Christian views on Homosexuality (in general as well as in the church)

[Maeglin]

Need I really say more? Give me your thoughts. I'll post mine in a couple of days when I'm done with the school week and have more time....and I think mine may also cause some conflict, so I'll keep quiet for a couple of days.;)

[Thorin]

Oi! Isn't this a potential powder keg! :p

Well here you go, but some may not like it!

I believe that the Bible makes it pretty plain how God feels about homosexual behavior. Notice I said behavior not nature. When we go back to the garden of Eden, we see that man and woman were created different to become one. Two men can't do it, two women can't. Marriage and sexual togetherness was created a certain way for a reason.

I believe that a homosexual nature is a result of living in a sinful world. Just as if someone was born with a brain defect, or alcoholic tendencies or addicted to crack. It is an unfortunate deviation from nature and God's initial plan but we must deal with it like we would all other abberations.
(this was initially presented to me as such by a Christian homosexual dying of AIDS). I do believe that homosexual lifestyles can be adopted and not a matter of being 'born that way' as well and to me this is definitely choosing a sinful path and way of life.

Having homosexual tendencies and acting upon them in a homosexual lifestyle are two different things. The first is acceptable by God and not a sin, the latter is not and is considered sinful. God still loves the homosexual (just as he loves the murderer, the thief, the sex and drug addicted, but He does expect us to curb our behavior if need be. Being born alcoholic is not a sin. Imbibing in booze with that knowledge in mind and ruining the lives of others and yourself is. Same with homosexuality.

It may seem unfair that someone is born that way and is expected to be celibate, but that is what is happening in a dying, sin-sicked world. We play with the cards we get and sometimes they aren't always pleasant.

[Maeglin]

I said I'd keep quiet for a few days.....well I lied!! After reading your post I just wanted to let you know that you basically took the words out of my mouth!!:D I was going to say that I have no problem with the homosexual person (or tendencies that a person would have), but I do have a problem with the act of homosexuality, as it is very sinful and clearly stated in the Bible. Some may say that I am contradicting myself by saying that I have no problem with the homosexual person but with homosexuality itself. But in my mind it makes sense and works out.
Okay, I now await the retaliations.....if any are to come...

[Ciryaher]

I think that homosexuality is wrong. No Christian who has read the Bible can argue otherwise.

I believe that homosexuality is the result of upbringing and life-experiences as well as personal choices. The suggestion that homosexuality is in a gene, like cancer or hair color, is simply ludicrous, in my opinion.

That being said, I am not the type who will condemn someone to hell for doing it, and I will not in this case...but I think that being a "gay christian" is rather an oxymoron.

[Maeglin]

I complete agree with you Ciryaher, it is of someone's own choice that they are homosexual. Earlier today, however, I got into a huge argument with some Christian friends on the aspect of homosexuality. When I said that it was one's choice to be homosexual, they said that I was contradicting myself because I also believe in pre-destination, so they said that God created homosexuals, and if it's wrong then why did he do it? This got me very angry and defensive, because my friend said that he "had already told me why scripture was wrong on this, and that since Jesus came and fulfilled the law homosexuality was no longer a sin." This is when I began to yell, what I ended up saying was "Who are you to tell me that scripture is wrong?! The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong, and you are certainly no authority over what scripture says! And to argue my point more, I said to him that if Jesus did indeed fulfill every law that had been broken in the past, then murder was no longer a sin." He then said murder was still a sin and something else but by this time I was irate with him and was walking away from both of them.....

But he has read the Bible, and is arguing that Homosexuality is okay, which, as a Christian, if he says that, it is an oxymoron (as Ciryaher said). So.....I don't really know what to say to him anymore......

sorry if this might have gone a little off topic by describing my experience discussing the same thing as this thread earlier today....;)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Glorfindel1187
This got me very angry and defensive, because my friend said that he "had already told me why scripture was wrong on this, and that since Jesus came and fulfilled the law homosexuality was no longer a sin."
Amazing the ignorance of what the law really was about is running so rampant in the Christian world today.

Tell you friend first of all that Christ coming to "fulfill" the law means to "make meaningful", not to abolish. Jesus said, "Think not that I have come to destroy the law, I have not come to destroy but to fulfill". Jesus was the embodiment of the law, but it is the same law, just written on our hearts.

Secondly, tell him that the laws that Christ did abolish were the ceremonial rituals that directly pointed to Him. Once He came, there was no longer need for them (i.e. the temple service and sacrificial system that pointed to the perfect Lamb). Homosexuality was not any sort of 'law' but a lifestyle. And much of the serious condemnation is found in the books written long after Christ died. Ceremonial laws were done away with, moral laws were not.

How your friend could justify Christ fulfilling homosexuality is absolutely beyond any biblical reasoning or interpretation.

I believe I will start a thread on the law as well considerig it is one of the most abused and misinterpreted views in Protestant Christianity today.

[Maeglin]

Sounds good, I think I'd have a lot to say in a thread like that. And this friend that was misinterpreting is Catholic, not Protestant, which is even stranger because they seem to be more strict on these sort of things.... but then again, I don't think he likes the Catholic church.

[Elendil3119]

I'm not sure I really understand the title of this thread. Anybody who believes that the Bible is truth (the whole Bible ;)) can only come to one conclusion: homosexuality is wrong. Thorin and Cir pretty much said it all.
How your friend could justify Christ fulfilling homosexuality is absolutely beyond any biblical reasoning or interpretation.
People like that normally like to ignore the verse in Romans where Paul condemns homsexuality. I'm too lazy to look up the verse now. :D

[omnipotent_elf]

sorry if i'm not allowed to post, because I am not a Christian. I was brought up in catholic schools, so i know the bible

I think that homosexuality is wrong. No Christian who has read the Bible can argue otherwise.

I believe that homosexuality is the result of upbringing and life-experiences as well as personal choices. The suggestion that homosexuality is in a gene, like cancer or hair color, is simply ludicrous, in my opinion.

That being said, I am not the type who will condemn someone to hell for doing it, and I will not in this case...but I think that being a "gay christian" is rather an oxymoron.

I find it shocking that people cannot choose for themselves. Greater gaps within communities are created by this ignorance of others. Its a result of lack of empathy, and arrogance to believe that your opinion is the right one, and the only one. If a gay Christian is an oxymoron, which is probably right, then there should be less christians due to closed mindedness

[Ciryaher]

I find it shocking that people cannot choose for themselves.

I did choose for myself. I choose, regardless of what the Bible says, that homosexuality is wrong.

Greater gaps within communities are created by this ignorance of others.

Ignorance? I know quite well what a homosexual is. I have homosexual friends, I don't rant to them about their practices, but they're still wrong.

Its a result of lack of empathy, and arrogance to believe that your opinion is the right one, and the only one.

I can think of things from anyones point of view. I know how it feels to be persecuted, and so I don't persecute anyone. However, the fact that homosexuality is wrong is based on two universal truths, one theistic and one atheistic: Homosexuality is forbidden by God/Allah/etc.; Homosexuality goes against the will of the species and impedes procreation.

More logical proof that homosexuality is not genetic: evolution would have weeded out homosexual tendencies because they do not procreate and advance the species.

If a gay Christian is an oxymoron, which is probably right, then there should be less christians due to closed mindedness

You can say it's close mindedness if that floats your boat. I think that murder is wrong too, does that make me close-minded against murderers? Or if I think pædophilia is wrong, does that make me close-minded against pædophiliacs? No, of course not.

We follow the laws that we are given. My law, and many other peoples' law forbids homosexuality, and we shall abide by it.

[Sarah]

If God did not create homosexuals, there wouldn't be any.

[Talierin]

Originally posted by Sarah
If God did not create homosexuals, there wouldn't be any.

No, if man hadn't chosen to sin in the first place and corrupted himself there wouldn't be any.


(btw, I have a homosexual friend. I love him like I should my friends, but his behavior is still wrong)

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by Talierin
(btw, I have a homosexual friend. I love him like I should my friends, but his behavior is still wrong)

I'm sure he's thrilled at knowing that you think his actions are wrong. That must certainly reinforce the belief that you love him.

[Talierin]

Not nessecarily... I accept that he's gay, I don't bother him about it, but I do pray for him...

[Ithrynluin]

But why do you pray for him? In hopes that he will....convert? Trying something like that would only be lying to himself and to others and cause nothing but misery. Try putting yourself in his shoes and trying to 'convert'. Not that easy, huh?

But of course, not when you have the help of God...

[Talierin]

No, I don't pray that he will up and convert... I pray that God will do his will in his heart, as well as mine. Maybe God wants him to stay homosexual? I really don't know, it's up to God, I just pray for him, just as I pray for all my friends and myself

[Ithrynluin]

If your 'God' hates a group of people that you deem 'nasty' then you should really take some time and contemplate what kind of God you worship. Surely not a just, loving god. That you can be sure of.

Another thing worth considering, my dear Turin, would be the possibility of your child being homosexual. I dread to think what kind of environment the child would be growing up in with you being of the opinion that he/she is 'nasty'. Would you brainwash your child with all kinds of religious blabber, and try to convert him/her?

And also, targeting a certain group of people with insults, will not be tolerated.

[Ciryaher]

To me, God doesn't make any person one way or the other. I believe in complete personal freedom.

*thinks*

I will remain consistent with my own beliefs and say that homosexuality cannot be judged as right or wrong by humans. God will judge as he wishes, and I am sure that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, who live honesty and with goodness, and are not promiscuous in their sexual behaviour, I think that surely God would not condemn them

And as for my "gay" friend, I never have mentioned his own decisions, questioned them, or hoped that he would change. He can be slightly obnoxious, but he's a good person and he is a good friend.

[omnipotent_elf]

Ignorance? I know quite well what a homosexual is. I have homosexual friends, I don't rant to them about their practices, but they're still wrong.

what makes you right?


. I know how it feels to be persecuted, and so I don't persecute anyone. However, the fact that homosexuality is wrong

well at least u dont make contradictions ;) :D

You can say it's close mindedness if that floats your boat. I think that murder is wrong too, does that make me close-minded against murderers? Or if I think pædophilia is wrong, does that make me close-minded against pædophiliacs? No, of course not.

last i checked, it wasnt illegal to be homosexual

How could anyone be homosexual, I mean its just nasty( I wish there was a throw up smilie), I think its wrong and God hates it.

just think, to him what u prefer might be 'nassty'

[Éomond]

Originally posted by Turin
How could anyone be homosexual, I mean its just nasty( I wish there was a throw up smilie), I think its wrong and God hates it.

While i do agree that it's nasty Turin, God does not hate homosexuality, but he does not like it. He loves homosexuals just as much as the "average" person, what homo's are doing is living a life of sin, and God, agian, doesn't like sin, so there4, homosexuals are just sining and can be forgiven and what-not.

(I hope that made sense.)

Ok, with the nasty part of it, what the poop is wrong with women!? They're awsome! (that was a little self opinion)

[Turin]

Your right God doesn't hate homosexuals, he does hate the act of homosexuality.;)

[Ciryaher]

Originally posted by Omnipotent_elf
what makes you right?


What makes me right? What makes anyone right? It's what I believe, just as you believe it's perfectly fine.

[Sarah]

Originally posted by Talierin
No, if man hadn't chosen to sin in the first place and corrupted himself there wouldn't be any.


Fine, if you want to look at it that way. If God didn't give us free will there wouldn't be any homosexuals. Would you rather not have free will and just have everyone be a robot?

[Éomond]

Originally posted by Sarah
Fine, if you want to look at it that way. If God didn't give us free will there wouldn't be any homosexuals. Would you rather not have free will and just have everyone be a robot?

But we would all be so concentrated on God and have such a amazing relasionship with him that we wouldn't really be disracted by anything or need to worry about anything else.

Back to the homosexuality topic, wasn't women made for men? Not man for man and women for women?

[Ciryaher]

Regardless whether you believe man was made or evolved, you can't deny the fact that the physiology of humans was intended for heterosexuals. Even the mind is geared towards this sort of relationship, which is why I firmly believe that homosexuality only results from experiences, not from genetics.

[omnipotent_elf]

well, if you are right, then homosexual behaviour would have failed with "survival of the fittest". However, it's practice is credited as far back as the ancient greeks, with Xenophon's "march of the ten thousand" describing homosexual behaviour. Certaintly, Julius Ceasar has been attributed to it. If it has survived for nearly 3 centuries, than the phisiological arguments cannot be true.

[Wonko The Sane]

Originally posted by Turin
Your right God doesn't hate homosexuals, he does hate the act of homosexuality.;)

Oh, so you're personally able to speak for God and his opinions now?
I didn't realise you had a direct line to God.
Good for you. Can you give me his number, I have a bone to pick with him about the Middle East.


Actually Cir, I disagree about your belief about genetics.
True, some people are Gay because they went through some experiences that "made" them gay. Sexual abuse as a child is sometimes a factor for example.
But there is an overwhelming majority of people who were just "born" gay, have always BEEN gay, and who always WILL be gay.


And it's NOT a choice. Not for 99% of the Gay population. If it were don't you think they'd CHOOSE to be straight? Being straight is much easier.
If you're straight there aren't any bigots like you lot trashing them at every turn and saying God hates them, or is apalled by them and their expression of themselves and their love, etc., there aren't any anti-marriage laws prohibiting you from marrying the one you love, there aren't hate crimes perpetrated against you because of who you are, and on and on and on ad nauseum.

The thing is, that Jesus preached that he loved everybody. He created a NEW covenant. A NEW set of rules on how to live your life.
While the Christian religion still follows the Ten Commandments, there are OTHER practices that we do not follow because Jesus changed the rules for living. Most of us still eat shellfish, correct? Something that the old religious law condemned. Most Christians aren't Kosher, and don't believe it's a sin and an abomination to merely TOUCH a woman, even to shake hands, when she's on her period. And most Christians certainly don't force menstruating women to sit in dark rooms on a clean white cloth and bathe in a sacred spring while she's menstruating either. We don't follow those rules anymore, and yet we choose to pick this rule to follow?
We choose THIS to center in on?
Jesus created the new covenant...correct? That we can all agree on?
And in this new covenant he stated that there is one supreme rule above all: To love your neighbor as yourself.
And as a sub-commandment: To treat others as you yourself wish to be treated.

And let's not forget "Judge not lest ye yourself be judged."

Are we going to ignore what Jesus has taught us in favour of some outdated "laws" that he has told us to ignore?
Are we going to ignore what he says?
What JESUS says? Do you know better than Jesus?
Do you?

Oh...well...maybe you DO you know better than Jesus?....or else you're ignoring him.
I suggest you re-read the New Testament and pay a little more attention to this Jesus guy.

You know, Jesus, the one upon whom the whole Christian faith is based on?
Yeah him.

If Jesus was keen on hanging out with Lepers, and prostitutes, I have a pretty good idea that he'd be more than happy to jump on the homo-wagon as my friend calls it and take up the cause of gays as well. Jesus loved everybody.
Even when his followers (like Paul for example) thought he was crazy to do so.
Because let's forget, this is a religion about Jesus Christ.
Not Paul. Paul may have written some wonderful things, but he's not Christ, and his word, while you can take it as you like, is NOT as important as the word of Christ to us Christians, is it?

Couldn't it be that Paul got it wrong? That it's still in the Bible because he's Paul, and trusted, and we'll print what he says, but that in actuality HIS views are not indicative of those of Christ?

What the Bible REALLY says about homosexuality (http://www.soulforce.org/whatthebiblesays.pdf)

And if that link doesn't work (you don't have Acrobat viewer for example) What the Bible really says about gays, the main site (http://www.soulforce.org)


And in closing, I just want to say that it is NOT a choice. Whatever you may think. I cannot and DO not believe that.
It is a fallacy, a mantra for the ignorant.
Trust me...I know...there are parents out there, mothers and fathers who leave their families because they realise they're homosexual. I know a family this happened to. I know them well. Too well. I grew up with them. When their eldest daughter was 12 the father in the family realised he was gay, something he hadn't been aware of before, and something he'd been fighting when he first started to suspect it. He got sick. And withdrew from his children and wife because of how miserable he was being who he was. He went through hell. And so did that family. But he loved those kids more than any father could. And he NEVER, NEVER would have just decided to become gay, to leave like he did, if it was really a choice. He NEVER would have left them on purpose. NEVER. Trust me, I speak from first hand experience in this "choice vs. destiny" thing.

If you don't want to call this genetics call it fate. But it's NOT a choice. Because he never would have left those children on purpose. There were 5. 3 girls and 2 boys. And the youngest was just one year old. He even ended up staying int he house for 5 years until the youngest was older before moving out. But he NEVER would have left at all if it had been a choice. He would have chosen his family. Beyond ANY shadow of a doubt. He would've chosen to be straight and he would have stayed.
But it wasn't a choice for him any more than it was for his father or grandfather. He didn't know until years after he realised he was gay that so many men in his family were.
Anyway, the eldest daughter is about my age, and she's my best friend. We're serioulsy like sisters, we grew up together, did everything together, and I love her and would do anything for her.
And she went through HELL, she was the only one that knew out of all her siblings, and she had to hold everything together when things fell apart. She went through hell. And she was her father's favourite too. Even IF he would've been willing to leave the rest of his kids (which he wouldn't have) he would NEVER have put her through that. He loved her with all his heart. He NEVER would have done that to her.

It's not a choice. No matter what closed-minded people are saying.


Also: Please read this article. It's a satire, but I think it expresses my points quite well. The Shellfish Agenda Part 1 (http://www.iamapsycho.com/crazy/shellfish1.htm)

The Shellfish Agenda, Part 2: The Actual Article (http://www.iamapsycho.com/crazy/shellfish2.htm)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
The thing is, that Jesus preached that he loved everybody. He created a NEW covenant. A NEW set of rules on how to live your life.
While the Christian religion still follows the Ten Commandments, there are OTHER practices that we do not follow because Jesus changed the rules for living. Most of us still eat shellfish, correct? Something that the old religious law condemned. Most Christians aren't Kosher, and don't believe it's a sin and an abomination to merely TOUCH a woman, even to shake hands, when she's on her period. And most Christians certainly don't force menstruating women to sit in dark rooms on a clean white cloth and bathe in a sacred spring while she's menstruating either. We don't follow those rules anymore, and yet we choose to pick this rule to follow?
We choose THIS to center in on?
Jesus created the new covenant...correct? That we can all agree on?
And in this new covenant he stated that there is one supreme rule above all: To love your neighbor as yourself.
You have two problems with your argument, Wonko.

1) You assume that homosexuality was a Hebrew law to be counted in with all the others.

When God created Adam and Eve, He was establishing the natural order of things. Male and Female he created them. And God said, "I will make a companion for man" and "be fruitful and multiply". One of the chief sins that God ended up destroying Sodom and Gomorrha was practicing homosexuality and sexual deviancy. It was not some Hebraic law given to Moses for the Jewish population. You also assume that some of the laws that Christians don't follow are not binding. I say that some laws are universal and moral and not mosaic. The clean and unclean meats predates any law and was not done away with. Just because some Christians believe it was done away with, doesn't mean that it was.

2) You misinterpret what the New Covenant was and what Jesus did and didn't do away with.

Christ was the fulfillment of the laws that pointed to him and his saving work as the Messiah. Jesus said, all the law hangs on these two mandates: "Love God and love your neighbor." These are not replacements but enhancements (the first 4 commandments have to do with our responsibility towards God, the last six, toward man). The difference here (and the basis of the New Covenant) is that they are written on our hearts and Christ is now the realized foundation. With the spirit of Christ, our outlook on the law has now changed. It has nothing to do with doing away with homosexuality or even unclean meats.

There is soooo much distortion and confusion over the whole law issue.

[Wonko The Sane]

I admit I'm not entirely clear on the finer points of the Bible and what it says and doesn't say about homosexuality, but that site I gave (the first link) DOES, and says it better than I can.

Furthermore, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a story about GOD and what happens when people disobey him, it is NOT fundamentally a story about homosexuality. Or even sexuality in general.
I mean, if you want to look at it as those in S&G were evil cos they practiced homosexuality and only Lot and his family were pure, then look what happens in the cave after his wife is turned into a pillar of salt.


Anyway, I may not be entirely clear in expressing my viewpoints but the site I gave IS:

www.soulforce.org/whatthebiblesays.pdf

Please, go there. And read it. You don't have to believe what is written, but at LEAST then you'll have a much more well-informed opinion than I can give you.


And I notice you ENTIRELY chose to ignore the personal story I gave in your rebuttal of my argument. It's NOT a choice.
And it's NOT wrong.

Even if it were true, as you say, that Jesus did not do away with the old laws when he began the New Covenant (I believe there is a quote that says this I just have to find it and I don't have time now...) he STILL taught how important it is to love your neighbor, and not to judge others. He STILL defended the weak and abused, the poor and the outcasts. He STILL hung out with lepers and prostitutes, and I'll bet you he would have GLADLY taken the chance to help show that gays are people too, and that God loves them as much as he loves anybody else.

God is not wrong, correct?
And God is also love correct?
And Jesus being sent to Earth is God's expression of his love for his children, correct?
So God is not wrong, and God is love, and Jesus is the expression of that love, therefore love and the expression of love is not wrong, and therefore expression of love even between too homosexual's is not wrong.

That's actually not a logically sound argument, and I know it. It's more something to think about than me trying to give proof.

The message I want to send with that is that God preaches love, to everybody, and he does not deny us the expression of that love.
We should love our brothers, yes, even the Gays. We should love our Gay brothers. And we should not deny them to express their love in the same way that we are priveleged to do.

And one quick point to help back up O_E, while being Gay is not "Darwinistically" suited for natural selection, the percentage of our population that is gay is actually quite small. And many homosexual's still have children, albeit not in the traditional ways.

[Sarah]

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
Oh, so you're personally able to speak for God and his opinions now?
I didn't realise you had a direct line to God.
Good for you. Can you give me his number, I have a bone to pick with him about the Middle East.

And it's NOT a choice. Not for 99% of the Gay population. If it were don't you think they'd CHOOSE to be straight? Being straight is much easier.
If you're straight there aren't any bigots like you lot trashing them at every turn and saying God hates them, or is apalled by them and their expression of themselves and their love, etc., there aren't any anti-marriage laws prohibiting you from marrying the one you love, there aren't hate crimes perpetrated against you because of who you are, and on and on and on ad nauseum.

It's not a choice. No matter what closed-minded people are saying.



Good. Then i can still say "If God didn't create homosexuals, there wouldn't be any."

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
Oh, so you're personally able to speak for God and his opinions now?
I didn't realize you had a direct line to God.


We speak to God through prayer, Wonks. God speaks to us through his word, the Bible.

[Éomond]

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
Oh, so you're personally able to speak for God and his opinions now?
I didn't realise you had a direct line to God.
Good for you. Can you give me his number, I have a bone to pick with him about the Middle East.


Um, actually Wonko, I have a direct line with God, it's called prayer. So shure, I could help you out with a direct line with God if you want. And "personally" speaking for him, I could give you some direct quotes/verses from the Bible that God does not like homosexualitiy if you'd like.

Once agian GOD DOES NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS!!!! anyone gonna hear me on this? Gosh.

Ok, if you say ppl are born gay. I have friend addicted to porn, weed/drugs and alcohal (sp). So that probably means that they're born addicts to say, alcohol? Ok, some1 could be born to a higher risk of loving alcohol or being addicted to it and loving it (just like gays, hmm?) Now, it's not illegal to be a alcoholic (is it illegal to be homosexual?), and i'm guessing alcoholics can't stop drinking because they were born with this.

Now, if you want me to give examples of anything I say, like, that other "99%" of homosexuals who can't become strait since they're born gay and can't change, i'll give you some examples of those who have changed. I'll replie more to the Jesus topic (cool guy that Jesus), but i'm getting kicked off now.

God made Adam and Eve
Not Adam and Steve.

[Lúthien Séregon]

Ok, if you say ppl are born gay. I have friend addicted to porn, weed/drugs and alcohal (sp). So that probably means that they're born addicts to say, alcohol? Ok, some1 could be born to a higher risk of loving alcohol or being addicted to it and loving it (just like gays, hmm?) Now, it's not illegal to be a alcoholic (is it illegal to be homosexual?), and i'm guessing alcoholics can't stop drinking because they were born with this.

How can you talk about homosexuality as if it's some kind of addiction? It's a type of love, not sickness.

[Ciryaher]

Originally posted by Omnipotent_elf
If it has survived for nearly 3 centuries, than the phisiological arguments cannot be true.

Are you suggesting that the ********* of humans has changed in a mere 3,000 years? Do you know what evolution is? Do you know how long it takes? It took almost 2,000,000 years just to get from Homo habilis to Homo sapiens!

Admit it. The fact that procreation requires a female and male component to procreate indicates that humans are made to have heterosexual relationships.

Most humans have the built-in sense of "beauty" or "attractiveness". Do you think this is for art appreciators? No! It is so each gender sees a potential mate in the opposite gender.

You don't even have to bring religion into the argument. Atheistic evolution will completely suffice, and if that doesn't say something to people, then they must not have ears.

[omnipotent_elf]

Are you suggesting that the ********* of humans has changed in a mere 3,000 years? Do you know what evolution is? Do you know how long it takes? It took almost 2,000,000 years just to get from Homo habilis to Homo sapiens!
my point is simple

Julius Ceasar was diefied, That is MADE A GOD. Therefore, some dieties dont have a problem with homosexuality.

it just means that your religion is close minded, because some religions obviously dont have problems with homosexuality.

also, it goes to prove that the survival of the fittest, (if you indeed think that homosexuals are in some way genetically unfit) does Not apply to homosexuality

Last i checked, the catholic church was against the evolutionary theory.

Most humans have the built-in sense of "beauty" or "attractiveness". Do you think this is for art appreciators? No! It is so each gender sees a potential mate in the opposite gender.

this "built in sense" is prominant with us and dolphins. The only two species which dont see a pottential mate in the opposite gender. Unless you are some other species,

Also, if homosexuality is SOOOO wrong, why do so many priests participate????

And bringing up that matter, why do they go for little boys? Wouldnt you also argue that is wrong?
But if you say its only a minority of the clergy, then your as hypocritical as the religion by which you stand, as you are allowing homosexuality, the supposed "wrong", to go unpunished in those that should matter most.
If not, your teachers are participating, so whats wrong with homosexuality then?

[Ciryaher]

I have studied the Cæsars rather in depth, and Julius was not ever mentioned as being homosexual. In fact, the only ones where it was ever mentioned with were the bad ones (Nero is the only one that I can think of at the moment). Octavian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius were "moralists" who wanted the decadent population of Rome to go back to raising families and following the old religion.

And Cæsar himself was never deified, only certrain descendants claimed that they were gods (usually the insane ones).

Provide me with a quote proving otherwise, please.

And name a single serious religion that accept homosexuality. I know that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism believe that it is wrong.

I bet you that prior to civilization, homosexuals didn't last very long.

I am not Catholic.

this "built in sense" is prominant with us and dolphins. The only two species which dont see a pottential mate in the opposite gender. Unless you are some other species,

I don't even know what you're talking about there.

Also, if homosexuality is SOOOO wrong, why do so many priests participate????

There's only one person that I have heard of who is homosexual and is attempting to be ordained.

And bringing up that matter, why do they go for little boys? Wouldnt you also argue that is wrong?
But if you say its only a minority of the clergy, then your as hypocritical as the religion by which you stand, as you are allowing homosexuality, the supposed "wrong", to go unpunished in those that should matter most.
If not, your teachers are participating, so whats wrong with homosexuality then?

These are criminals, and yes, they are wrong. Celibacy makes people weird. These pædophiles are not real priests, they are sinners. Neither are they my teachers. God is the only Teacher, and he teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

And don't assume that all Christians are Catholics, lest you be called ignorant.

[Lúthien Séregon]

And name a single serious religion that accept homosexuality. I know that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism believe that it is wrong.

I think that says more about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. than about homosexuality.

I bet you that prior to civilization, homosexuals didn't last very long.

I just have to point out something here...homosexuality has been observed in animals other than dolphins and humans.

http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html

"Nearly every type of same-sex activity found among humans has its counterpart in the animal kingdom," he concludes. His take-home message is simple: homosexual behaviour is as "natural" as heterosexual behaviour.

So there goes the "homosexuality is wrong because it's not natural" theory.

[Starflower]

I bet you that prior to civilization, homosexuals didn't last very long.

i disagree, there has always been homosexual people, it's not a recent phenomenon . And what do you mean with civilization anyway? Do you mean prior to christian civilization ? You should remember that Christianity is not the only religion in the world, though it is the most widely spread. It seems to me that gay people are the most persecuted in the "civilized" christian societies. And by the way, why are we discussing homosexuality as if it automatically means gay men? Have you forgotten that gay women are homosexuals as well, why do we not seem to see that as such a bad thing ?


Starflower

[Ithrynluin]

Everyone who so ardently opposes homosexuality, and is convinced that it's wrong...have you attempted to read the link Wonko provided? It would be a really good idea, especially to avoid saying something IMO so absurd like 'God teaches homosexuality is wrong'.

I bet you that prior to civilization, homosexuals didn't last very long.

'Last' very long? What on earth are you talking about? Homosexuals were, are, and always will be part of society. The percentage of homosexuals is relatively low in comparison to the population as a whole. Homosexuality cannot be uprooted, or 'taught' or 'spread'. It just doesn't happen like that. There is no point in condemning homosexuality for fear that it will spread if you do not do so, and that Mankind will get extinct if homosexuality is approved. There will always be a relatively constant number of homosexuals in our society.

Cir, it amazes me that you would think that homosexuality is wrong because reproduction is not possible. Isn't our ability to think past necessity what defines us as humans? Don't we all have ambitions other than simply living day to day and creating progeny?

[Eliot]

Romans 1
26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

[Ithrynluin]

And the reply to that quote of yours Eliot, from http://www.soulforce.org/whatthebiblesays.pdf is the following:

What does Romans 1:26–27 say about God? For our discussion, this is the most controversial Biblical passage of them all. In Romans 1:26–27 the Apostle Paul describes non-Jewish women who exchange “natural use for unnatural” and non-Jewish men who “leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.”

This verse appears to be clear. Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. Let’s go back 2,000 years and try to understand why.
Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean where great temples were built to honor Aphrodite, Diana and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God that the apostle honors.
Apparently, these priests and priestesses castrated themselves, carried on drunken sexual orgies and even had sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female), all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure. The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we’re in deep trouble.
When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God’s children and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the false gods of sex and passion just like they did in Paul’s time. And in our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us and in the process cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives.
Did these priests and priestess get into this mess because they were lesbian or gay? I don’t think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.
In our Soulforce video, “There’s A Wideness In God’s Mercy,” the Rev. Dr. Louis B. Smedes, the distinguished Christian author and ethicist, describes exactly how the Bible says these promiscuous priests and priestesses got into this mess. Once again it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

SMEDES: “The people Paul had in mind refused to acknowledge and worship God and for this reason were abandoned by God and being abandoned by God, they sank into sexual depravity.”

SMEDES: “The homosexuals I know have not rejected God at all; they love God and they thank God for His grace and his gifts. How, then, could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for refusing to acknowledge God?”

SMEDES: “Nor have the homosexuals that I know given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have heterosexual sex.”

SMEDES: “And the homosexual people I know do not lust after each other any more than heterosexual people do...their love for one another is likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love can be.”

Knowing a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person of faith will help you realize that it is unreasonable (and unjust) to compare our love for each other to the rituals of these priests and priestesses that pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana. Once again, we feel certain that this passage says a lot about God and nothing about homosexuality as we understand it.
You’ll also note that Romans 2 begins with “Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself…” Paul warns us that judging others is God’s business, not ours.

[Thorin]

I have read pretty much all of Eriol's link and IMO, it is stretching the limits of bibilical and cultural interpretation, especially the interpretation of Romans 1.

Were the only 'unnatural' sex going on be pedophilia, it would have been specifically mentioned. Paul speaks in negative terms here. Unnatural here is wrong. How can going against one's sexual nature be wrong if both homosexuality and heterosexuality is accepted. What he is saying then, is that I can sleep with a man and it is fine, but if I sleep with woman it is wrong because I have a homosexual nature? Please. If there's nothing wrong with both sides, there's nothing wrong. Homosexuality is okay, but bisexuality is not? Streeeeeeetchiiiiing.......

If one is to interpret Paul's use of the word 'unnatural' to mean going 'against one's nature' be it homo to hetero or vice versa, then one misinterprets exactly what Paul meant by unnatural which is later stated as homosexuality, not blatant promiscuity.Sex before marriage (and again it is given in the context of heterosexuality...another cultural bias?) is addressed numerous times throughout the NT. There is nothing 'unnatural' about promiscuity. It is very natural....it is very wrong, but still natural. Why did he use the word 'unnatural'? What is natural but what God created naturally in nature? Go back to Genesis...'And God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him an help meet for him."' Genesis 2:18. And he created a woman.

Woman was created to compliment man emotionally, physically by their differences. God created those differences so man could have an intimate relationship with woman and procreate. This relationship was established by God by its very nature (i.e. based on the special differences between man and woman) Something that no matter how close they can get, cannot be realized in a homosexual relationship. That is what is natural, whether taken to the extremes by Hebrew culture or not.

Another argument given in that paper is that Genesis does not address singleness, so does that make THAT wrong too? The difference is the state of the relationship. A marriage (and Eden was the first marriage) is between man and woman. Singleness is another state that does not require any intimacy of a mate. Genesis does not address it because it was not an issue. However, homosexuality tries to follow the same format as regular marriage (i.e. an intimate coupling) and the very nature of Adam and Eve's situation in Eden negates such a concept of homosexual coupling, because intimate coupling was created right along with heterosexuality. In short, sexual and emotional intimacy in a coupled relationship IS heterosexual by its very created nature.

However, if one is not a creationist in the Genesis sense (like Eriol who believes in Theistic evolution) than homosexuality is okay because there is no orginal biblical basis for heterosexuality. Therefore all the 'negativity' towards it in the bible is due to cultural bias and cultural mythical interpretation. There's no real sense in arguing it then, is there?

IMO, that paper basically shows that anyone can go to great lengths to justify something.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Thorin
God still loves the homosexual (just as he loves the murderer, the thief, the sex and drug addicted, but He does expect us to curb our behavior if need be.

You are comparing homosexuals with murderer or thiefs??

That is an offence - and I aspect an apology from you.

I have no problem with God - I have problems with people, who thinks, they know what Gods´ will is.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Samweis
You are comparing homosexuals with murderer or thiefs??

That is an offence - and I aspect an apology from you.
I'm sorry if I've offended you. I was not 'comparing' them. I was saying that God loves the person, not the act. God accepts homosexuals, not homosexual behaviors. God loves the thief and the murderer and the liar and whatever else we do, but their actions are condemned. Perhaps I was wrong to use them in the same sentence but I was not saying that murderers and thiefs and homosexuals are all the same.

Please look at the context before you jump on the 'offended' band wagon....

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Thorin
I'm sorry if I've offended you. I was not 'comparing' them. I was saying that God loves the person, not the act. God accepts homosexuals, not homosexual behaviors. God loves the thief and the murderer and the liar and whatever else we do, but their actions are condemned. Perhaps I was wrong to use them in the same sentence but I was not saying that murderers and thiefs and homosexuals are all the same.

Please look at the context before you jump on the 'offended' band wagon....

You cannot know what God is thinking or whom he loves or whom he maybe loves not - and I refuse that you able to "evaluate" about my life.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Thorin
I have read pretty much all of Eriol's link and IMO, it is stretching the limits of bibilical and cultural interpretation, especially the interpretation of Romans 1.

Wow, I'm famous...

I guess I am the greatest stretcher of biblical and cultural interpretation that Thorin ever met, so much so that he sees my quotes even in threads where I never posted before.

;)

As for the point of the thread, I think homosexuality is a sin. "Sin" is a very precise word. It is more encompassing than "crime" (I don't think homosexuality is or should be a crime -- but I still think it is a sin). I know several homosexuals, and I have homosexual friends. They know what I think, and we are still friends, because when I say "it is a sin", I don't claim to be free of sin, and I don't condemn or even point fingers. That is the province of God.

[Rhiannon]

Basically, I share Eriol's view.

I believe that homosexuality is specifically condemned in the Bible as sin. I am not prejudiced against homosexuals, I don't hate them, I don't treat them differently. But I can not, as a Christian, condone their life style. Neither can I judge them - "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I also can not condone the life styles of my friends who live with boy/girlfriends they are not married to, or who have sex out of wedlock, because that goes against my beliefs. But I respect the fact that they're don't share my beliefs, and it's not my job to force my morals on them.

[Samweis]

But I can not, as a Christian, condone their life style.

Hi Rhiannon,

do you assume, that you have to condone the life-style, because you are a Christian? Or do you condone the life-style, because your personal point of view?

You should consider that there is no universal christian view on homosexuality.

Here in Germany priests of the lutherian protestant church bless couples with the same gender in accordance to the bishops.

[Éomond]

Originally posted by Samweis

....You should consider that there is no universal christian view on homosexuality.

Here in Germany priests of the lutherian protestant church bless couples with the same gender in accordance to the bishops.

I don't think that Christians regect homosexuals, my Church does not, aren't all "Christians" suppose to bless everyone? I hear it in prayers alot and i pray it to, that God would bless the homosexuals and lesbians. I don't know where you thought that Christians don't bless them.

And to the whole "universal law" for Christian view on homosexuality, there is, and if one of us Christians goes against that, than you don't really know God's word I guess. Read Levitcus 18:22 & 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; and 1 Timothy 1:9-11.

[omnipotent_elf]

I have studied the Cæsars rather in depth, and Julius was not ever mentioned as being homosexual. In fact, the only ones where it was ever mentioned with were the bad ones (Nero is the only one that I can think of at the moment). Octavian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius were "moralists" who wanted the decadent population of Rome to go back to raising families and following the old religion.

Ok, i dont have the exact reference, so i hope you dont expect me to look it up. However, TACITUS, the most influential writer in the calassics period writes about Julius Ceasar in Byzantium. It is in the near east, and in addition, TACITUS also accuses Ceasar of Homosexuality with the creation of the Triumiverate(sp?), with pompey and crassus, if thats not enough "fact" for you. Maybe my historians arnt credible enoguh, hmm?.

Now, Tiberius was also accused of homosexual behaviour, and i hope to your god that you dont think Octavian was a "bad: emperor.

Now we have gone far enough off topic....but if you want to discuss this, i am more then willing to debate you on this.


These are criminals, and yes, they are wrong. Celibacy makes people weird. These pædophiles are not real priests, they are sinners

they go unpunished in the church. That makes it a practice acceptable for the religion. No excuse can save that.

How many of those opposed are good friends with people who are gay?

I try to accept people for who they are, not for what they cant help. How would you feel if people started saying your religion was "nasssty". There is no difference between what you are doing and sexism or racism.

[Lúthien Séregon]

As for the point of the thread, I think homosexuality is a sin. "Sin" is a very precise word. It is more encompassing than "crime" (I don't think homosexuality is or should be a crime -- but I still think it is a sin). I know several homosexuals, and I have homosexual friends. They know what I think, and we are still friends, because when I say "it is a sin", I don't claim to be free of sin, and I don't condemn or even point fingers. That is the province of God. [/B]

Either way, you still think a type of love that is different from the majority is "sin", even though in essence it is really two people who love each other. Why should being of opposite gender matter? I mean seriously, why would God even care about such a matter? I certainly don't, I view homosexuality as something that is just as normal as heterosexuality - does this mean I am more open-minded than God?

Did you read the link I posted? If it's a sin, then how come it's a natural thing in the animal kingdom? It doesn't just relate to humans.

[Wonko The Sane]

Originally posted by Eliot
We speak to God through prayer, Wonks. God speaks to us through his word, the Bible.

Sure, I know how prayer works. The problem is if he speaks back to you, then you might wanna go get that checked out.
And let's not forget that the Bible was written by man. And that man can fail, though God cannot.
While the Bible should be treated as the word of God it should not be taken without at least a grain of salt. Man is fallible, and able to make mistakes. We can't just assume that the words in the Bible were direct quotes from God.
Though I'm not saying that the authors of the Bible inserted their own thoughts in certain areas, though undoubtedly that has happened to a certain degree, however we can't just assume that these people knew exactly what God wanted either, since a lot of the Bible was written so long after the actual events occured, there are bound to be discrepancies, exaggerations, etc. that come from passing a story down through many generations. Just like gossip and rumours gain power the more people they're repeated to, so could the actual words in the Bible be distorted from God's original message.

Eomond, I'm not saying it's impossible to change from Gay to Straight, beacause it HAS happened. But it's my strong suspiscion that those that DID "convert" probably weren't really Gay to start with, they were probably confused and/or bisexual. Could you "convert" to homosexuality and mean it? Probably not. Anyway, if it was that easy to just convert a lot more people would be doing it. As I said before a homosexual lifestyle is NOT an easy one. (And btw, I know how to pray and do, so in that sense I have a direct line to God just as the rest of you do, however, God doesn't speak back to me, and as I said earlier, if he speaks back to you I'd go and make sure you're not Schizophrenic or Joan of Arc or something.)
Anyway, the Old Testament has a lot of "rules" in it that Christians no longer follow. I understand what Thorin was saying earlier, about how people take that out of context, but even so, if you're going to decide to ignore those other rules, why do you choose the issue of homosexuality to harp on?
For the last time, Jesus loved EVERYBODY, even the gays. And I'm pretty sure that if he was hanging out with lepers and whores all the time that he'd have had no problem sticking up for gay rights as well.
I'll bet you Jesus would accept anybody into his "group" so long as they loved him and others, and acted in a Christian fashion. He did with Mary Magdalen and Zaccheus...he would with Ian McKellan and RuPaul too I'd bet.

Luthien Seregon said: How can you talk about homosexuality as if it's some kind of addiction? It's a type of love, not sickness.

I couldn't agree more. Alcoholism is a disease that causes people to be addicted to all sorts of things, and it IS genetic. But homosexuality is not a disease or an addiction. It just is. It's like having blond hair, or being tall. It's not something you can just change with a 12 step program.

Cir said: Most humans have the built-in sense of "beauty" or "attractiveness". Do you think this is for art appreciators? No! It is so each gender sees a potential mate in the opposite gender

Ok. So what about the people who DON'T find the opposite sex attractive. By this reasoning then that's an evolutionary trait that's been passed down through generations as well. Perhaps not for procreation, but if humans have a standard for whom they find attractive and you say it has to come from somewhere, then those that find their same sex attractive suggests it comes from somewhere as well. And as we all should be aware the ancient Greeks and Romans not only practiced homosexuality and bisexuality, they revelled in it. They appreciated both sexes for their beauty and prowess, and in their art it was the nude MALE body that they saw as the epitome of human attractiveness. It wasn't until around the time that Sappho appeared on the scene that the female body replaced the male in the arena of the most appealing to human aethetics. The ancient Greeks and Romans did primarily engage in heterosexual life-unions, but they also had no problem reconciling a life of homosexuality or bisexuality as a healthy and normal way of expressing themselves and their appreciation of those they loved.
The fact that it requires a male and a female to procreate does not necessarily suggest that heterosexual relationships are favoured. Though it is necessary to have a man and a woman in order to have children, the pre-historic humans didn't even necessarily engage in monogamous relationships. And like animals men were encouraged to spread their seed all throughout the female population. A male/female couple is necessary to create life, but it does not preclude male/male or female/female relationships. Especially if we were to still live like our pre-historic ancestors in large groups sharing our bodies with as many people as possible in order to procreate. If that were the case it doesn't matter if a man sleeps with another man for pleasure, so long as he occasionally goes to some woman to propagate the species. And since when is LOVE primarily about creating children? We do have a biological imperative to further our species, but love does not necessitate childbirth. There are plenty of couples who do not want or are incapable of having children who love eachother just as much as those that can and do have kids.


Cir said: "Octavian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius were "moralists" who wanted the decadent population of Rome to go back to raising families and following the old religion."

Interestingly enough this also means that if they wanted them to follow the "old religion" it also means they wanted them to REJECT Christianity.
And wanting their countries to steer away from decadence does NOT imply a disapproval of homosexuality, but rather perhaps an inclination to save their people from the spread of veneral diseases (of some of the emperors themselves suffered).

And Cir said: "And name a single serious religion that accept homosexuality. I know that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism believe that it is wrong."

What, pray tell, do you classify as a "serious religion" the UK now realises "Jedi Knight" as a religion. People practice and worship through the tenets of the Jedi. It's a "serious" religion, but would you consider it that? I doubt it. It's not up to you to denounce people's beliefs, or call their religions any less than serious. If somebody believes it, it's serious enough. Even if they're later proved to be wrong.

And let's not forget that there are plenty of "primitive" island cultures who live, as you might say in societies that might as well be "prior to civilization" due to their lack of contact with more developed countries and peoples, and in some of these Island communities homosexuality is not only welcomed, it is REQUIRED for young men to go through a homosexual initiation before they are considered men of their tribe. But I suppose that that issue won't carry much weight with you will it? After all they're "only primitives" and "heathens" right? We can't take a hint from them, can we? I mean, what could WE possibly learn about ourselves or our methods of interaction from people like THAT? :rolleyes:
What's more is that at one point all of our ancestors were in such "primitive" cultures, perhaps such things were common among us as well?

Cir said: "I don't even know what you're talking about there." I think O_E was referring to both human and dolphins tendencies towards homosexuality.

[Wonko The Sane]

And Cir said: "There's only one person that I have heard of who is homosexual and is attempting to be ordained."

Though depending on what religion you are it may SEEM like some religions have more gay priests, but actually there are quite a few homosexual priests and nuns in MANY Christian religions. Though my experience is primarily with Catholics, my ex-bf's mum left her Episcopalian church because the priest was openly gay, my childhood church had a gay priest, my rector at Notre Dame, a nun, was a lesbian, my cousin's gay friend is being ordained as a Deacon, etc. etc. There are PLENTY of homosexuals in the church. I think primarily because they feel that as strong religious people they cannot act on their impulses and cannot be who they are with a partner, so they enter a life where they can serve God and stay away from what they consider to be a sin.
I think that's why we see so many priests abusing young children, male and female, because they have deluded themselves into believing that they can ignore who they are, and hide it. While straight priests know who they are, and can come to terms with celibacy, Gay priests are often in denial about their sexu@lity, and when they come to terms with it it's often hard to reconcile their newfound sense of self with their new life. Repression can lead to horrible consequences, especially when it's repression of something that they feel is wrong, abhorrent, a sin, something that is NOT a problem for straight priests.

Luthien Seregon said: "I think that says more about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. than about homosexuality."

Indeed! And I believe they are threatened by homosexuality for whatever reason. Perhaps for the reasons I listed above that caused the Roman emperors wanted to curb decadence among their people. Or perhaps because it is a fear of the "other" that causes the aversion. We fear and often deride those we don't understand.

And yes, Luthien has also confirmed that other animals than dolphins and humans engage in homosexual behaviour. It is a natural thing, that for some reason us self-aware higher-thinking human beings have decided to pretend is wrong.

And Starflower brings about another point? It is the act of anal intercourse that you find abhorrent? Obviously gay women cannot engage in such activities without articial devices, but is the practice of female homosexuality as wrong? For that matter what about oral sex? Not all gay men engage in anal intercourse. Is it ok for them to be gay? Since they aren't commiting the act of "lying with another man"?

*shakes head* Inconsistencies abound.

And yes, as Ithrynluin said that site I provided really helps say what I wanted to say, though in much better words, and as he says it really clarifies things in terms of what the Bible REALLY says about homosexuality. And also as he pointed out, a very small percentage of the population is gay. Only about 10-20%. Hardly a threat. And while I believe homosexuality is genetic in many cases, it is not necessarily the kind of genetic traits that can be passed down from generation to generation. Perhaps genetic is a bad word for it since in my opinion some people are just born gay, while it would have to be a genetic trait for someone to be intrinsically born with it (everything we're born with is determined by genes, other things are determined by our uprbringing) it is not necessarily an hereditary trait, that is to say, if your father or mother is gay, you will not necessarily be gay. And even if there have been no gays in your family for as far back as you can trace your history it doesn't mean that you won't be gay either. This can help to answer some of the questions as to why the gays didn't "die out" due to natural selection. :rolleyes:

[Wonko The Sane]

Ithy said: Cir, it amazes me that you would think that homosexuality is wrong because reproduction is not possible. Isn't our ability to think past necessity what defines us as humans? Don't we all have ambitions other than simply living day to day and creating progeny?

AR! I couldn't agree with you more!! It is the lesser animals, and the reptilian parts of our brains that only think in terms of furthering the species, and living to procreate. Why then, do you Cir, someone who is a human with a brain far advanced past those of animals, continue to denounce homosexuality because it precludes the possibility of furthering the species?

Eliot quoted Romans, which as I said, is not written by Christ, is it? It's an account written by somebody else. It's not necessarily the word of Christ is it? Isn't it more likely the interpretation of things by the author? Perhaps since it was written during a time when the Old Testament was still the primary source of religious truth (rather than the New as we Christians today perceive it) it is actually outdated and not at all indicative of what Jesus would have taught?
I think so.

And thank you SO MUCH Ithryn for posting that quote. It saves me having to do it, since apparently the links I post are not followed. I think it would serve you all well to go and read the entire document. It's not long, indeed it's just the PDF file of a pamphlet created to teach people about what the Bible said in relation to homosexuality. Maybe it would help you all to actually be INFORMED about what the other side of the argument says before you go around claiming to be definitively and 100% correct in your views.
I at least am familiar with your point of view, intimately actually, since when I was a naive, and misled teenager I thought much the same as you do. So even though I've now come to my senses, I at least am familiar with what I'm arguing against.
I can't say the same for you if you can't even be bothered to go and read the site I provided which could help you understand what OTHER less bigoted people think on the matter.
*fumes*


FOR THE THIRD TIME! READ THIS: http://www.soulforce.org/whatthebiblesays.pdf

Hmm..Thorin you wrote: "Go back to Genesis...'And God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him an help meet for him."' Genesis 2:18. And he created a woman."

You take the Bible literally then, I take it? That God really did fashion Eve from Adam's rib? So then what happened to Evolution? Or are you too cool for Science now? "Oh sure, I totally believe in things which have no proof. But Science, man...that Science is just wrong. I mean who cares that it has definitive basis in reality. It's rubbish!"
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with faith and believing in things that have no proof, that's fine. But it's severely misguided to believe in things that DO have proof. And anyway, those words are not the word of God the way that Jesus's teachings are in the NT. Nobody heard God procalim the story of creation and then wrote it down for him. It was created by man the way all creation myths were created by man. I'm not saying that Genesis is a myth in this sense, but rather an analagous method of explaining something that couldn't have been explained. The ancients knew and believed that God created the Universe, they just didn't know how. This story is representation of that creation they could not explain. Today we Christians believe that God created the Universe, but we have a much better idea of how that happened. True not all Christians accept those things with scientific proof to back them up and still cling to their Creation myth, but I and I think many Christians would be very willing to say that though things didn't happen the way the Bible said they did, that God is still responsible.
Male and female gender differences are something that have existed since the very first organisms moved away from asexual to sexual reproduction. That's what distinguishes animals from plants (among other things of course) since the first animals crawled out of the muck we have had sexual reproduction, and since male and female is the most efficient way to acheive reproduction we have had two separate genders.
However, this does not mean that women was created solely for man and man solely for woman. It is an evolutionary thing, and just because man and women CAN produce children together and can have intercourse, doesn't mean that it HAS to be that way, and that any other way of expressing love is wrong.
And even if you DO believe in Genesis as the definitive source of creation, and that sexuality and intimacy was created in the same breath as heterosexuality doesn't mean that homosexuality was precluded from human "rightness" at the start. Obviously the majority of humans are straight and it only makes sense for God to chose a straight couple as the first example of intimate love. And if you DO believe in Genesistic creation, then you will also believe that God created homosexuals correct? And frankly I can't believe in a God that would say, "I will create you to love those of your same sex. But I hate it when you get together. So don't." A loving God would not do that. Is God sadistic?
And furthermore, God sees and knows everything that ever was, will be, and is, etc. correct? So he knew that Adam and Eve would sin, and that they would be cast from the Garden of Eden. He knew sin would happen, and yet he didn't stop it. He surely could have. But instead he gave us free will, knowing full well what we'd do with it and loving us anyway. God allows us to sin, and knew we would. And if as some of you say homosexuality is a result of a choice to sin, and that homosexuality was not in God's plan, well that's contradictory don't you think?
I can understand how you would say that homosexuality comes directly because of the fall, because you see it as a sin, and you see all sin as a result of the fall.
But is it necessarily a sin? You believe it is so you believe that it is because of the fall that we have gay people.
But perhaps in this Garden of Eden, had Adam and Eve not sinned, there would eventually have risen a Utopian society in which gay people were involved. You're putting the cart before the horse in assuming that homosexuality is a result of this sin.

Samweis, I could hug you when you said: "I have no problem with God - I have problems with people, who thinks, they know what Gods´ will is."
I have a huge problem with that too. As I said before, none of us knows what God's will is. He keeps it hidden from us, right? You know a little of God from the Bible, but when it comes down to it you don't know what's going on in his "head" and how he really feels about this because you can't talk to God. And furthermore, Jesus and the Gospels NEVER mention homosexuality, so there's no way you could know what Jesus said or felt about homosexuals and homosexuality.
But you DO know that Jesus preached love and acceptance for everyone.
Knowing that you should believe that it is God's will to love and accept the gays and not condemn them as you have done.
It is God alone who can condemn, and anyway if you are Christian and believe in the Holy Trinity then Jesus's will is God's as well, and there shouldn't be the discrepancy you seem to suggest there is.

And yes, Samweis is right. Comparing homosexuals to thieves and muderers IS an insult.
And it's bigoted. And it's wrong.
And you should apologise.

Furthermore, I would agree that God loves all people. Even murderers, and yet condemns their actions. But while we can probably agree that in most cases murder is morally wrong, it is not necessarily true that homosexuality is wrong either in action or in its existence. You are assuming that it is something that God condemns, but as I said before, you do not know God's full intentions, will, or feelings on the subject.
You have a few outdated words about it, and some that aren't even meant to be attributed to God himself, but to one of his disciples.
You don't really know what Jesus and God said about it, do you?
And isn't Jesus that dude whom your whole faith is based on? Isn't that why it's called Christianity? Hmm...

Eriol, I believe Thorin meant Ithrynluin, who posted the link I provided but nobody looked at.

So Eriol, you think it's wrong, and you don't point fingers, but if you DO believe it's a sin (and those who do usually classify it as a mortal one) then you believe your friends will go to Hell correct?
That's kind of harsh isn't it? Do they really consider you that great a friend if they know how you think of them?
I wouldn't. I've been given a lot of **** from people because I'm dating Snaga. The ones that accept me and love me for me are the ones who are still my friends. The ones who condemn me and think of me as a sinner aren't really my true friends.

Rhiannon, I can't help but point out that you can't have it both ways. To call something a sin is to judge it. And you can't say, "It's a sin but I'm not judging you." To call something a sin implies an intrinsic judgement. Though perhaps you may not hate Gays, and you may not persecute them, you are still judging them.

O_E: There is no difference between what you are doing and sexism or racism.

Quite true. It's just another form of bigotry and prejudice. A long time ago Christians believed that God set them, the white majority, up to inherit the Earth. And they were able to condemn those of other races in the name of God. How is this any different? You're just as guilty of bigotry as those racists in the Old South, IMO.


It's not wrong to be gay, it's not wrong to act on it, and I don't see how you can call yourselves Christians, a faith based on a man who taught us to love EVERYONE and accept them, and NOT to judge them, and still treat homosexuals in the way that you do.

[Eledhwen]

"Sin" means missing the mark (like an arrow missing its target). God ordained that man be united with woman. To unite otherwise is to miss the mark in that area of one's life. But the Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love, and thank God for that, because I'm twice divorced and a sinner since birth (but a SAVED sinner!).

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
Why should being of opposite gender matter? I mean seriously, why would God even care about such a matter?

Did you read the link I posted? If it's a sin, then how come it's a natural thing in the animal kingdom? It doesn't just relate to humans.

I believe that this is not God's word on the matter, and that some people claimed, under false pretense, that in writing the Bible they were inspired by the Holy Spirit in every single word they wrote. I think this is a big lie (and a sin against god!), they just wanted to enforce their ignorance, their inadequate understanding of the world, close-mindedness and pointless hatred to the masses. They sure succeeded.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Éomond
I don't think that Christians regect homosexuals, my Church does not, aren't all "Christians" suppose to bless everyone? I hear it in prayers alot and i pray it to, that God would bless the homosexuals and lesbians. I don't know where you thought that Christians don't bless them.

And to the whole "universal law" for Christian view on homosexuality, there is, and if one of us Christians goes against that, than you don't really know God's word I guess. Read Levitcus 18:22 & 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; and 1 Timothy 1:9-11.

I think you misunderstood me - some priests of my church, which is the largest christian church in Germany, bless the partnership between partners with the same gender with the accordance of the bishops - not the individual homosexuals.

The bible was written by human beings neither from God nor from Jesus Christ - the christian churches interpreted the bible differently = for me there is no christian universal law.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane

Eliot quoted Romans, which as I said, is not written by Christ, is it? It's an account written by somebody else. It's not necessarily the word of Christ is it? Isn't it more likely the interpretation of things by the author? Perhaps since it was written during a time when the Old Testament was still the primary source of religious truth (rather than the New as we Christians today perceive it) it is actually outdated and not at all indicative of what Jesus would have taught?
I think so.
Of course you would have to believe that because there is no other biblical evidence accepting homosexuality. Lets blame Paul for misconstruing the truth that Jesus must have said that was never recorded....Stretching it a little bit isn't it?

However, Christ was speaking mainly through Paul to a growing new church of Christians. His teachings and words were quite authoritative. And FYI, Paul went to great lengths to dispel Old Testament way of thinking....And yet homosexuality is still considered 'unnatural' thousands of years later. But Paul was known to go directly against what Jesus taught, wasn't he, despite the Damascus road experience and meeting Jesus? :rolleyes: It is more presumptuous given the evidence to believe that Jesus accepted homosexuality as a normal practice then to believe that he wouldn't have condoned it.Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
Hmm..Thorin you wrote: "Go back to Genesis...'And God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him an help meet for him."' Genesis 2:18. And he created a woman."

You take the Bible literally then, I take it? That God really did fashion Eve from Adam's rib? So then what happened to Evolution? Or are you too cool for Science now? "Oh sure, I totally believe in things which have no proof. But Science, man...that Science is just wrong. I mean who cares that it has definitive basis in reality. It's rubbish!"
Perhaps you should talk to Eriol. He is a theistic evolutionist and yet the last few posts he has said that homosexuality is a sin. Why don't you see what his take is on it. And no, I'm not 'too cool' to except science. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
And even if you DO believe in Genesis as the definitive source of creation, and that sexuality and intimacy was created in the same breath as heterosexuality doesn't mean that homosexuality was precluded from human "rightness" at the start. Obviously the majority of humans are straight and it only makes sense for God to chose a straight couple as the first example of intimate love. And if you DO believe in Genesistic creation, then you will also believe that God created homosexuals correct? And frankly I can't believe in a God that would say, "I will create you to love those of your same sex. But I hate it when you get together. So don't." A loving God would not do that. Is God sadistic?
Nope. But once again. Homosexuality is a result of a sinful nature, a genetic abnormality like alcoholism, diabetes, MS and the such. Our bodies are sinful and unfortunately, don't function like they did way back when. If God honestly did create and approve of homosexuality, He would have taken some time while communicating directly with his prophets to dispel the 'myths' of hating homosexuality and not let it carry on for 1000s of years. And yet, even AFTER Christ died, we still have admonishments for homosexual behavior....Go figure. God must have really been asleep at the wheel here.
Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
And yes, Samweis is right. Comparing homosexuals to thieves and muderers IS an insult.
And it's bigoted. And it's wrong.
And you should apologise.
Please get off your little soap box, Wonko. Had you really read my post, you would have seen that I did apologize and I explained myself and the context in which I said it in....Chill out. I have nothing against homosexuals. I'm just telling it straight. I am not bigoted and count some homosexuals as personal friends....And for your information, all that I am espousing came from a homosexual Christian who had long come to grips with his situation and nature. He has since died of AIDS.

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
Eriol, I believe Thorin meant Ithrynluin, who posted the link I provided but nobody looked at.
Sorry Eriol. Someone mentioned that it was you who posted the link and I took their word for it in my post.;)

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
Eliot quoted Romans, which as I said, is not written by Christ, is it? It's an account written by somebody else. It's not necessarily the word of Christ is it? Isn't it more likely the interpretation of things by the author? Perhaps since it was written during a time when the Old Testament was still the primary source of religious truth (rather than the New as we Christians today perceive it) it is actually outdated and not at all indicative of what Jesus would have taught?
I think so.

You're thinking man wrote the Bible? Yeah, man wrote the Bible literally, but God told them what they were supposed to write. I've already read that pamphlet. I can't say what I think of it because I don't want warning points.

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
You take the Bible literally then, I take it? That God really did fashion Eve from Adam's rib? So then what happened to Evolution? Or are you too cool for Science now? "Oh sure, I totally believe in things which have no proof. But Science, man...that Science is just wrong. I mean who cares that it has definitive basis in reality. It's rubbish!"

It is rubbish. If you're gonna be a Christian, you might as well believe what Christian's believe, right?


Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
And yes, Samweis is right. Comparing homosexuals to thieves and muderers IS an insult.
And it's bigoted. And it's wrong.
And you should apologise.

There's no need to apologize for Thorin. He didn't say anything wrong. He already explained. You might want to slow down Wonks, and go read his post.

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
who posted the link I provided but nobody looked at.

Quit jumping to conclusions. It's getting quite annoying.

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
then you believe your friends will go to Hell correct?

Yeah, they'll go to Hell if they don't repent of their sins, change their ways, and accept Jesus as their personal God and Savior, and then create a personal relationship with him. That's what Christianity is all about. Building up a relationship with God, that will last till death, which really isn't death. It's just brand new life.

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
It's not wrong to be gay,

It's wrong if you're a Christian. It's wrong period.

I don't see how you can call yourselves Christians, a faith based on a man who taught us to love EVERYONE and accept them[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, a man who taught love, but also a man who was God in human form, who can't tolerate sin, and will judge sinners.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Thorin
Nope. But once again. Homosexuality is a result of a sinful nature, a genetic abnormality like alcoholism, diabetes, MS and the such.


Alcoholism and homosexuality are a genetic abnormality??

Very strange and another insult, because the word "abnormality" is a personal evaluation from you.

If God honestly did create and approve of homosexuality, He would have taken some time while communicating directly with his prophets to dispel the 'myths' of hating homosexuality and not let it carry on for 1000s of years.

I thought everything is a creation of God - now you are telling me that homosexuality is not a creation of him.


I am not bigoted and count some homosexuals as personal friends....

... and you think - because you call some homosexuals as personal friends - you are able to "evaluate" my sexuality??


And for your information, all that I am espousing came from a homosexual Christian who had long come to grips with his situation and nature. He has since died of AIDS.

... sorry I don´t understand, what you mean with the word "since" in the last sentence. Please explain it.

... concerning of the death: it is sad that we have lost another life

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Samweis
Alcoholism and homosexuality are a genetic abnormality??

Very strange and another insult, because the word "abnormality" is a personal evaluation from you. [/B]
Good grief. I think I shall remove myself from this conversation. Everything I say is an insult. If I got insulted by everyone who said, "Christians are close minded' and 'Christians are rude and ignorant, I'd be an atheistic hermit. I do believe that homosexuality is from aberrant genes due to sin. It doesn't mean that homosexuals are abnormal by society's sense of the word. It means they have a genetic trait that is different.
Would you people chill out a bit?
Originally posted by Samweis
I thought everything is a creation of God - now you are telling me that homosexuality is not a creation of him.
No, not everything is a creation of God. Nature and sin have marred God's perfect creation and things can change.

Originally posted by Samweis
... sorry I don´t understand, what you mean with the word "since" in the last sentence. Please explain it.

I mean that when he talked to a group of us at a retreat, he was diagnosed with AIDS. I believe that he has passed away. And yes, it is sad.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Thorin
Good grief. I think I shall remove myself from this conversation. Everything I say is an insult.[/i]

It would be better if you think about your dictions and your conclusions.

If I got insulted by everyone who said, "Christians are close minded' and 'Christians are rude and ignorant, I'd be an atheistic hermit.

It seems you speak from one´s own experiences.

It means they have a genetic trait that is different.


Sorry this is not scientifically prooved - this is just one attempt of explanation, but an explanation is already an affront against homosexuality, because why must it be explained? Than heterosexuality has to be explained, too.


Would you people chill out a little bit?

I would like to chill out, but I have to oppose opinions like these.


In general it seems to me that we have a total different comprehension of christian faith - for me everything is God´s creation.

[Rhiannon]

do you assume, that you have to condone the life-style, because you are a Christian?

No. No one, unless I have authority over them (ie, they were my child) needs me to condone their life style. But I can't be 'political correct' and say 'Oh, I think it's fine, everyone should just be able to do what they want'. I can't approve, but I will keep my disapproval to myself, and really it doesn't make no difference because no one needs my approval anyway.

You should consider that there is no universal christian view on homosexuality.

This may be true, by I think there should be. If a member of the clergy condones a homosexual union, I believe that clergy member is sinning, because homosexuality is plainly portrayed as sin in the Bible. If I were part of that clergy member's church, I would feel the need to confront them over this. But as I am not, my approval has no bearing on them.

Eliot quoted Romans, which as I said, is not written by Christ, is it? It's an account written by somebody else. It's not necessarily the word of Christ is it? Isn't it more likely the interpretation of things by the author? Perhaps since it was written during a time when the Old Testament was still the primary source of religious truth (rather than the New as we Christians today perceive it) it is actually outdated and not at all indicative of what Jesus would have taught?
I think so.[/i]

"All scripture is God breathed"- directly inspired by God. If you do not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then you take away the entire basis of the Christian faith.

[quote] Rhiannon, I can't help but point out that you can't have it both ways. To call something a sin is to judge it. And you can't say, "It's a sin but I'm not judging you." To call something a sin implies an intrinsic judgement. Though perhaps you may not hate Gays, and you may not persecute them, you are still judging them.

I am not judging them- God is. I am only saying that because of my faith I belive God's judging must be true. If a person were claiming to be both Christian and homosexual, then I would call them a hypocrite, and I would be judging them.

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Samweis
I thought everything is a creation of God

Everything??? God didn't create everything. God didn't make the GMC Suburban sitting out on my driveway. He didn't make my house. He didn't make this Apple Macintosh eMac I'm using. God didn't make my t-shirt. God didn't make my pair of tan cargo pants. Those are all made by humans. God gives us the power to make and invent objects.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Rhiannon
If a person were claiming to be both Christian and homosexual, then I would call them a hypocrite, and I would be judging them.

If a person were claiming to have the right to judge about christian homosexuals, then I would call them presumptuous.

[Rhiannon]

If a person were claiming to have the right to judge about christian homosexuals, then I would call them presumptuous.

Well, you go right ahead, then.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
So Eriol, you think it's wrong, and you don't point fingers, but if you DO believe it's a sin (and those who do usually classify it as a mortal one) then you believe your friends will go to Hell correct?
That's kind of harsh isn't it? Do they really consider you that great a friend if they know how you think of them?

I don't know who is going to Hell... and mortal sins can be forgiven as easily as venial ones. Check Eledhwen's post just after yours, Wonko, and you'll see what is meant by "sin".

I run from discussions like that, because ALL words are badly defined and create confusion and ill feelings. I stated my opinion, and that's it.

I encourage everybody who IS involved in this discussion to define the terms VERY carefully, or this thread will -- unfortunately -- create too much heat and little light. "Sin" was already very well defined by Eledhwen. Words like "normal", "natural", "creation", are being equivocally used by everybody.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Samweis quote from Thorin:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I got insulted by everyone who said, "Christians are close minded' and 'Christians are rude and ignorant, I'd be an atheistic hermit.
---------------------------------------------------------------

It seems you speak from one´s own experiences.[/B]
See, case example. I could get offended by what seems here to me an accusation that I am close minded, rude and ignorant when I didn't say that people said it to ME specifically. But life is too short to be so offended by everything people say or possibly what was taken out of context.
Originally posted by Samweis quote from Thorin:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It means they have a genetic trait that is different.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry this is not scientifically prooved - this is just one attempt of explanation, but an explanation is already an affront against homosexuality, because why must it be explained? Than heterosexuality has to be explained, too.[/B]
Were it not a different genetic trait we'd all have it wouldn't we? Eriol suggested specifying our terms more clearly. I believe the Romans 1 translation of 'unnatural' is an accurate term. What percent of the population is homosexual or has the homosexual gene, Samweis? The fact that there are only a few instances in nature where bisexuality occurs (and 'sex' here is not really an accurate term in these cases - except the Bonnono(?) monkeys. Those guys will jump anything!) and such a minority of the human population shows that it is not natural according to the grand scheme of evolution or creation, whichever you choose to believe. 'Unnatural' here means 'not according to nature'. Neither millions of years of evolution or natural creation show homosexuality as the norm, not because of choice but because of genetics and compatibility. Man's creation with woman was natural. From an evolutionary perspective, adaptation and reproduction to further the species is 'natural'. Homosexuality is more an aberration or glich of nature (especially if they are finding 'gay' genes in homosexuals that nobody else seems to have). That to me stands them out from the rest doesn't it?
I would call that 'unnatural' wouldn't you?

Many homosexuals wouldn't agree with me because it makes them sound inferior and deviant. Not at all. Putting all religion aside it doesn't make you any more special than me. It means you're different. (And if homosexuals don't think that is the case, they better stop promoting the 'homosexual by birth and nature' argument). It is just a fact of nature and life.

The unfortunate thing is that this attitude can be taken to an extreme and persecution and 'gay bashing' occurs. That is unacceptable no matter what your religion or views, and physical violence is absolutely unacceptable.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. The biggest problem I have with homosexuals is the current trend to view anyone who speaks out against homosexuality as engaging in 'hate crimes' and 'gay bashing'. As a Christian and moral citizen of this world, I must tolerate the homosexual lifestyle or any lifestyle that is not hurtful to others, but I do not have to accept it. As long as I'm not attacking someone personally, I have the right to say how I feel. At the same time, I also don't have the right to take that lifestyle away from someone either.

[Lúthien Séregon]

Homosexuality is a result of a sinful nature, a genetic abnormality like alcoholism, diabetes, MS and the such. Our bodies are sinful and unfortunately, don't function like they did way back when.

But if you're going to make that judgement at all, shouldn't you at least research the matter before just saying things that could be possibly hurtful or offensive? It is NOT proven that there is any "abnormal" gene at all that "causes" homosexuality, but it IS a fact that it is present in many species of animals as well as humans. How can it be therefore abnormal? It's not just some phenomenon present only in current civilisation.

Eledhwen said that "Sin" means missing the mark (like an arrow missing its target). But is our sole purpose in life really just to procreate? I thought people were above that by now. Why would God care about such a thing in the first place?

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Rhiannon
Well, you go right ahead, then.

Sorry, Rhiannon,

I don´t understand what you mean by this - I´m not a native English-speaker.

So let me explain what I mean - I don´t expect that everybody accept my sexuality, but I expect that everybody has to tolerate it.

If someone thinks that he/she/it has the right to judge about my sexuality or about my faith, it would be intolerant.

Christianity is not a universal faith, there are differences among the churches: f.e. Jehovas´witnesses are not allowed to go into the military forces, because of the commandment: You shall not kill - but catholics, protestants etc etc. are soldiers.

I don´t want to judge about their different views of christian faith.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Thorin
The biggest problem I have with homosexuals is the current trend to view anyone who speaks out against homosexuality as engaging in 'hate crimes' and 'gay bashing'.

As long as I'm not attacking someone personally, I have the right to say how I feel. At the same time, I also don't have the right to take that lifestyle away from someone either.

Homosexuals are very thin-skinned, because of the history of homophobia - of course you don´t need to accept homosexuality, but you should be very careful with the diction or conclusions, when you say something against it - otherwise it is quite possible that you offend someone else personally.

[Marah Seph]

Samweis,

First off, you have to get the commandment right, becuase we do have poor translators I can understand. The Commandment was not "Do not kill" but rather, do not murder. If it was do not kill, then there wouldn't be much meat in the jews/christain diets now would there?
However, I do have to say to Thorin, you have to be willing to take the consequences. If you are going to say somthing, and know it to be right, and also know that others won't see it that way, be willing to take what's coming to you. Otherwise, don't say anything at all until asked.
Gays in the church. I haven't read a passage that specifically says " haveing relations with the same sex is a sin" I do know that in the new testament it says that God let the people of Gomorra fall into their sins and thus their preferences became perverse. The way I view lity is the same as how I view a pedifile. Something gross, wrong, and I can not accept this behavior as something good and healthy.
The only thing that really urks me is that the gays that go "straight" are looked down upon. What if people are that way, not because of a genetic defect, but because of circumstances they weren't able to control and thus don't wish to be that way? Why do those establishments that are supposed to help the "young people" figgure out what's going on, always say seem to say "be gay" and not well looks like yer as straight as an arrow?

[Eledhwen]

Thorin:- Good grief. I think I shall remove myself from this conversation. Everything I say is an insult. If I got insulted by everyone who said, "Christians are close minded' and 'Christians are rude and ignorant, I'd be an atheistic hermit.This is the lot of any Bible-believing Christian who is prepared to say what they believe. In this society, everyone is entitled to their opinion, to free speech and free expression and is respected for it, unless they are a Christian. I have never seen a TV sitcom ridiculing the leaders of any religion apart from Christianity (perhaps the producers don't want to be the subject of a fatwah). and the reasons for this are spiritual (which is another debate).

Did I hear people say that homosexuality is genetic? If evolution is true then why aren't they extinct, as homosexuals don't reproduce?

I understand why homosexuals seek understanding and acceptance - they cannot make themselves heterosexual and probably don't want to. What I don't understand is the attempt to reconcile the homosexual act with Christianity, a faith which has been communicated through the ages via the Bible where it is clearly stated as unacceptable behaviour. I find it even harder to understand why someone would want to be a priest in the Christian church and advocate homosexuality at the same time. If that precept is disposable, why not indulge in polygamy, euthanasia, abortion, drug/alcohol abuse, or any other "sin" that can be justified on the grounds of "I'm not hurting anyone else!". Remember, these are only "sins" if there is a law or accepted moral standard that they fail to meet, as there is in Christianity. When you accept Christ, you press on towards his goal, to hit his targets. If you aim at something else, then it's sin, and maybe you should join some other organisation where it is not sin.

I read the Bible regularly so that I know when something in my life is contrary to its teaching and I ask God's help to put me back on track. The prayer at the end of Psalm 139 (a beautiful psalm) is useful: "Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by Eledhwen

What I don't understand is the attempt to reconcile the homosexual act with Christianity, a faith which has been communicated through the ages via the Bible where it is clearly stated as unacceptable behaviour.

Is it really that hard to understand?
There are so-and-so millions of Christians in the world and for homosexuals to gain some credit in the straight Christian world is sometimes (or most of the times) extremely difficult or impossible. Not every Christian holds on to the fairly mild belief that
'Homosexuality is wrong but they themselves have nothing personal against homosexuals and will not persecute them'. There are extremists, people who openly hate homosexuals and discriminate against them. That, in my opinion, is where the desire to reconcile Christianity and homosexuality, stems from primarily. To end the opression and violence that is being showered on them, and be accepted as every other human being.

[Lifeling]

One thing that I see coming up alot in this thread is an argument that God created everything so he created Homosexuality. Part 1 of this argument is true... God created everything physical and spiritual... every atom, and every spiritual thing. (cept himself). Satan, cannot create, he does not have that power. Satan can only pervert and distort... God created sexuality, Man and Woman. Satan took that and made something evil... Homosexuality, not gays... Homosexuality. Satan twisted what God had made as good and turned it evil. This is the origin of all sin. Gays are merely sinners, like me. Im not Gay, nor have I been, But I have fallen short of the glory of God just like every one. None of us without the blood of Jesus can come into Gods prescense, NOT because God is mean. But because he is nice. If we were to come into Gods Glory without Jesus' blood as a covering, we would die. (Exodus 33:20 But," he [The Lord] said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.")

Another thing is people keep saying people are born alchoholic, and other things... um no... all people are born with unlimited potential to fall into every sin. There are people who are born with a greater tendency to become an alchloholic if they drink... But no child or young person who has never had a drink is an alchloholic. They are not born that way, they may become an alchloholic on their first drink. But no child is born with his first thought being, "man I need some booze!" Just as no child is born as a homosexual.

[Lúthien Séregon]

Just as no child is born as a homosexual.

However, no person at any point in their life seriously chooses their own sexuality ( unless they have been ridiculed or persecuted enough to the point that they want to be something different other than they are ). Neither is homosexuality any addiction that people crave, like alcohol.

As I said before, God himself must be judgemental to the point where he can classify a type of love as a sin and another as good. Is it possible that God is less open-minded than some humans? It appears that God ( majority of religions ) cannot recognise love in difference. Homosexuality is not evil. That is a notion that was formed out of ignorance and fear.

[Gandalf White]

That is a notion that was formed out of ignorance and fear. Ignorance and fear of what, exactly?

[Lúthien Séregon]

Difference. Like it or not, that's how the vast majority of discrimination starts.

[Starflower]

anybody consider the option that God couldn't care less what people do with their sexuality? Ultimately what matters to God is how we live our lives according to His wishes, I think a gay person is just as precious to God as a straight person, if that person chooses to live a "godly life". The Bible cannot be taken word by word literally, there isn't a person living today who can claim they do that. So the same rules apply to gays and straights in this matter : love God , love your neighbor and follow Jesus' example in your life the best you can. Jesus actually never talked about sexuality, he forgave the prostitutes and the adulterers, as well as the murdererd and thieves, regardless of their sin, he accepted them. So should we, if we are to call ourselves His followers.


Starflower

[Lifeling]

God himself must be judgemental to the point where he can classify a type of love as a sin and another as good.

Sex is not love!

Jesus said... "Greater love has no man than he that lay down his life for his friend."

Jesus did not say... "Greater love has no man than he that has sex with the most people the most often."

Love is not sex!

Let me get this straight... are you judging God for being judgemental? God is perfect... not because he is perfect according to our standards but because he's God! You point at God as if hes wrong. But if he is God it doesnt matter, Just being God makes him right. (Not that he is wrong... but even if he was...)... Please use God logically in your arguments... you must either deny his existence or ackgnowledge that he is right in everything he does...

[Lifeling]

he forgave the prostitutes and the adulterers

But remember what he said to the adulteress... "Go and sin no more". What she was doing was sin... He knew it and she knew it... It wasnt that it didnt matter, but what mattered was that he forgave her and gave her another chance. The forgiveness would've lasted long if she had gone right back and found herself another man. Change, that is what Jesus gives, and freedom from sin... He does NOT give people an excuse to continue in their sinful lifestyle.

[Starflower]

the adulterer was not sinning cause she had sex, she was sinning cause she was adulterous.in the same way , a gay person can't be sinning simply on the grounds of being gay, but bwing an adulterer or a prostitute or generally promiscuous is considered sin. So if two men choose to live together as partners, what they do together is not sin, but if one of them strays, that is.

this is just my own opinion, i don 't mean it to be offensive to anyone....

Starflower

[Lifeling]

Stop doing that!
2 posts earlier you used prostitutes and adulterers in your argument teling me that I should accept gays. I try to use that same logic... and you tell me Im wrong! You were the one who grouped them in the same category in the first place!!!:mad: :rolleyes: :)
(Im not seriously mad, but can you please think out your arguments so that I'm not just wasting my time and energy)

[Starflower]

my dear, I am not trying to make you accept gays

what I'm trying to say, is sinning is going directly against God's wishes, and I think being gay isn't a sin. But being an adulterer and a prostitute is, that's why Jesus told her "go and sin no more". Had she been a man, I believe Jesus would have said exaclty the same thing.

[Lifeling]

So your saying that gays... as long as they are married are not sinning?

[Starflower]

yes and no

a gay prostitute is sinning, a gay person committing adultery (or murder, rape, theft etc) is sinning. But a gay person living a normal life, whether they have a partner or not, is not living a "sinful" life simply becasue of their sexual preference. If I go around sleeping with every man I meet , I know I am doing wrong, but if i sleep with my boyfriend whom I love very much , but we are not married , am I committing a sin ?


Starflower

[Lifeling]

Yes... sex outside of marriage is sin.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Lifeling
Satan can only pervert and distort... God created sexuality, Man and Woman. Satan took that and made something evil... Homosexuality, not gays... Homosexuality.

I cannot share your point of view of faith - this is really an insult, because you imply that I`m a pervert.

[Starflower]

see that's a whole different issue. I don't know what church you worship in , but I was brought up Lutheran, and to my knowledge lutheran church does not say sex outside the marriage is a sin, it is not encouraged, but it is not looked upon as a sin.

But that's not the point of our discussion, the point was, whether a gay person is sinful on the grounds of their sexuality



Starflower

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Marah Seph
Samweis,

First off, you have to get the commandment right, becuase we do have poor translators I can understand. The Commandment was not "Do not kill" but rather, do not murder. If it was do not kill, then there wouldn't be much meat in the jews/christain diets now would there?

In the German bible is the commandment: Du sollst nicht töten "You shall not kill" not: Du sollst nicht morden "You shall not mu