per say, I won't go out of my way from my use of sarcasm.

Yeah and people can't help but be clepto's, people can't help but be *****. and serial killers can't help but kill. So let's all except these as not being sin simply because people can't help them. That sounds real logical. Real logical indeed, Honestly though you have to except the above as a fact if your still behind that statment, or your a bias fool. (Maybe being harsh, but hell this whole "I can't help but be gay." makes me think of all those little kids who are being touched by men who "Can't help but want sex from little kids."



So let's not tell a man he's wrong for beating his wife because it might be insulting. Hell should I be offended by others who tell me drinking is bad. No... People choose to be offended, people who offend don't always mean to. So it's the fault of the person for allowing them to feel that way. Or is that not a choice as well? God made people, yes. But their lifestyle is souly based on that persons life. This whole "this is the way God made me" is honestly utter crap. God makes plans for people, but it's according to those choices they make.



And you can't show me one verse to state that it is exceptable. Yet there are plenty of verses that incourage a man and woman relationship. And wait there are verses. The ones in that link I put as a matter of fact. They never state that it's a choice, but neither does the bible on killing, stealing, beastiality, or adultry. So those have to be right even though it condems them.



Thank you. As you read at the end he is very much neutral, as i am, when it comes to political issues of homosexuality.



Except they were to become one flesh. I mean how else did god plan on the human race to grow. And how long did you think they had before the fall to have sex. How did you know they didn't have sex and she simply gave birth afterwards? I mean your got as much facts and ideas as me. Only, to me atleast, mine seem alittle more logical.



So your telling me God made woman simply on a whim. I mean come on he knows things that happens before they do so I know he made woman for a reason, not because "He felt like making somthing new." I don't mean to insult on this, and it's up to you to take it either way, but I'm sure you could have thought of a better comeback than that. Because he felt like it.....

Honestly I'll make it clear, when it comes to being politically correct, I would lose horribly in this debate for reason I've already stated. I agree in freedom of choice. Choose what you want to be. But to find meaning in passage that make less sense than the ones already stated to make somthing you do to sound ok is being delusional. I know if I am to walk with god I will need to give up on alot of things that I don't want to. Well for now, but I'm not making excuses or sitting here saying "Show me verses that are proof" while they are being shown in black n white.

Oh someone gave a rebuttal as long as mine. I'm so excited. (Is serious.)



Yet they can't help it right? And I do agree, homosexualty dosn't hurt no one, neither does woman preaching to men in church, but the bible is also against that. (As sexist as it may sound, it's true) Neither is laziness, but the bible condems that. And it's for everyone, not just one person living by themselves and are perfectly contempt with their lazy life. Lust period never hurt no one if you don't act on it, yet the bible condems that. How far down the list do you want me to go? Hell why not tie in to another sexual sin, fornication. That has nothing to do with anyone else except the consent of two people, and yet the bible condems it.



Never said you were, but either way it'll be pretty hard to piss me off. Then again I take that back, my hyper additude might sometimes pysche myself into being pissed off, meh this is off topic anyway.



So two grown men can't have a close relationship without people thinking they are gay. And even after they are married? Sounds more like a modern way of thinking to me. "Yo look those two hang out with each other more than they do with their gf, they have to be gay." But the word might does keep me from thinking your like this. Also he made us. I doubt God made people mentally or physically handicap at birth. Jesus even says the blindman was not blind at birth because of his or his father sins.



Attacking you, no my friend you have it all wrong. I'm just as cynical to you as I am to most people I debate. It's a bad habit I know, but a habit I don't feel like break. Now I will let this set to read the page you pointed out from those links.

(After a minute of scrolling)s**t this things long. Mind if i skip down to Appendix A? Acourse If I miss somthing important above please tell me and I will be ahppy to look at it. But first, a bathroom break.

Appendix A

Part 1.

Paragraph A: He says the bible was not dictaded by God, but written according to the Biblical author's background. So God just allowed opinions of what he says to be written down in his Holy Word ? I beleive if God ment for homosexuality to be ok he would not have allowed it to be stated.

Paragraph B: Very understandable, yet he went from saying God inspired Paul to write them. I know this is diffrent from dictate, but why word he inspire him to write against homosexuality, when you argue he is not?

Paragraph C: I agree 100% all sins are equal, yet living your life in those sins is even worse. it's one thing killing a man and repenting it, and lieing your whole life and never having remorse. That's somthing I think he overlooks in this paragraph since homosexuality is a lifestyle as well as a sin.

Paragraph D: So his words were ment for the people during his time? Then why was it put into the bible as one of God's Words?

Paragraph E: So we never know what they really mean since we can never get into the authors heads? The words mean what they mean, not what they say. I agree since nothing is really being said when you read. So what does he mean by what they mean, maybe he means they mean diffrent to every person. Then wouldn't this make the bible a fallicy? Why right somthing that was ment for a single meaning, just for it to be misinturprited?

Section2 (What no more sub lable? I'm serious it makes it easier to point out which part i'm talking about)

Only Paragraph: So it says the bible only made those rules so people won't be turned away by it? Ok.....

Part 3 Only Paragraph: I agree that the whole scripture should be interprited, but the rest I rather not touch on because I think I'm miss interpriting what he is saying, and I though I might be misinterpricting his whole report, I'd rather here your ideas on this.

Part 4: So he didn't mean baptism is the only way even though he said it? So what's the point of being baptized? Does he think everything in the bible has mediforical meanings?

If you don't Mind I'm going to skip to Appendix B. Like I said anything important I missed then please point out.

Appendix B

The Old Testament

Creation Story: Since we don't assume the relationship between Adam and Eve is a friendshipt or atleast either being single, it is a weak argument to assume a man and a women are sexually involved? I agree the Creation Story says nothing about homosexuality, but use some common sense. God plans things to happen in advance.

The Sodom Story: Don't use this story because I also feel it lacks reason for homosexuality as being a sin. Also for those to argue Sodamy mean homosexual love, that word was invented after this belief.

Lerviticus: He simply states that this is the only direct verse against homosexuality and that it should be dismissed become their standards then are diffrent from out standards now. (Soory for lack of enthusiasm from before. It's close to 3 AM Like I said if I miss anything important please state it in your rebuttal.)

New Testament

Romans: He states that God does not condem men for these acts, but they simply happen do to the men rejecting him. An interesting way to look at it, but that is simply his interpretation. Like he said before every man will interprite the bible diffrently, and that has to be a pretty unique way of looking at it. *Yawns*

I Corinthians: He states that the words are interpricted according to the translator, and also list these type of people who will not make it to heaven. It goes on to say that one word means morally soft and the other a corruption of boys or having a**l sex with woman. Wonder how two diffrent things came from one word unless he's translating them wrong or somthing.

I Tim: Similar to I Cor except diffrent word.

I'm not going into the thrid Appendix. If I'm missing somthing important, again please tell me in your rebuttal. Now to finish the rest of your post.



I want to know what you mean by sex being evil, other than fornication? I think they learned about sex the same way animals do, it comes to them naturally. I doubted they needed an apple. (By the way, just to nit pick, theres no proof of it being an apple, but i can understand that you don't want to type out "The Fruit of Forbidden Knowlegde.")



I doubt it was so much that he looked through the animals, but he knew already it wouldn't work out. Then again two diffrent ways of looking at it.



Does it ever say a boy is to be one one flesh with his father or mother. I mean if there is one I've overlooked it. If there isn't, then like Bruce W. Lowe said, it's just two diffrent ways of looking at it.

.

So they clothed themselves because they felt ashamed to be nude infront of god. Didn't mean they have no idea what sex was.



Shows, or is it just how you see it. I mean your evidence is just as hard as mine since the bible can be interpricted in so many ways. Well according to Bruce W. Lowe.



Well i'm sorry YOU feel that way. It;s just how God made me I guess (Sarcasm) Also didn't some Catholics way back in the medievil ages beleive that drunkeness was ok? And does that mean it's ok? Nope? Really? Ya sure? Ok.



It dosn't my question on ***** class="quote">

I like you. This is new, I've never actually liked someone who debated opposite me on this.



Galatians 3:26-28

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.



Laziness and sloth are inherently self-serving, which is the reason they are condemned. Christianity is an altruistic/self-sacrificing religion at its very core, and anything self-serving runs directly contradictory to it. This ties into giving money to the poor, supporting those who cannot work, turning the other cheek when a wrong is done to you, etc.

Also, "contempt" is a malapropism, the correct word is content. Is English a second language for you? If it is, I can tone down the obscure words and idioms.




True. The bible does condemn blind lust, and teaches self-control. We are supposed to maintain control over our actions, and save our bodies for marriage. However, homosexuality is not simply about the sex. It's also about the basic companionship that God had in mind when he first created Adam and Eve. Homosexuals are genetically designed to be sexually AND emotionally attracted to other males. Often, I look at another guy, and he's downright ugly, and then I talk to him, and he's just SO wonderful. (But, he's always straight. *emo*) When people say they go for personality, not looks, that's usually not a lie.



So two grown men can't have a close relationship without people thinking they are gay. And even after they are married? Sounds more like a modern way of thinking to me. "Yo look those two hang out with each other more than they do with their gf, they have to be gay."

At the risk of looking at things through the POV of our culture:



Also, I shall point out their "lasting covenant with God and each other" (1 Samuel 20:16-17, 23). Finally, Saul curses his son Jonathon, saying "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? 31 As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!"

I point out "perverse and rebellious", "sided with the son of Jesse", "neither you nor your kingdom (descendants) will be established". I shall also point out that the more sons a mother bears, the more likely that the next one will be gay, based on the theory it is caused by excess estrogen in the womb, as detailed in at least one of my links. Finally, when did they get married? O-o;




Pardon?



That's kind of my point. Please read.... Argh. Please read the APA on homosexuality, NewScientist: Pheromone, and Twin Studies of Homosexuality. They're all in the first section. If oyu have any time, please read others, as I will be going through them to grab evidence and it'll be easier for you to refute it if you already know what I'm talking about.




Of course. If you get any time at all I HIGHLY encourage you to read all of it, daunting as that may sound. It has interesting tidbits buried here and there.



He DIDN'T state it as- (Wrong? What were you going to say?) And no, the Bible, ESPECIALLY not the New Testaments, was not dictated by God. The Gospels are a sort of diary into the time the disciples spent with Jesus, while the letters of Paul to the various Churches were obviously written specifically to those churches, as they dealt with problems those certain churches were facing. Our job is to take those words, read between them, remove the prejudices and social biases, and apply that to our lives today.

Finished my reply. ^-^