What exactly is the stand of the Church on homosexuality? Are they pro or against it? And what laws have they made regarding it? Can I get replies please? 
The Church and Homosexuality
They are aginst it.
Um yeah. I mean, what's their stand and their laws or whatever stuff they say on that issue?
The Church position, as outlined by Rowan Williams, is this :
Homosexuality is sinful ONLY when practiced in the physical act. It is fine to be gay as long as you refran from gay sex.
The evangelical and african churches are much more hardline than this. The US and Dutch branches are somewhat softer at the margin, but also have a significant evangelical congregation who are completely against gay priests, celibate or not.
Chris
Homosexuality is sinful ONLY when practiced in the physical act. It is fine to be gay as long as you refran from gay sex.
The evangelical and african churches are much more hardline than this. The US and Dutch branches are somewhat softer at the margin, but also have a significant evangelical congregation who are completely against gay priests, celibate or not.
Chris
why wouldgod let something completly natural and out of our human control be such a thing of disgust in the christian comuntiy/
surley they dont think they are gay on purpose,thereis nothing wrong it, it is justsio natural
surley they dont think they are gay on purpose,thereis nothing wrong it, it is justsio natural
| Yantaal wrote: |
| it is justsio natural |
Unfortunately it is not natural. No species can sustain itself on such acts. The union of a homosexual's penis with another homosexual's anus will not result in more of the species being produced. Nature is quite clearly "against" such an understanding.
Without too much digression, the church's stand on homosexuality as taught by Holy Scripture is that it is a sin, just as being an alcoholic, compulsive gambler, spouse abuser, etc. They (meaning those practicing homosexuals) are neither more or less damned than all others who refuse to repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
That said, it very may well be that people are born with such tendencies, much like I have heterosexual tendencies. I however do not act on all of them, nor are they allowed to act on ANY of them, since homosexuality in all forms is an abomination to the Lord. (As an aside, so are those who use false scales!!!!) As such, homosexuals who recognize this as sin and seek help and confess said sin are welcome and certainly encouraged to be in and be part of a church that teaches the truth of the Gospel. There is forgiveness for every sin out there. Homosexuals are not beyond the reach of God's love. However, brazen and bold unrepentance, pride and refusal to see this as against the will of God is unforgivable.
All said ordination, celebration, encouraging, and any such "pro" supporting of this lifestyle is equated to blasphemy and non-representative of true Christianity. Although there is differing opinions among Christians, you must clearly nullify and negate much of God's Word to justify a "pro" stance on this issue.
I hope this clarifies the church's stance on the issue. There is to be NO HATRED of homosexuals... just the SIN of homosexuality.
Shouldn't somebody ask which church?
| Yantaal wrote: |
| surley they dont think they are gay on purpose,thereis nothing wrong it, it is justsio natural |
Aside from my position on the topic, what evidence do you present to state that "it is justsio natural"?
Do you think that the act itself, or the thoughts leading to the act are natural? What is your definition of natural? And how come being "natural" is considered right, since so much of our society is based off of the unnatural (that is based on the assumption that you define natural as something that occurs in nature without direct manipulation by humans)?
The whole concept of it's being natural has been hashed over in another topic. A bigger question was pointed out by Indi.
Which Church are you talking about?
The Episcopal Church is quite open and accepting of same sex unions. They even had (have?) a gay bishop. Anyone want to pin down what the question really is before we go further? If this degenerates into just a generic pro/anti gay discussion, this topic will be closed with a link to the already existing topics.
Which Church are you talking about?
The Episcopal Church is quite open and accepting of same sex unions. They even had (have?) a gay bishop. Anyone want to pin down what the question really is before we go further? If this degenerates into just a generic pro/anti gay discussion, this topic will be closed with a link to the already existing topics.
I must apologise for not reading properly. I read Church of England, for some reason, instead of Church. My posting earlier, then, was concerning that particular church and should not be taken to apply to others......I'm obviously in need of an eye test...
Regards
Chris
PS - Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury - the leader of the Church (of England)
Regards
Chris
PS - Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury - the leader of the Church (of England)
well,
for the Jewish and Christian religions (and possible others) the principle law against homosexuality refers to gay sex
here's the scripture:
there are definitely others, but this is the one God gave Moses in His Laws of Sexual Morality [Leviticus chp. 18]
for the Jewish and Christian religions (and possible others) the principle law against homosexuality refers to gay sex
here's the scripture:
| Quote: |
| You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; for it is detestable.
- Leviticus 18:22 |
there are definitely others, but this is the one God gave Moses in His Laws of Sexual Morality [Leviticus chp. 18]
Did anybody consider that homosexuality could've been created by God as a means of population control? I mean, if everyone were heterosexual, the population would be growing even more rapidly than it is now.
Just a thought.
And don't even start quoting the Bible. I follow Jesus just as much as the next person, but as Christians we DO NOT FOLLOW the Old Testament. Homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament, and we have chosen to elevate it so much that it outweighs anything - from theft to murder to adultery.
The Old Testament tells us that we are not to eat creatures of the sea without fins or scales. It tells us that women may not enter churches either 33 or 66 days after giving birth because they are impure. We don't follow those, why are we picking and choosing?
Just a thought.
And don't even start quoting the Bible. I follow Jesus just as much as the next person, but as Christians we DO NOT FOLLOW the Old Testament. Homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament, and we have chosen to elevate it so much that it outweighs anything - from theft to murder to adultery.
The Old Testament tells us that we are not to eat creatures of the sea without fins or scales. It tells us that women may not enter churches either 33 or 66 days after giving birth because they are impure. We don't follow those, why are we picking and choosing?
I'm Jewish, remember? The Tanakh doesn't include the New Testament. Sorry that my quoting of the Bible made you angry...
| Tyler wrote: |
| I'm Jewish, remember? The Tanakh doesn't include the New Testament. Sorry that my quoting of the Bible made you angry... |
That doesn't negate Soulfire's point that you're picking and choosing which laws to follow. You haven't stoned anyone who had sex before marriage recently, have you?
| guissmo wrote: |
| What exactly is the stand of the Church on homosexuality? Are they pro or against it? And what laws have they made regarding it? Can I get replies please? |
Wich church? Pro or against what? Wich church can make laws?? In sweden the churched (as far as i know) dont even discuss homosexuality anymore, more than trying to work out some sort of seremony for gay couples wanting to get married. I've got to friends that are married, oh and they are both priests in the swedish church, no one seems to have any problem with that..
In sweden the church has nothing to do with writing laws, and i sure as hell hope it's the same all over the world. Religion and government should never be mixed!
I've had a lot of realizations with Christianity lately, and it can be summed up very simply:
There are too many man made rules.
Jesus made it easy (I'm trying to use the word easy with caution) to get into Heaven.
Even if homosexuality is a sin (which I disagree), everyone sins. We all lie, we all cheat, we all steal, etc. Nobody is perfect, and nobody is expected to be perfect.
You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe, but personal beliefs cannot and should not take rights away from other people.
There are too many man made rules.
Jesus made it easy (I'm trying to use the word easy with caution) to get into Heaven.
Even if homosexuality is a sin (which I disagree), everyone sins. We all lie, we all cheat, we all steal, etc. Nobody is perfect, and nobody is expected to be perfect.
You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe, but personal beliefs cannot and should not take rights away from other people.
Wow!! Soulfire! That is the most enlightened post I have ever seen you make! Your consciousness has really broadened and become much richer since arriving here.
Now let me jump off the deep end and give my opinion, from studying demonic shamanistic traditions (I do not consider all shamanistic traditions demonic, only those that deny there is a Great Spirit), as well as a brief reference in the Bible which claims that evil sorcerers can change their gender. For those familiar with Carlos Castañeda, the evil sorcerer that start his lineage in 1723, was still in existence, and Carlos met him, but as a her! Carlos didn’t like the guy (shemale) at all and really wanted nothing to do with him/it. (The Art of Dreaming)
Let me add that most queens are not just gay men, in almost all cases they were sexually abused as a child. This produces a host of other problems as well, and this sort of thing can be passed on from generation to generation, as any abuse can, even though queens don’t have children (usually).
So this is my theory: I think that back when people knew sorcery better lots of queens could do this sort of thing and were strongly motivated to do so, but it is sort of part and parcel with soul selling, or rather it is a form of selling one’s soul.
I’m not saying the Old Testament’s approach is practical or rational, I’m just suggesting that it was a draconian response to a real dilemma that seemed otherwise intractable to them.
Now let me jump off the deep end and give my opinion, from studying demonic shamanistic traditions (I do not consider all shamanistic traditions demonic, only those that deny there is a Great Spirit), as well as a brief reference in the Bible which claims that evil sorcerers can change their gender. For those familiar with Carlos Castañeda, the evil sorcerer that start his lineage in 1723, was still in existence, and Carlos met him, but as a her! Carlos didn’t like the guy (shemale) at all and really wanted nothing to do with him/it. (The Art of Dreaming)
Let me add that most queens are not just gay men, in almost all cases they were sexually abused as a child. This produces a host of other problems as well, and this sort of thing can be passed on from generation to generation, as any abuse can, even though queens don’t have children (usually).
So this is my theory: I think that back when people knew sorcery better lots of queens could do this sort of thing and were strongly motivated to do so, but it is sort of part and parcel with soul selling, or rather it is a form of selling one’s soul.
I’m not saying the Old Testament’s approach is practical or rational, I’m just suggesting that it was a draconian response to a real dilemma that seemed otherwise intractable to them.
Most Biblically-based churches and religions are against homosexuality.'
I see it no different than the persecution black people went through, and still go through in some cases (except we're not putting queers in chains here; I'm comparing it to the effects of racism).
I personally do not believe that religion should dictate who we do and do not persecute. We need more open minds than raised swords against what a book deems sinful and "unnatural."
One more remark..
Yes, and they are losing quite a few churches because of it. I couldn't find the article I was reading something like two weeks ago, but I read the latest few churches having been placed under a new Anglican parish, speaking against the Episcopal Church's acceptance of gays and condemning others in that church. (I could look more in depth if anyone's actually interested or doesn't believe me)
The whole situation always reminds me of the movie "V for Vendetta." If religious conservatives rule the nations, it wouldn't surprise me if the situations described in that movie became true...
I see it no different than the persecution black people went through, and still go through in some cases (except we're not putting queers in chains here; I'm comparing it to the effects of racism).
I personally do not believe that religion should dictate who we do and do not persecute. We need more open minds than raised swords against what a book deems sinful and "unnatural."
One more remark..
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| The Episcopal Church is quite open and accepting of same sex unions. They even had (have?) a gay bishop. |
Yes, and they are losing quite a few churches because of it. I couldn't find the article I was reading something like two weeks ago, but I read the latest few churches having been placed under a new Anglican parish, speaking against the Episcopal Church's acceptance of gays and condemning others in that church. (I could look more in depth if anyone's actually interested or doesn't believe me)
The whole situation always reminds me of the movie "V for Vendetta." If religious conservatives rule the nations, it wouldn't surprise me if the situations described in that movie became true...
Hey, Juparis! I saw in a message months ago that you were converting from some other Lutheran denomination to LCMS, but that is a Lutheran denomination too, and it is pretty conservative as I understand it. Are you still in LCMS?
After my dialog with you I went to ChristianForums.com to test out the same arguments against other Christians, but I ended up doing a 180 and being the most conservative defender of Apostolic Tradition after I saw how it was under attack via anti-Catholic bigotry. I found the most incidious anti-Catholic bigot on the forum to be the one and only Lutheran, but I am strongly suspecting that there is something rotten in Denmark, and he wasn't a real Lutheran.
Do Lutherans have a virulently anti-Catholic bias that you are aware of?
After my dialog with you I went to ChristianForums.com to test out the same arguments against other Christians, but I ended up doing a 180 and being the most conservative defender of Apostolic Tradition after I saw how it was under attack via anti-Catholic bigotry. I found the most incidious anti-Catholic bigot on the forum to be the one and only Lutheran, but I am strongly suspecting that there is something rotten in Denmark, and he wasn't a real Lutheran.
Do Lutherans have a virulently anti-Catholic bias that you are aware of?
[quote=Deuc"]
Unfortunately it is not natural. No species can sustain itself on such acts. The union of a homosexual's penis with another homosexual's anus will not result in more of the species being produced. Nature is quite clearly "against" such an understanding.
[/quote]
What does the church or the bible say on the reasons why to have sex? Does it say you can only have sex to procreate and not only for the fun/lust/etc?
| Yantaal wrote: |
| it is justsio natural |
Unfortunately it is not natural. No species can sustain itself on such acts. The union of a homosexual's penis with another homosexual's anus will not result in more of the species being produced. Nature is quite clearly "against" such an understanding.
[/quote]
What does the church or the bible say on the reasons why to have sex? Does it say you can only have sex to procreate and not only for the fun/lust/etc?
If not making babies makes sex unnatural then I guess you have a problem with condums too? Or is it just a problem with anal sex? I think I missed the part where the Bible forbids anal sex? (This is not something limited to gays).
To Tuxy:
Certainly if you are looking for a "proof" verse such as "I the Lord say sex is only for procreation and thou shalt not smile while doing it." Imagined 4:12 just does not exist.
That being said, Jews and Christians believe that God has given human sexuality and the desire of man for woman and woman for man as an expression of Himself. Though I don't want to digress into the "imagio dei" here in this thread, let it be said that procreation, marriage, and such are all reflections of the communion and love in the Godhead.
Thus sex shouldn't be done only out of lust. For this is what leads so many down the wrong path. It is the same as acting out of greed or hatred. These are all negatives.
So sex is fine in many different forms and manners within certain boundaries established by God's Word (that is one man and one woman, must be married, etc.)
To Mike1reynolds:
I never said not making babies is unnatural. I merely stated that anal sex will never lead to reproduction and therefore homosexuals will never produce more homosexuals unless they happen to go against their own "natural" tendency and have heterosexual sex.
Thus said, any true godless evolutionist would clearly agree that this is not an "advance" or "constructive adaptation" but one that would only lead to the demise of a species. Or am I wrong and evolutionists agree that homosexuality is a good adaptation for a species?
BACK TO THE TOPIC:
I can not answer for the Church of England, though if they have gone the way of European Christianity, they are far removed from "historical" Christianity. Also, please note that I have not lifted this particular sin above any other. They are all wrong in the judgment of God. However, an entirely different topic is approached with the "how" society should deal with said issue.
Deuc
Certainly if you are looking for a "proof" verse such as "I the Lord say sex is only for procreation and thou shalt not smile while doing it." Imagined 4:12 just does not exist.
That being said, Jews and Christians believe that God has given human sexuality and the desire of man for woman and woman for man as an expression of Himself. Though I don't want to digress into the "imagio dei" here in this thread, let it be said that procreation, marriage, and such are all reflections of the communion and love in the Godhead.
Thus sex shouldn't be done only out of lust. For this is what leads so many down the wrong path. It is the same as acting out of greed or hatred. These are all negatives.
So sex is fine in many different forms and manners within certain boundaries established by God's Word (that is one man and one woman, must be married, etc.)
To Mike1reynolds:
I never said not making babies is unnatural. I merely stated that anal sex will never lead to reproduction and therefore homosexuals will never produce more homosexuals unless they happen to go against their own "natural" tendency and have heterosexual sex.
Thus said, any true godless evolutionist would clearly agree that this is not an "advance" or "constructive adaptation" but one that would only lead to the demise of a species. Or am I wrong and evolutionists agree that homosexuality is a good adaptation for a species?
BACK TO THE TOPIC:
I can not answer for the Church of England, though if they have gone the way of European Christianity, they are far removed from "historical" Christianity. Also, please note that I have not lifted this particular sin above any other. They are all wrong in the judgment of God. However, an entirely different topic is approached with the "how" society should deal with said issue.
Deuc
| Deuc wrote: |
| Thus said, any true godless evolutionist would clearly agree that this is not an "advance" or "constructive adaptation" but one that would only lead to the demise of a species. Or am I wrong and evolutionists agree that homosexuality is a good adaptation for a species?
|
Regards
Chris.
As far as I know, the curch belives that God manufactured everyone of us, to be HIS love partner, not as an individual, but as pair, a man and a woman. The reason is that the man and the woman, which are combined in the love completely, are nature of the God reflected. Since that we are each infinitely precious to the God. Then why we have unsettled desire opposite for the will of the God? It is, because ALL were carried by a Satanic descent. Consequently we must be reborn in descent of the God, which cut descent off, with which we were carried, and become part of the descent of God.
Sorry if i wasn't that clear. That's what I've learnt more or less. But I an a jew anyways...
Sorry if i wasn't that clear. That's what I've learnt more or less. But I an a jew anyways...
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
|
Yes, natural solution would only select against behaviours or traits that do nothing but lower the number of offspring that an individual of that species may potentially create. Homosexual behaviour does not preclude heterosexual behaviour, so homosexual behaviour itself won't be bred out as long as they also have heterosexual sex from time to time. You have dozens and dozens of behaviours that aren't breeding-related that you have inherited, but because they do not preclude breeding, you still have them.
On top of that, many aspects of homosexual behaviour do increase your breeding potential. In the same way that play prepares you for real life dangers by giving you practice on how to handle them, homosexual behaviour is "practicing" sex. In other words, if you have two male members of a species - one that mates only when females are present and one that mates all the time - the latter will be more likely to succeed when and if they are finally presented with a female to mate with. In addition, in cases where the male has reproduced, but the female has either left or been taken or killed, males that are willing to form relationships with other males are more likely to be able to protect their offspring while it matures than males that hold out for another female partner.
But that still seems to suggest that, at the least, bisexual behaviour gets passed on, but not homosexual. Not quite so. Consider a small population that gets segregated into two groups. The alpha of one group is a heterosexual male and the alpha of the other is a homosexual male. The alpha of group one, of course, collects all the females and vigorously fights off other males. The alpha of the other collects all the males (those that will accept homosexual coupling at least). So now, you're a female in this population. Where do you go? On the one hand you have a population with a ton of females and only one male - which presents a low chance of getting pregnant, and as a bonus means that if there's trouble, there's only one male to protect dozens of females. Unless you're a favourite, you're pretty much screwed. Or not screwed. You get the idea. On the other hand you have a population with a crapload of... males. As long as they don't run you away, your chance of breeding is incredibly high, and when trouble starts, wouldn't you want to be in the group with a dozen males rather than just one? Even if the males in the homosexual prefer other males, as long as they don't chase females away, the chances for a female to get caught up in the homosexual orgy and get pregnant are high. And so the "gay gene" gets passed on.
(Note that this also explains why women generally gravitate towards homosexual men, and vice versa. It also explains why heterosexual males would be so upset at homosexual males, even though homosexual males nominally increase the number of mates available for a heterosexual male (and thus should be seen as beneficial).)
So don't try to bring evolutionary theory into this as a means of rationalizing hate. Natural selection does not select against or for preferences, it selects based on actions. You can flame hotter than Richard Simmons for your entire life... but if you lay one member of the opposite sex during your entire fertile period, you have a chance of passing on the "gay gene" (if such a thing really existed).
They are totally against it and even say it is a disease you have to somehow treat.
| Coclus wrote: |
| They are totally against it and even say it is a disease you have to somehow treat. |
Unless you pin down what church you are talking about, your point is already proven false. Not all churches and not even all Christian churches believe what you are stating.
1) Actually, there is some evidence that homosexuality is a natural condition, but only as an intrinsic population control measure (some studies on rat overcrowding had rats turning gay, as well as turning more violent). So, not increasing the population is sort of the point 
...
2) "Which church" is a silly question: There is no church (read: denomination) that is 100% anti-gay (even Islam, which has arguably the most stringent when it comes to homosexuality, even allows for it). Even those that you would think would be against it the most, have sizable gay contigents...
HM
...
2) "Which church" is a silly question: There is no church (read: denomination) that is 100% anti-gay (even Islam, which has arguably the most stringent when it comes to homosexuality, even allows for it). Even those that you would think would be against it the most, have sizable gay contigents...
HM
In my opinion, sexuality is not a choice (though it can be influenced by the environment).
My logic is simple:
With today's discrimination against homosexuals, why would anyone choose to be as such?
Why would anyone give up a wife/husband and kids just to be homosexual?
And the like. That's not to say some people wouldn't do it to "be different", but still.
I still subscribe to the theory that God could've created homosexuality as a way to control the population.
So if it's not a choice, that leads me to believe it is from God - which is quite possible. I don't want to say the New Testament voids the Old Testament, but the NT certainly has (or should have) much more emphasis than the OT, and the NT doesn't speak of homosexuality.
Remember, Jesus forgave sins as well - so even if it is a sin, it can be forgiven just like all other sins.
None is pure: we all lie, we all cheat, we all steal, we all lust, etc. To place judgement on homosexuality is not only wrong, but it is against God and against the Bible. Save the judgement to God and live your life.
And remember, you're entitled to your beliefs - but your beliefs cannot interfere with the rights of others.
Sorry if I'm being redundant, but I really want to get this point across. Besides, isn't Christianity accepting and loving everyone? Jesus loved, even partied with the sinners He has forgiven.
My logic is simple:
With today's discrimination against homosexuals, why would anyone choose to be as such?
Why would anyone give up a wife/husband and kids just to be homosexual?
And the like. That's not to say some people wouldn't do it to "be different", but still.
I still subscribe to the theory that God could've created homosexuality as a way to control the population.
So if it's not a choice, that leads me to believe it is from God - which is quite possible. I don't want to say the New Testament voids the Old Testament, but the NT certainly has (or should have) much more emphasis than the OT, and the NT doesn't speak of homosexuality.
Remember, Jesus forgave sins as well - so even if it is a sin, it can be forgiven just like all other sins.
None is pure: we all lie, we all cheat, we all steal, we all lust, etc. To place judgement on homosexuality is not only wrong, but it is against God and against the Bible. Save the judgement to God and live your life.
And remember, you're entitled to your beliefs - but your beliefs cannot interfere with the rights of others.
Sorry if I'm being redundant, but I really want to get this point across. Besides, isn't Christianity accepting and loving everyone? Jesus loved, even partied with the sinners He has forgiven.
dang soulfire, I gotta agree with mike on this one. This new you doesn't make me cringe when I see your name 
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Did anybody consider that homosexuality could've been created by God as a means of population control? I mean, if everyone were heterosexual, the population would be growing even more rapidly than it is now.
Just a thought. |
It would be better to say that there are some groups that are manipulating people into thinking that gay and lesbian sexual unions are alright so as to control the population. Together with contraception and abortion, gay unions would help diminishing population among coloreds and races from the so-called third world.
Leave God out of the question. Homosexuality is a human creation.
| guissmo wrote: |
| What exactly is the stand of the Church on homosexuality? Are they pro or against it? And what laws have they made regarding it? Can I get replies please? |
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned I think that it has laid down its position in these lines from the Catechism:
| Quote: |
|
357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. |
Notice how the words "homosexual", "homosexuality" and "homosexual acts" are distinguished in these paragraphs.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| So if it's not a choice, that leads me to believe it is from God - which is quite possible. I don't want to say the New Testament voids the Old Testament, but the NT certainly has (or should have) much more emphasis than the OT, and the NT doesn't speak of homosexuality.
Remember, Jesus forgave sins as well - so even if it is a sin, it can be forgiven just like all other sins. None is pure: we all lie, we all cheat, we all steal, we all lust, etc. To place judgement on homosexuality is not only wrong, but it is against God and against the Bible. Save the judgement to God and live your life. And remember, you're entitled to your beliefs - but your beliefs cannot interfere with the rights of others. Sorry if I'm being redundant, but I really want to get this point across. Besides, isn't Christianity accepting and loving everyone? Jesus loved, even partied with the sinners He has forgiven. |
There are verses in the NT that state homosexuality is a sin.
Ro 1:27
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 recompence of their error which was meet.
I know there's another one, as soon as I find it, I'll post it for you.
As far as what church? I don't think that's the correct question. It should be what denominaition. There is only one "Church", those that follow the teachings of Christ.
| livilou wrote: |
| .....
As far as what church? I don't think that's the correct question. It should be what denominaition. There is only one "Church", those that follow the teachings of Christ. |
I guess I was using definition 2a below. I don't tend to think of "church" as being even strictly Christian (Church of Scientology, Native American Church, etc).
| Quote: |
| 1. A building for public, especially Christian worship.
2. often Church a. The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body. b. A specified Christian denomination: the Presbyterian Church. c. A congregation. |
On the quote from Romans, am I being dense or did that passage only state it was "unseemly", not sinful?
Last edited by HoboPelican on Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
| livilou wrote: |
| Ro 1:27
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 recompence of their error which was meet. |
That verse has nothing to do with homosexuality being wrong. Read the surrounding text. There is a sin that Paul is railing against... but it's not gay sex.
| Indi wrote: | ||
That verse has nothing to do with homosexuality being wrong. Read the surrounding text. There is a sin that Paul is railing against... but it's not gay sex. |
Actually there are several sins that are being shown here, homosexuality is just one of them though.
Ro 1:23
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Ro 1:24
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Ro 1:25
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Ro 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:
If man were supposed to be with man, and woman with woman, why is it stating that God gave them up to vile affections?
Yes, there are other sins listed, but you have to look at all of it as a whole. And I am.
Yep, Romans 1:27 did nothing for me. I barely see homosexuality in it at all.
Please, do continue telling us what's right and wrong (but wait, I thought God was the judge?)
Please, do continue telling us what's right and wrong (but wait, I thought God was the judge?)
| parokya wrote: |
|
Leave God out of the question. Homosexuality is a human creation. |
Here's the problem with this line of thinking. How do you go about explaining homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Surely you don't think that radical liberals are brainwashing sheep, dolphins, etc? Somehow that seems doubtful.
Another problem I have with some religious groups (fundamentalist Christians especially), is that they discount the fact that large parts of the bible were written by groups of people with limited technology, limited population, and limited health care. It was by far in their best interest to write about things that at the time made sense to grow their membership. To me, Leviticus reads like a textbook on how to make sure your population doesn't die out circa 1400 BC. That was the prime motivation for those laws. See some discharge from a Penis or Vagina? Oh then it must be some kind of disease, no salvation for you. Have too small a nose? Nope Sorry. IMO the large majority of religious groups currently view 99% of those laws as old fashioned and obsolete.
| livilou wrote: | ||||
Actually there are several sins that are being shown here, homosexuality is just one of them though. Ro 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Ro 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Ro 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Ro 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: If man were supposed to be with man, and woman with woman, why is it stating that God gave them up to vile affections? Yes, there are other sins listed, but you have to look at all of it as a whole. And I am. |
You didn't take it as a whole. You just started from a little further back up. Go further still and the answer is right there.
Starting from the beginning, verses 1-7 are the preamble, where Paul identifies himself and greets the people that he's writing to: "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:7 KJV)
Then, starting in verse 8, he starts kissing ass and buttering up his audience, and promising that one day he'll make it to come preach for them: "That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me." (Romans 1:12 KJV) This goes on until verse 16.
Then, finally in verse 17 he starts to get down to business. The next few verses, 17-23, outline who he is railing against:
| Romans 1:17-23 KJV wrote: |
| For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. |
And there it is right there, the real target of Paul's hate - and it's not gays at all.
And after Paul says who God hates, he goes on to say what God is doing about them:
| Romans 1:24-32 KJV wrote: |
| Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
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: 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 recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. |
Long story short - what did God do to the people who turned away from God? Nothing. He just let let them do whatever the hell they wanted. (Romans 2 then starts with telling the "good" Christians something along the lines of "but pay no attention to what they're doing, you just keep doing what you know is right", and it goes on from there.)
The message of Romans 1 is not that any of those things listed is wrong. The sin is turning away from God. Everything else described is just a laundry list of what people who turn away from God might do. It is a mistake in reading comprehension to link the listed behaviours to the original admonishment. For example, consider the following example:
"Drinking alcoholic beverages is a crime. People who drink alcoholic beverages are evil people. And when they get drunk, they go out to bars and dance badly and laugh too loudly at jokes that are not funny. They put on funny hats and usually end up throwing up in the bushes."
When you read that, do you get "laughing too loudly at jokes is a crime" out of it? What about "putting on funny hats is a crime"?
i should hope not, because there is only one crime mentioned in that entire paragraph - drinking alcoholic beverages. Any other crimes you read in there are comprehension errors.
Romans 1:17-32 essentially compact down to something very similar:
"God really hates people who know about God, but instead turn away to worship other things, specifically idols. But God just lets them go about their business, doing shameful things to their bodies and having lots of unnatural sex. Since they turned away from God, God turned away from them, and left them to be slaves to their lower natures. That's why they lie, cheat, break promises and generally act like jerks. Plus, they're stupid, too."
Note this very carefully: those verses do not say that God hates those things or people that do them... those verse say that God hates people that turn away from God, and that people who turn away from God tend to do those things. There is a big difference. Those things may be signs that a person has turned away from God, in the same way that throwing up in the bushes is a pretty good sign that someone drank alcohol... but the signs are not the crimes, the crimes are the crimes - which are drinking alcohol (in my example), and turning away from God (in Romans 1).
i'll give you some free advice: Paul's letters are not clearly written. In most of them he expects a very high level of comprehension skills by the reader, and he does not take into account the ways that his letters might be misread by people who aren't capable of that level of comprehension. It is very easy to misread Paul, and come to the wrong conclusions about what he is saying, so you have to extremely careful with anything Paul wrote. On top of that, the letters aren't designed to be read as a series of soundbite snippets. Taking a verse or three out - as was done here - can very easily lead to false conclusions. In fact, the fact that Paul's letters are replies means that often we're not exactly sure what he's replying to. In a few cases, we have what looks like an answer... but we don't have the question. That can make interpreting what he's saying difficult.
Of course, i am well aware that many people here think that atheists are scum, and untrustworthy of anything religious - so i'm sure some might argue that i'm just trying to cloud Christianity by throwing doubt on Paul. Alright, fine. i don't care what anyone thinks of me, and if you want to reject what i say outright just because i'm an atheist, feel free.
But if you're going to ignore me, you might want to consider this guy's warning about the dangers of misinterpreting Paul instead:
| 2 Peter 3:15-17 (KJV) wrote: |
| And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. |
But that's my point. Because of the ungodliness and the way they were living, they were turned over to a reprobate mind. The things that follow are from that mindset. So, if the mindset is wrong, the the actions listed below that are wrong as well.
I also feel as if I'm interpreting this correctly.
Plus I'll never ignore you. I might not agree with you, but I'll never ignore you.
I also feel as if I'm interpreting this correctly.
Plus I'll never ignore you. I might not agree with you, but I'll never ignore you.
| livilou wrote: |
| But that's my point. Because of the ungodliness and the way they were living, they were turned over to a reprobate mind. The things that follow are from that mindset. So, if the mindset is wrong, the the actions listed below that are wrong as well. |
That doesn't follow. The things that follow from something that is evil are not necessarily evil.
Robbing a store is wrong. The actions that follow from robbing a store including running away with an armfull of money, and wearing a ski mask. Neither wearing a ski mask nor running with an armfull of money is wrong, only robbing the store is wrong.
Or, consider this. Imagine i wanted to launder a ton of drug money, and one of the things i did to launder the money was finance the building of a hospital and/or church. Now, clearly, the mindset that caused the action was evil. But are the actions evil? Of course not. Building a hospital isn't evil, is it? But it is an action that follows from an evil mindset, so by your definition, it must be evil to build a hospital. Does that make sense?
i say no. i say that it's quite clear that what is evil is the mindset only. The actions that follow from the mindset are not necessarily evil. Yes, they could be evil - for example, another thing that might follow from robbing the store is a carjacking, which is evil - but they don't have to be evil just because they follow from the evil mindset.
(Besides, if what Paul writes is true, then God is causing them to do those things. How can they possibly be blamed for doing something God specifically set them up to do?)
| livilou wrote: |
| Plus I'll never ignore you. I might not agree with you, but I'll never ignore you. |
i wasn't referring to you specifically, but in recent weeks i have suffered a barrage of abuse by those who claim to be morally/intellectually superior because they believe in gods while i do not. One of them just made animal noises at me to mock me in what i can only assume must be a morally/intellectually superior manner of mocking someone. A couple of them have made numerous vitriolic, hate-filled posts talking about the evils of atheism and atheists. Except for other atheists, no-one - not a single person - has stepped up to denounce the bigotry. Given that, i find myself forced to believe that the general consensus is that people agree with the idea that atheists are closed-minded, lying fools whose only goal in life is to refute religion. Hence, i no longer think it's reasonable to believe that i'm going to be taken seriously, because i'm an atheist. And for that reason, i don't bother to try. Instead, i'll let Peter do the talking, in this case.
1) Morality/Actions: I agree with you, Indi, in general. I'd just question if the equivalency is a bit too close; if you rob a number of people in order to save one life, does saving that life really count as a good act, or is it tainted by the act of where the money came from?
2) Indi: If you feel under attack, you're not. You're just forcing a number of us to be really defensive. You're coming on a bit too strong, and that causes extreme defensive measures, which causes you to ramp up your attack, and the increases the defensive manuevering. Lighten up a bit...
HM
2) Indi: If you feel under attack, you're not. You're just forcing a number of us to be really defensive. You're coming on a bit too strong, and that causes extreme defensive measures, which causes you to ramp up your attack, and the increases the defensive manuevering. Lighten up a bit...
HM
| Indi wrote: |
| ... One of them just made animal noises at me to mock me in what i can only assume must be a morally/intellectually superior manner of mocking someone. A couple of them have made numerous vitriolic, hate-filled posts talking about the evils of atheism and atheists. .... |
Indi (and everyone else for that matter),
If that was happening on Frihost, did you report those posts to a Mod? We try very hard to keep that sort of thing off these forums, but if we miss some, we do encourage the users to report them. Those sort of posts don't only affect the person they are directed against, but can inhibit others from posting. Please, PM me or another Mod with links to those posts (or simply the username and topic) if you haven't already.
| Indi wrote: |
| Or, consider this. Imagine i wanted to launder a ton of drug money, and one of the things i did to launder the money was finance the building of a hospital and/or church. Now, clearly, the mindset that caused the action was evil. But are the actions evil? Of course not. Building a hospital isn't evil, is it? But it is an action that follows from an evil mindset, so by your definition, it must be evil to build a hospital. Does that make sense? |
- The hospital is good
- The building of the hospital was good
- The motivation for building the hospital was bad
- Therefore the act of funding the building of that hospital was bad for that individual, the hospital is still good for most people.
Note:This only applies if you consider God/gods to be a/many personal god(s) who is/are interested in the lives of individual humans. Otherwise this "relative" morality doesn't apply and building a hospital is good no matter what the motivation.
Second note: This is my personal belief and may not apply to others (including other Christians), and you should feel free to attack it in any way you see fit.
| Montressor wrote: | ||
|
Which means...
- Denying God is evil.
(Laundering money is evil.)
- Having homosexual sex while denying God is evil.
(Building hospitials while laundering money evil.)
- But homosexual acts are not necessarily in themselves evil. (Although homosexual acts while denying God are.)
(But building hospitials is not necessarily in itself evil. (Although building hospitals while laundering money is.))
Which is exactly my point.
The sin is clearly denying God. It's stated explicitly as such. And it is the denying God that makes all the other stuff listed bad... not the things in and of themselves.
Just like the crime is clearly laundering money. It is the crime of the laundered money that makes the other stuff that follows from it - building hospitals - bad. But building hospitals isn't bad in and of itself.
In other words, you can't read Romans 1 and get that homosexual acts are evil out of it. The only thing it says is evil is denying God. That's exactly what i was saying in that bit you quoted above. If you get that homosexual acts are evil out of Romans 1, then you must also get that building hospitals is evil out of what i wrote - because they are exactly the same text with "laundering money" substituted for "denying God", and "building hospitals" substituted for "having gay sex". If it's clear in my example, it should be just as clear in Romans - once you have it paraphrased in plain English maybe.
Does God hate people who have homosexual sex, or "whisperers" (Romans 1:29 (KJV))? Maybe, maybe not. You can't tell from Romans 1. The form of the text is like this:
Fooing is evil. People who foo then may go on to do things like bazzing.
Is "bazzing" evil? It's impossible to say from that text. If "fooing" is doing lots of hard drugs and "bazzing" is stealing money, they yes, "bazzing" is evil. But if "fooing" is doing lots of hard drugs and "bazzing" is throwing up, then no, "bazzing" is not evil. There's no way to determine whether "bazzing" is evil or not from that text.
If "fooing" is "laundering money", and "bazzing" is "building hospitals", you obviously can't conclude that building hosptials is wrong.
And if "fooing" is "denying God" and "bazzing" is "having gay sex"...?
The only way to determine that "bazzing"/"having gay sex" is evil from that is if you believed already before reading it. You can't get it from Romans 1.
| Montressor wrote: |
| Note:This only applies if you consider God/gods to be a/many personal god(s) who is/are interested in the lives of individual humans. Otherwise this "relative" morality doesn't apply and building a hospital is good no matter what the motivation. |
i think it's safe to assume that if someone is using Romans 1 to determine whether or not gay sex may or may not be evil, they are considering that the opinion of a personal God is relevant in the decision.
But this is not a matter of moral relativity. Not all acts are moral or immoral. Some are amoral. For example, is yawning moral? Is it immoral to yawn? Obviously yawning is neither moral nor immoral - it is amoral.
However!
Consider someone who yawns in order to distract someone while someone else shoplifts. Is yawning immoral now? No... but that yawn was immoral because of the immoral act of shoplifting that it was linked to. In fact, you may go so far as to say that any yawn that occurs to cover up any crime is immoral... but that doesn't make yawning immoral. Yawning is still amoral.
Now, consider homosexual acts. Are they moral or immoral? i dunno. They may be amoral. Romans 1 says that any homosexual acts that occur in the process of denying God are immoral... but that doesn't make homosexual acts in general immoral. Homosexual acts may still be amoral.
| HoboPelican wrote: | ||
Indi (and everyone else for that matter), If that was happening on Frihost, did you report those posts to a Mod? We try very hard to keep that sort of thing off these forums, but if we miss some, we do encourage the users to report them. Those sort of posts don't only affect the person they are directed against, but can inhibit others from posting. Please, PM me or another Mod with links to those posts (or simply the username and topic) if you haven't already. |
You've gotta be kidding me. -_- This is not one post or two posts, and it's not just one or two people. This is a long-term and still-running campaign of hate. It's hundreds of posts. i'd be reporting two or three posts a day if i actually bothered to do that. Even if i only reported the posts directed at me specifically, it would still be a couple a week easy. i mean, look:
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 2) Indi: If you feel under attack, you're not. You're just forcing a number of us to be really defensive. You're coming on a bit too strong, and that causes extreme defensive measures, which causes you to ramp up your attack, and the increases the defensive manuevering. Lighten up a bit... |
Apparently, not only was it not really an attack on me personally or atheists in general... it was my fault that i was barked at (or mooed at or whatever it was)! And, presumably, it is all atheists' faults that they were called "religious bigots... and racists, too". Go figure.
So no, i can't be bothered. i just ignore the worst offenders (or at most, when they claim moral superiority, i offer their own quotes back at them as evidence against). If there is someone who is being intimidated into remaining silent, let them speak for themselves - by talking to a mod or whatever they want to do. Myself, i don't really see the point.
| Indi wrote: | ||
Apparently, not only was it not really an attack on me personally or atheists in general... it was my fault that i was barked at (or mooed at or whatever it was)! And, presumably, it is all atheists' faults that they were called "religious bigots... and racists, too". Go figure. |
Nope...the remark was meant for just you...I respect any religion, even atheism, because I recognize that not any one religion has a monopoly on truth, and it's interesting to combine perspectives.
That said, I hate backing you up, but, yeah: Motivation needs to be considered when an action is considered. This is recognized even in legal issues, where self-defense and crimes of passion are treated differently than murder. If it applies legally, then why not philosophically?
HM
| Indi wrote: |
Which means...
Which is exactly my point. The sin is clearly denying God. It's stated explicitly as such. And it is the denying God that makes all the other stuff listed bad... not the things in and of themselves. |
Precisely, since sin (as defined by the Bible) is going against the will of God. It logically follows that perhaps the specific bad thing has very little to do with whether or not it was a sin, the only absolute definition of sin (according to a Christian standpoint) is going against the will of God. If a specific act that is specifically detailed as against the will of God in the Bible, then it is definitely against the will of God. Otherwise a person has to let his or her conscience (the Spirit) guide them, and if they commit an act that they feel is sin, then it is, because they were directly going against what they (at least) though was the will of God. In other words, they sinned because of the motivation of their actions, not the actions themselves.
If a person feels that homosexual behavior is a sin, then it is most definitely as sin for them to engage in homosexual behavior because they do so consciously in defiance of God.
Now as to whether or not the Bible definitively labels homosexual acts a sin, I have not studied specific passages enough to know, but since I consider (in my conscience) it to be a sin, then doing so would be a sin for me. But since I cannot back up my feeling with any absolute truth, then I am willing to tolerate and accept others who do not share the same belief. That is not to say that I will not endeavor to share with them my convictions and "convert" them, but that I would not hold it dogmatically as a requirement for salvation. If, however, I find Biblical proof to back my belief, then I would actively seek (only if this person claims to be a Christian, and is willing to hear what I have to say) to show them what I've found.
| Indi wrote: | ||
Apparently, not only was it not really an attack on me personally or atheists in general... it was my fault that i was barked at (or mooed at or whatever it was)! And, presumably, it is all atheists' faults that they were called "religious bigots... and racists, too". Go figure. So no, i can't be bothered. i just ignore the worst offenders (or at most, when they claim moral superiority, i offer their own quotes back at them as evidence against). If there is someone who is being intimidated into remaining silent, let them speak for themselves - by talking to a mod or whatever they want to do. Myself, i don't really see the point. |
Well, if that is an example the campaign of hate attacks against you, I'll let it go. In fact, I find that quite benign and polite. Case closed.
Alright, so here is a bit of my story:
I believe that the Bible is morally authoritative. I believe that sex is for marriage, and promiscuity is harmful to everyone involved. I used to believe that any and all homosexual behavior was wrong - whether it be a one-night hookup, or a committed and monogamous relationship. But after reading the Bible further, my views have started to change.
There's two ways to go with it:
Traditional view (Gays are called to celibacy)
Reformed view (Homosexual relations within a Christ-centered relationship are okay)
And my views have been shifting towards the Reformed view, the reason being is that, in my opinion, the Traditional view focuses more on independent verses and their context versus the entire Bible as a whole, which is where I have arrived at the Reformed view... The Reformed view takes the entire Bible into account, and not just one or two literal verses.
Some popular arguments (and my attempt to refute them):
Argument 1: Our bodies were made for heterosexuality.
The popular "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument.
I am in agreement there. God definately had heterosexuality in mind when He created Humans, but just because God designed our bodies to act in one way doesn't necessarily mean they can't act in other ways.
God created our ears, eyes, and mouths to communicate. But some people are deaf, maybe because they were born that way or maybe because of something that happened to them. Either way, they can't communicate the way the rest of us do, so they have to improvise with what they have. Most deaf people today use sign language to communicate, and even though that's not what our hands were designed for, it gets the job done. None of us would call that "sinful."
Argument 2: Sex is for procreation only
In the logic of this argument, then anal sex (heterosexually or homosexuality), oral sex (heterosexually or homosexually), and vaginal sex with a condom are all forbidden by God. Conservative Catholics (unlike myself) stick to this view, and it is an idea rejected by most Protestants.
The fact of the matter is God never says sex is only for procreation, and makes it clear that sex can be used for other things:
It forms a bond between people (1 Cor. 6:16)
It is a marital responsibility (1 Cor. 7:3-5)
Most couples have sex without conception, whether intentional or not, so what they are doing is wrong as well. This also includes people who are born or develop sterility. Then they are wrong as well.
Argument 3: Sex is for marriage, and there are no same-sex marriages in the Bible
I agree that sex is for marriage, a committed, and monogamous relationship. Whether we like it or not, sex forms a bond with others, and that bond is difficult if not impossible to break. When people have sex without a commitment, it can take quite an emotional and psychological toll once the relationship ends.
And yes, it's true that there are no same-sex marriages in the Bible. But that's what we'd expect anyway. Same-sex marriages weren't a part of the cultures in which the Bible was written, so obviously we wouldn't expect to see stories of men and women with same-sex partners.
In ancient Israel especially, marriage was as much about inheritance rights as anything, which resulted in such bizarre practices as levirate marriage (where men were required to take a dead brother's wife and produce heirs for him - Deut. 25:5-6; Gen. 38:8) and God-ordained polygamy (Exodus 21:10-11; 2 Sam. 12:7-8). Even more shocking, a master could buy wives for his male slaves and then keep the wife and kids for himself after setting the slave free (Exodus 21:2-4), and women were forced to marry their rapists (Deut. 22:28-29). There's a lot more that could be said about these practices and the rationales behind them, but that would be a bit off-topic. The point is this: Biblical examples of marriage reflect the culture both in what they include and what they do not.
Many things aren't mentioned in the Bible, either because they weren't part of the culture at that time (e.g. computer porn) or because they weren't especially important issues to the Biblical authors (e.g. masturbation). In cases like these, we use general Biblical principles to address the issue, relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance
I believe that the Bible is morally authoritative. I believe that sex is for marriage, and promiscuity is harmful to everyone involved. I used to believe that any and all homosexual behavior was wrong - whether it be a one-night hookup, or a committed and monogamous relationship. But after reading the Bible further, my views have started to change.
There's two ways to go with it:
Traditional view (Gays are called to celibacy)
Reformed view (Homosexual relations within a Christ-centered relationship are okay)
And my views have been shifting towards the Reformed view, the reason being is that, in my opinion, the Traditional view focuses more on independent verses and their context versus the entire Bible as a whole, which is where I have arrived at the Reformed view... The Reformed view takes the entire Bible into account, and not just one or two literal verses.
Some popular arguments (and my attempt to refute them):
Argument 1: Our bodies were made for heterosexuality.
The popular "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument.
I am in agreement there. God definately had heterosexuality in mind when He created Humans, but just because God designed our bodies to act in one way doesn't necessarily mean they can't act in other ways.
God created our ears, eyes, and mouths to communicate. But some people are deaf, maybe because they were born that way or maybe because of something that happened to them. Either way, they can't communicate the way the rest of us do, so they have to improvise with what they have. Most deaf people today use sign language to communicate, and even though that's not what our hands were designed for, it gets the job done. None of us would call that "sinful."
Argument 2: Sex is for procreation only
In the logic of this argument, then anal sex (heterosexually or homosexuality), oral sex (heterosexually or homosexually), and vaginal sex with a condom are all forbidden by God. Conservative Catholics (unlike myself) stick to this view, and it is an idea rejected by most Protestants.
The fact of the matter is God never says sex is only for procreation, and makes it clear that sex can be used for other things:
It forms a bond between people (1 Cor. 6:16)
It is a marital responsibility (1 Cor. 7:3-5)
Most couples have sex without conception, whether intentional or not, so what they are doing is wrong as well. This also includes people who are born or develop sterility. Then they are wrong as well.
Argument 3: Sex is for marriage, and there are no same-sex marriages in the Bible
I agree that sex is for marriage, a committed, and monogamous relationship. Whether we like it or not, sex forms a bond with others, and that bond is difficult if not impossible to break. When people have sex without a commitment, it can take quite an emotional and psychological toll once the relationship ends.
And yes, it's true that there are no same-sex marriages in the Bible. But that's what we'd expect anyway. Same-sex marriages weren't a part of the cultures in which the Bible was written, so obviously we wouldn't expect to see stories of men and women with same-sex partners.
In ancient Israel especially, marriage was as much about inheritance rights as anything, which resulted in such bizarre practices as levirate marriage (where men were required to take a dead brother's wife and produce heirs for him - Deut. 25:5-6; Gen. 38:8) and God-ordained polygamy (Exodus 21:10-11; 2 Sam. 12:7-8). Even more shocking, a master could buy wives for his male slaves and then keep the wife and kids for himself after setting the slave free (Exodus 21:2-4), and women were forced to marry their rapists (Deut. 22:28-29). There's a lot more that could be said about these practices and the rationales behind them, but that would be a bit off-topic. The point is this: Biblical examples of marriage reflect the culture both in what they include and what they do not.
Many things aren't mentioned in the Bible, either because they weren't part of the culture at that time (e.g. computer porn) or because they weren't especially important issues to the Biblical authors (e.g. masturbation). In cases like these, we use general Biblical principles to address the issue, relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance
| guissmo wrote: |
| What exactly is the stand of the Church on homosexuality? Are they pro or against it? And what laws have they made regarding it? Can I get replies please? |
The Catholic Church is not against people who are Homosexual. The Church loves them, just as Christ loves all of us who are tempted to sin. ...Even loving us despite sin. ...The Church deplores homosexual acts though, as the Church believes them to be sinful, and offensive to God. At the same time, it is there to be a haven for those who are trying to stop sin, and live a Christian life. So... ...despite the hatred for the acts, it is quite accepting of homosexuality. ...Just not the sins that would likely accompany it.
...Yeah, I know that sounds wierd, but the same thing can be said about heterosexual sex outside of marriage.
This is all out of context, the Romans and Greeks had straight men screwing each other, not just gays. THAT is the issue, in my opinion.
I think that it is just as morally degrading and disturbing for a gay man to try and pretend to be straight as for a straight man to engage in gay sex. You have to accept the form that God gave you, and whether it is gay or straight, that is simply the way God made us.
Women are basically bi, even if it is latent, but men are hard-wired to be one way or the other. It is BISEXUALITY in men that is the real "sin" (read, morally harmful to the self). It is a violation of male instinctual impulses that is almost always a product of childhood sexual abuse.
I think that it is just as morally degrading and disturbing for a gay man to try and pretend to be straight as for a straight man to engage in gay sex. You have to accept the form that God gave you, and whether it is gay or straight, that is simply the way God made us.
Women are basically bi, even if it is latent, but men are hard-wired to be one way or the other. It is BISEXUALITY in men that is the real "sin" (read, morally harmful to the self). It is a violation of male instinctual impulses that is almost always a product of childhood sexual abuse.
| Montressor wrote: |
| Precisely, since sin (as defined by the Bible) is going against the will of God. It logically follows that perhaps the specific bad thing has very little to do with whether or not it was a sin, the only absolute definition of sin (according to a Christian standpoint) is going against the will of God. If a specific act that is specifically detailed as against the will of God in the Bible, then it is definitely against the will of God. Otherwise a person has to let his or her conscience (the Spirit) guide them, and if they commit an act that they feel is sin, then it is, because they were directly going against what they (at least) though was the will of God. In other words, they sinned because of the motivation of their actions, not the actions themselves.
If a person feels that homosexual behavior is a sin, then it is most definitely as sin for them to engage in homosexual behavior because they do so consciously in defiance of God. Now as to whether or not the Bible definitively labels homosexual acts a sin, I have not studied specific passages enough to know, but since I consider (in my conscience) it to be a sin, then doing so would be a sin for me. But since I cannot back up my feeling with any absolute truth, then I am willing to tolerate and accept others who do not share the same belief. That is not to say that I will not endeavor to share with them my convictions and "convert" them, but that I would not hold it dogmatically as a requirement for salvation. If, however, I find Biblical proof to back my belief, then I would actively seek (only if this person claims to be a Christian, and is willing to hear what I have to say) to show them what I've found. |
All true. You can't determine that God hates homosexuals or homosexuality by Romans 1... but you can't determine that he doesn't. Other evidence is needed. From the perspective of evidence for God's view of homosexuality, Romans 1 is a weak case indeed - if one can even go so far as to call it a case.
| HoboPelican wrote: | ||||
Well, if that is an example the campaign of hate attacks against you, I'll let it go. In fact, I find that quite benign and polite. Case closed. |
Riiiigh. -_-; And if that were actually an example of the campaign of hate attacks against atheists (not just me personally), i would obviously be a little silly and unreasonable, because it's quite clearly not.
And shockingly enough, i never said it was - what i said was that it was an example of the thinking that allows these attacks to exist: evidence that some believe that it's somehow ok to berate people and/or their beliefs simply because they "had it coming" or they "asked for it"... or in that specific case, because they "forced us to do it". Surely you don't think that's a valid justification, do you? If a gay man trod on my foot, does that give me the right to call him a "f**cking f**got"? If you accept the defence posted by HereticMonkey above as valid, then you think it's ok for me to do that.
i don't. i believe that abuse and hate-speech is wrong under all circumstances. If that's not the morality that Frihost operates under, then i must have misinterpreted the rules. Was there an implicit "unless they deserve it" after the rule not to insult or harass people or groups?
...
Furthermore, it baffles me how after i had explicitly stated that i was not going to be reporting anything (because i didn't think it was worth the effort - which, given the "results"...) - in the very text you quoted - you somehow determined that i was reporting something. Sometimes i wonder if i'm the only person here who attempts to determine what people believe or what their point is based on what they actually say, rather than simply assuming what they mean and then insulting them for it. But alright, i'm not a fool. i learn quickly. Clearly if i ever were to consider it worthwhile to file a report, the proper thing to do must be to say exactly the opposite to what i am reporting.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Riiiigh. -_-; And if that were actually an example of the campaign of hate attacks against atheists (not just me personally), i would obviously be a little silly and unreasonable, because it's quite clearly not. And shockingly enough, i never said it was - what i said was that it was an example of the thinking that allows these attacks to exist: evidence that some believe that it's somehow ok to berate people and/or their beliefs simply because they "had it coming" or they "asked for it"... or in that specific case, because they "forced us to do it". Surely you don't think that's a valid justification, do you? If a gay man trod on my foot, does that give me the right to call him a "f**cking f**got"? If you accept the defence posted by HereticMonkey above as valid, then you think it's ok for me to do that. i don't. i believe that abuse and hate-speech is wrong under all circumstances. If that's not the morality that Frihost operates under, then i must have misinterpreted the rules. Was there an implicit "unless they deserve it" after the rule not to insult or harass people or groups? ... Furthermore, it baffles me how after i had explicitly stated that i was not going to be reporting anything (because i didn't think it was worth the effort - which, given the "results"...) - in the very text you quoted - you somehow determined that i was reporting something. Sometimes i wonder if i'm the only person here who attempts to determine what people believe or what their point is based on what they actually say, rather than simply assuming what they mean and then insulting them for it. But alright, i'm not a fool. i learn quickly. Clearly if i ever were to consider it worthwhile to file a report, the proper thing to do must be to say exactly the opposite to what i am reporting. |
Indi,
I also think that any sort of abuse or hate mongering is wrong, in general and here in particular. But, the moderators can't see everything here and that is why I asked you to report it. If you don't tell us, we can't do anything about it. The fact that you won't report it makes me think that it doesn't really exist or is exaggerated. If I am wrong, please show us. If you won't do it for yourself, do it for the other people that will be attacked by them or will feel nervous about joining the conversation because of those attacks. Take a deep breath, Indi, and do the right thing.
I am now going to report myself for hijacking a topic, but your rant needed a public reply. If you want to continue this, I suggest a new topic. Maybe "Ignorant Moderator" and you can use me as an example.
*sigh*.....now I remember why I stopped posting to this particular forum.
I know I entered this late, but I will not hesitate in fear of action of my superiors to close and lock ANY "Ignorant Moderator" topic.
We (members and staff alike) are entitled to our opinions in any given forum, but I wish to point out the the Staff is here by invitation and works voluntarily, and as such should be granted a certain degree of respect, we are not just here for free hosting nor a platform for our opinions. If you have a complaint about any staff members actions or inaction....lodge a formal complaint. We can be banned also.
I know I entered this late, but I will not hesitate in fear of action of my superiors to close and lock ANY "Ignorant Moderator" topic.
We (members and staff alike) are entitled to our opinions in any given forum, but I wish to point out the the Staff is here by invitation and works voluntarily, and as such should be granted a certain degree of respect, we are not just here for free hosting nor a platform for our opinions. If you have a complaint about any staff members actions or inaction....lodge a formal complaint. We can be banned also.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| *sigh*.....now I remember why I stopped posting to this particular forum.
I know I entered this late, but I will not hesitate in fear of action of my superiors to close and lock ANY "Ignorant Moderator" topic. We (members and staff alike) are entitled to our opinions in any given forum, but I wish to point out the the Staff is here by invitation and works voluntarily, and as such should be granted a certain degree of respect, we are not just here for free hosting nor a platform for our opinions. If you have a complaint about any staff members actions or inaction....lodge a formal complaint. We can be banned also. |
As i already explained, both above and in private:
- If i had something to report, i would do so. i thought stating that i don't see the point of making a report for that matter, and couldn't be bothered, made it clear enough that i had no intention of reporting anything. But somehow, an imaginary report got made in my name and dismissed without my knowlege or consent. That is not cool. What if it hadn't been summarily dismissed and someone had actually been banned for that report i never made?
- If i thought any moderator was being ignorant, i would first discuss it with them in private, and if that didn't resolve the issue i would take it to another mod. But i wasn't the one who thought the moderator was being ignorant in this case, the moderator was (or at least said he did).
- Everyone deserves respect, not just moderators.
@Indi
I agree with you totally that everyone desreves a certain amount of respect...untill they prove otherwise.
From what my limited access has been able to glean, no reports have been submitted under your nick falsely.
I agree with you totally that everyone desreves a certain amount of respect...untill they prove otherwise.
From what my limited access has been able to glean, no reports have been submitted under your nick falsely.
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
Homosexuality is sinful ONLY when practiced in the physical act. It is fine to be gay as long as you refran from gay sex. |
I didn't actually know that. Is that the Catholic church, or most right to moderate politically viewing churches?
| Soulfire wrote: |
| I've had a lot of realizations with Christianity lately, and it can be summed up very simply:
There are too many man made rules. Jesus made it easy (I'm trying to use the word easy with caution) to get into Heaven. Even if homosexuality is a sin (which I disagree), everyone sins. We all lie, we all cheat, we all steal, etc. Nobody is perfect, and nobody is expected to be perfect. You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe, but personal beliefs cannot and should not take rights away from other people. |
I couldn't agree more with this. Very well said, and very true.
| kevbailey wrote: | ||
I didn't actually know that. Is that the Catholic church, or most right to moderate politically viewing churches? |
Sorry - to be clear I was talking about the position of the Church of England.
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately it is not natural. No species can sustain itself on such acts. The union of a homosexual's penis with another homosexual's anus will not result in more of the species being produced. Nature is quite clearly "against" such an understanding. |
Just because you can't reprouce with someone of the same sex doesn't mean it doesn't happen or isn't natural.
Dolphins had homosexual sex, heterosexual sex, and even sex with multiple partners.
Hell, I've seen two males dogs have sex. So even though it happens with almost all species, it's not natural to have homosexual sex?
And here's another question - Why do people find sex between males so horrible and sex between females "alright"? Do you think the circumstances are any different other than the gender? Because it's not.
The whole issue of what is 'natural' is itself an artificial debate, unless it is suggested that mankind is unnatural. The specific issue here has been dealt with before - homosexual copulation is observed in the 'natural' world in many species. The most striking example is that of the Bonobo (pigmy chimps) but there are many other examples.
 |