Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Christians - what is your opinion about homosexuality?

miplank said:
Prove it

Both parts
Click to expand...

The word homosexual was translated from the Greek 'arsenokoites'. It's pretty much a made up word and appears nowhere besides twice in the writings of Paul.

Because people think the word was formed by merging the Greek words for "man" and "bed", some people like to infer some type of romantic love between men onto the meaning of the word. It really makes no sense though that he'd make up a word with such a meaning, considering Greek tradition had a few words for homosexual acts and romantic love between men, so there would've been no reason to make one up.
 
EarthRider said:
Most theologians would disagree with you. They studied all day, there whole lives. Now your claiming to know what the Bible "actually says". What if you have changed the scriptures to say what your agenda is. I mean you can't deny the fact NT talks about same sex relationships not being ok. Now do I claim they will go to hell, I sure hope not. I wish nobody goes to hell, not a great place.
Click to expand...

*their
*you're
 
DJLegacy2k1 said:
Hmmmm odd, I have never once heard a single pastor, minister, pope, alter boy, choir member, or anyone every say that the bible says being a homo is ok. But i guess some of you are just much better at understanding god than ANY OF THEM.

But, yeah whatever, thanks for clearing up what no one devout christian has before...

Hey everyone, god says its cool to be a fag! So Pick3, your safe!
Click to expand...

Hmm...You know what i have heard alot of pastors and ministers say? Give your 10% to the church.....

(so they can drive a cadillac and wear a rolex)

your questionable because "so and so" say it's true, which is meaningless in itself, doesn't serve as any type of argument.
 
EarthRider said:
lol, name one not part of emergent church
Click to expand...

I don't need to name one. I'm sure Google can give you thousands of pages saying what I'm saying. I'm not making this shit up as I go, but thanks for giving me so much credit.

And about your previous posts, any comment I've had about an anti-gay NT quote, has been a factual problem with it, like a word actually not meaning what the English translation says. Not once have I said "oh, I just personally don't interpret it to mean that"
 
The greeks and romans regularly practiced homosexuality....practically to the point of embracing it. Saturnalia? Probably almost as gay as the rainbow

I'm guessing the anti homosexual movement gained steam much later on in history.
 
calveless wonder said:
Hmm...You know what i have heard alot of pastors and ministers say? Give your 10% to the church.....

(so they can drive a cadillac and wear a rolex)

your questionable because "so and so" say it's true, which is meaningless in itself, doesn't serve as any type of argument.
Click to expand...

That isnt the point, my statement wasnt a statement of proof, it was just an observation. So no need to jump my shit over a single comment within a half assed debate in which NO ONE has produced any facts.
 
calveless wonder said:
The greeks and romans regularly practiced homosexuality....practically to the point of embracing it. Saturnalia? Probably almost as gay as the rainbow

I'm guessing the anti homosexual movement gained steam much later on in history.
Click to expand...

Most people look at that time frame as some of the most sinful of all history. Also because the Greeks mainly worshiped multiple gods which were not a part of Christianity. Obviously this would lead most people to see that most of what they took part in was all sinful.
 
calveless wonder said:
Hmm...You know what i have heard alot of pastors and ministers say? Give your 10% to the church.....

(so they can drive a cadillac and wear a rolex)

your questionable because "so and so" say it's true, which is meaningless in itself, doesn't serve as any type of argument.
Click to expand...

It is sad there are some churchs that are bad apples. They use God's name to get people to give lots of money so they can buy nice cars and suits all for the cause of Christ.

This is why I am careful when we look for a church. We look for a place involved in giving back to community, and to the world. Right now we are building a home for a single mom and her kids. Awesome if you ask me. So yeah, there are some bad churchs, but I found a great one.
 
AFeedz said:
I don't need to name one. I'm sure Google can give you thousands of pages saying what I'm saying. I'm not making this shit up as I go, but thanks for giving me so much credit.

And about your previous posts, any comment I've had about an anti-gay NT quote, has been a factual problem with it, like a word actually not meaning what the English translation says. Not once have I said "oh, I just personally don't interpret it to mean that"
Click to expand...

well if you try hard enough, I guess you can prove red is really green also. Just saying
 
calveless wonder said:
The greeks and romans regularly practiced homosexuality....practically to the point of embracing it. Saturnalia? Probably almost as gay as the rainbow

I'm guessing the anti homosexual movement gained steam much later on in history.
Click to expand...

just cuz the greeks and romans enjoyed getting their mud pushed in doesn't mean PICK3 likes biting the pillow


just sayin'
 
EarthRider said:
well if you try hard enough, I guess you can prove red is really green also. Just saying
Click to expand...

If I tried hard...

Luckily enough, the Supposedly anti-gay bible quotes that have been posted so far have made it beyond easy, what with their glaring inaccuracies and all.
 
right, I am not anti gay by the way. Doesn't mean I support that lifestyle, along with not supporting a lifestyle of being a drunk either (and we have both in our extended family, just saying)

With all that said, I am still lolololol@pick3bittingthepillowlolololol
 
I'm not Christian, but I think homosexuality is yucky.

But then I think eating shrimp is yucky too.

If other people wish to engage in homosexuality, it bothers me about as much as when other people eat shrimp. i.e. it's their problem, not mine. Just don't ask me to do it.
 
I actully feel the same way. I am not taking part of it, so do what you will I guess. I also don't want it pushed on myself or my kids either as a normal lifestyle. But dudz can be as gey as they want for all I care, just leave me out of it
 
funny-animated-gifs-turtle-dog-honk.gif
 
What conclusion could be drawn from a man who'd never had a girlfriend and prefers the company of other men?
 
nimbus said:
feedz if the anti-gay messages in the bible are a misinterpretation, who initiated it?
Click to expand...

I can't say who started it. People have been interpreting the Bible to support their agendas for pretty much ever. It's no different than people who use certain passages to support racism, or when Christians used to quote the Bible to support slavery, since many verses show God both condoning and supporting it.

There really was no talk of any anti-homoerotic sentiment though until after Jesus had died, when in the early stages of the Church, the apostles decided to set themselves apart from pagans by distancing themselves from pagans' sexual practices.

That being said, I'd say only one verse thrown out this far has been, in my opinion, misinterpreted. That's only my opinion, because in context it seems to be talking about idolatry, not homosexuality. It's fine if people in this thread disagree with me there, because nobody knows the "right" way to interpret the Bible.

The other few verses though, are either irrelevant to the Christian (but not necessarily Jewish) anti-homosexual argument (like OT laws), or are factually incorrect (i.e. The verse for which I explained the word "homosexual" was the wrong translation). The problems with these verses being used in the argument aren't my opinions, they're facts. Unfortunately, sometimes people like to ignore facts and would prefer to run with a likely purposeful, and agenda-backed mistranslation.
 
Interpreting the New Testament to not be against homosexuality is definitely a stretch. If you're going to go that far with it, you can pretty much interpret anything there however you please.

As for me personally, I don't care. If you wanna be gay, go be gay. But don't make me pay for it.
 
mrplunkey said:
Interpreting the New Testament to not be against homosexuality is definitely a stretch. If you're going to go that far with it, you can pretty much interpret anything there however you please.

As for me personally, I don't care. If you wanna be gay, go be gay. But don't make me pay for it.
Click to expand...

Really? Where am I stretching?
 
PICK3 said:
and don't do it in from of me *yuck*
Click to expand...

In front of you????

When "Mr. Long John"'s balls are on your chin, the only way not to see it is to close your eyes. Besides, I'm sure you love watching anyway.
 
AFeedz said:
Really? Where am I stretching?
Click to expand...

The verses you claim are out of context aren't completely out of context. It's true that the Romans passage was addressing idolatry. But back then, sexuality and religious practices were co-mingled in the pagan religions. So yes it was about idolatry, but it did specifically address men having sex with other men.

And again... you pick the New Testament axiom and I'm sure we can explain it away by claiming something is out of context for the time.
 
mrplunkey said:
The verses you claim are out of context aren't completely out of context. It's true that the Romans passage was addressing idolatry. But back then, sexuality and religious practices were co-mingled in the pagan religions. So yes it was about idolatry, but it did specifically address men having sex with other men.

And again... you pick the New Testament axiom and I'm sure we can explain it away by claiming something is out of context for the time.
Click to expand...

I claimed one of those quotes were out of context, and it was.

The Romans passage doesn't say anything about love between two men or women, it also says nothing about sex between two people of the same sex who are in a loving committed relationship.

That passage specifically and clearly calls out having sex with someone of the same sex brought on by the passionate lust those people felt because of their worshipping other/false gods. That's nothing new. The Bible claims heterosexual lust is just as much a sin.
 
AFeedz said:
I claimed one of those quotes were out of context, and it was.

The Romans passage doesn't say anything about love between two men or women, it also says nothing about sex between two people of the same sex who are in a loving committed relationship.

That passage specifically and clearly calls out having sex with someone of the same sex brought on by the passionate lust those people felt because of their worshipping other/false gods. That's nothing new. The Bible claims heterosexual lust is just as much a sin.
Click to expand...

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

So are you arguing that being "unnatural" and being "indecent" isn't implying it is a sin?

It's like telling someone: "You are a real dickhead" and then arguing that you didn't mean it in a bad way.
 
mrplunkey said:
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

So are you arguing that being "unnatural" and being "indecent" isn't implying it is a sin?

It's like telling someone: "You are a real dickhead" and then arguing that you didn't mean it in a bad way.
Click to expand...

Then let's look at the larger passage:

20For 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: 21Because 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.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And 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.
Click to expand...
Cliffs: God is a good, loving powerful god. These people refused to acknowledge Him as such, and because of that, they became lustful and He let them.


Like I said, this solely addresses homosexual sex between people brought on by the lust that consumed them for worshipping false gods. It says nothing about loving or committed homosexual sex.


So if you're going to go there, do all the Bible quotes about lustful heterosexual sex mean that all heterosexual sex is also wrong? :confused: Because that's what you're saying.
 
this is simply stated in the first testament

"our lord and tranny allmighty created from his penis, adam, and his vagina, eve, and then from his balls came steve, bow down, and believe, in your maker and creator dont worship a faker, no idols, itl make me pissy, and need midols"
 
DJLegacy2k1 said:
Hell yeah its a choice...that born gay crap is BS. If someone is brought up around Mo'ness, or exposed to Mo things growing up, or isnt happy with their lives, or whatever, its all a damn choice.
Click to expand...


I disagree.

My cousin is gay. He was exposed to nothing but straight men, he was nurtured and loved growing up. We all knew he was flamin from the start. One Thanksgiving he comes in with his boyfriend and makes "the announcement". Our collective reaction was: and? Fix you boyfriend a plate and lets grub.
 
AFeedz said:
Then let's look at the larger passage:

Cliffs: God is a good, loving powerful god. These people refused to acknowledge Him as such, and because of that, they became lustful and He let them.


Like I said, this solely addresses homosexual sex between people brought on by the lust that consumed these them for worshipping false gods. It says nothing about loving or committed homosexual sex.


So if you're going to go there, do all the Bible quotes about lustful heterosexual sex mean that all heterosexual sex is also wrong? :confused: Because that's what you're saying.
Click to expand...

Ok, so let's get this straight.

1) These people did something bad (Idolatry).

2) So God gave them over to depraved, indecent behaviors including men abandoning the natural function of women (obviously sex... what else could it be) and instead using other men for this purpose.

So you are trying to argue that while idolatry was a sin, the "depraved" and "indecent" behaviors weren't a sin? Do you see the obvious flaw in this argument?

The entire point here is they did a bad thing and it led to even worse things, all of which are sinful and distasteful to God.

Try this argument:

Joe was speeding. And because Joe was speeding, he lost control of his car, hit a school and killed 30 children.

So by this passage, it's obviously acceptable to kill 30 children because the real point is that you shouldn't speed.

The logic just doesn't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ceo
mrplunkey said:
Ok, so let's get this straight.

1) These people did something bad (Idolatry).

2) So God gave them over to depraved, indecent behaviors including men abandoning the natural function of women (obviously sex... what else could it be) and instead using other men for this purpose.

So you are trying to argue that while idolatry was a sin, the "depraved" and "indecent" behaviors weren't a sin? Do you see the obvious flaw in this argument?

The entire point here is they did a bad thing and it led to even worse things, all of which are sinful and distasteful to God.

Try this argument:

Joe was speeding. And because Joe was speeding, he lost control of his car, hit a school and killed 30 children.

So by this passage, it's obviously acceptable to kill 30 children because the real point is that you shouldn't speed.

The logic just doesn't work.
Click to expand...

lol I never said the "depraved" and "indecent" behaviors weren't a sin. Where did I say such a thing?

What I said was, the reason those acts were a sin was because they were done out of lust, not because the act itself is a sin. It's the exact same thing as when the Bible says lustful, heterosexual sex is a sin. The heterosexual sex itself is not a sin, the motive behind the sex is. The passage does not address non-lustful homosexual relations, so you can't apply it to such. THAT is a stretch. So this passage really says nothing about gay relationships at all, only the lustful sex is bad, as has been said many times already in the Bible by that point.
 
AFeedz said:
lol I never said the "depraved" and "indecent" behaviors weren't a sin. Where did I say such a thing?

What I said was, the reason those acts were a sin was because they were done out of lust, not because the act itself is a sin. It's the exact same thing as when the Bible says lustful, heterosexual sex is a sin. The heterosexual sex itself is not a sin, the motive behind the sex is. The passage does not address non-lustful homosexual relations, so you can't apply it to such. THAT is a stretch. So this passage really says nothing about gay relationships at all, only the lustful sex is bad, as has been said many times already in the Bible by that point.
Click to expand...

First of all, the passage is completely silent on man-on-woman sex, lustful or not. Using your logic, even lustful interactions of men toward women must be acceptable.

Furthermore, if the goal of the passage was to only show that idolatry leads to sinful lust, then bringing-up the issue of men having sex with men would be a complete waste of text and time in the first place.

The Christan religion evolved (but I agree is not bound) from Jewish law. And Jewish law was unmistakable -- if you committed homosexuality, you were to be bludgeoned to death with rocks. Jesus lightened-up on the stoning issue with "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story, but Christianity was still definitely anti-homosexual. This passage is clearly showing how idolatry can lead to even more distasteful behaviors, including homosexuality.

With the liberties you've taken, I could easily argue that the bible is supportive of divorce, murder, abortion or any other cause I'd like to justify. I'm not cracking on your flavor of Christianity, but you're opening the door wide-open for it to basically be whatever the specific believer wants.
 
Let's modify our test-tube argument to accommodate your "lustful" consideration:

"Joe was speeding. And because Joe was speeding, he lost control of his car, hit a school and enthusiastically killed 30 children."

So you'd be arguing that because Joe was doing something wrong (speeding), he was given-over to enthusiastically killing 30 children. The killing 30 children part is acceptable, but the mistake is in doing it enthusiastically.
 
Let's modify our test-tube argument to accommodate your "lustful" consideration:

"Joe was speeding. And because Joe was speeding, he lost control of his car, hit a school and enthusiastically killed 30 children."

So you'd be arguing that because Joe was doing something wrong (speeding), he was given-over to enthusiastically killing 30 children. The killing 30 children part is acceptable, but the mistake is in doing it enthusiastically.
 
I'm kidding Annie.

Personally, I really have a hard time giving a shit what other people do and don't do. It's none of my business and I don't care. I'd have to really put in the effort to care...so I dunno...no opinion here.
 
mrplunkey said:
First of all, the passage is completely silent on man-on-woman sex, lustful or not. Using your logic, even lustful interactions of men toward women must be acceptable. Except elsewhere in the Bible does it say lustful sex between men and women is wrong, but elsewhere in the Bible it does not say relationships between two men or two women is wrong.

Furthermore, if the goal of the passage was to only show that idolatry leads to sinful lust, then bringing-up the issue of men having sex with men would be a complete waste of text and time in the first place. Because the writers of the Bible were always succint and to the point, right?

The Christan religion evolved (but I agree is not bound) from Jewish law. And Jewish law was unmistakable -- if you committed homosexuality, you were to be bludgeoned to death with rocks. If Christians still followed Jewish law, Christians would be kosher, and would think having sex with a woman while on her period was as wrong as homosexuality. Jesus lightened-up on the stoning issue with "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story, but Christianity was still definitely anti-homosexual. This passage is clearly showing how idolatry can lead to even more distasteful behaviors, including homosexuality. Yes, it is showing how idolatry can lead to distasteful behaviors, like lust-motivated sex. You'll notice it doesn't say that the distasteful behaviors were men loving other men or women loving other women. It said the behavior was those people having sex while full of lust, like I said.

With the liberties you've taken, I could easily argue that the bible is supportive of divorce, murder, abortion or any other cause I'd like to justify. No you couldn't easily argue all those things. I'm not cracking on your flavor of Christianity, but you're opening the door wide-open for it to basically be whatever the specific believer wants. If not inferring further meaning in to words than what is there, then sure, I'm opening the door. (:rolleyes:)
Click to expand...

....
 
mrplunkey said:
Let's modify our test-tube argument to accommodate your "lustful" consideration:

"Joe was speeding. And because Joe was speeding, he lost control of his car, hit a school and enthusiastically killed 30 children."

So you'd be arguing that because Joe was doing something wrong (speeding), he was given-over to enthusiastically killing 30 children. The killing 30 children part is acceptable, but the mistake is in doing it enthusiastically.
Click to expand...

are you comparing killing 30 children to homosexuality?

I would agree that in that senario that the sin would be speeding and the enthusiastic heart condition. The children dying would be the consequence but not the sin.
 
Women ate the apple so god decided to punish us. Women got painful childbirth and the menstral cycle. Men we got ... Well women. God doesn't hate gay people, he's just mad they found a loophole in the system.. They were like We're just going to bang each other. It's better than all that..neh neh neh neh neh...listen, listen, listen.
How would you like it if u came up with a great punishment and they found a way around it ?

Lol no but seriously bible does say it's a sin but all sin is forgiven through Jesus if you believe with your heart and confess with your mouth. So I don't really care what they do.
 
misguided03 said:
Women ate the apple so god decided to punish us. Women got painful childbirth and the menstral cycle. Men we got ... Well women. God doesn't hate gay people, he's just mad they found a loophole in the system.. They were like We're just going to bang each other. It's better than all that..neh neh neh neh neh...listen, listen, listen.
How would you like it if u came up with a great punishment and they found a way around it ?

Lol no but seriously bible does say it's a sin but all sin is forgiven through Jesus if you believe with your heart and confess with your mouth. So I don't really care what they do.
Click to expand...

stfu. the curse of Adam was to work his ass off his whole life, not the wife that God gave him. Adam "ate" the "apple" :rolleyes: because he loved Eve, his wife who was deceived and dying.
 
mrplunkey said:
Let's modify our test-tube argument to accommodate your "lustful" consideration:

"Joe was speeding. And because Joe was speeding, he lost control of his car, hit a school and enthusiastically killed 30 children."

So you'd be arguing that because Joe was doing something wrong (speeding), he was given-over to enthusiastically killing 30 children. The killing 30 children part is acceptable, but the mistake is in doing it enthusiastically.
Click to expand...

Your example is far fetched and you know it. lol @ starting this with saying I'm stretching, then coming up with this example.

So what you are saying is, when the Bible says something is wrong, it could only possibly mean the action is wrong, not the intent behind it. Funny. I believe all seven of the seven deadly sins are really involving someone's motive for an action, not actions themselves. You'll notice the sins are anger, lust, greed, etc. They are not murder, homosexual sex, etc.

So it's funny you're trying to argue that motive itself could not possibly be the sin. Are you calling God a liar?!!!!!!!!!

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.



^ Sounds to me like God has no problem saying intent is just as, if not more a sin than actions.
 
AFeedz said:
lol I never said the "depraved" and "indecent" behaviors weren't a sin. Where did I say such a thing?

What I said was, the reason those acts were a sin was because they were done out of lust, not because the act itself is a sin. It's the exact same thing as when the Bible says lustful, heterosexual sex is a sin. The heterosexual sex itself is not a sin, the motive behind the sex is. The passage does not address non-lustful homosexual relations, so you can't apply it to such. THAT is a stretch. So this passage really says nothing about gay relationships at all, only the lustful sex is bad, as has been said many times already in the Bible by that point.
Click to expand...


Sorry Feedz, I don't want you to feel dumped on but i can't help but respond.

For one, this should be a matter of common sense. In Genesis 2 God puts Adam to sleep and creates Eve from his own body and brings her to Adam. Jesus confirms the divine institution of man and woman in marriage when questioned by the pharisees about divorce. And the remainder of scripture is clear in that sexual conduct outside of that boundarie is sin. Period. I have read your explanation in other's writings and entertaining as it is, that's an awfully long end run to try and get God's approval of their own desire. Same gender sex is no more or less wrong than hetero sex outside of marriage. Its the way God set it up from the beginning.

Next, your statement above missed the mark badly. Paul's comments are by way of trying to give great emphasis to just how far mankind could fall to depravity in their sin. So far did they fall that they fell into "vile affections"...Paul admonishes us to flee fornications. In 1Cor 7:2 he emphasizes God's standard again, 'let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband.' Again, the teaching of scripture is clear. God ordained sex between a man and a woman inside the bounds of marriage. The clear message of the bible is seen from start to finish.
 
Smurfy said:
It's interesting to me to see Christians arguing with their fellow Christians over the meaning behind the passages in their book.
Click to expand...

One of the finer points of Christianity is everyone is suppose to learn and study with and without others which leads to a vast difference of opinions on many matters lol I personally allow everyone their own opinion. The only thing I urge is love of the lord :)
 
technically the 7 deadly sins are not in the bible...formally but I get what you're saying.

Annie, what about the picture of marriage between a man and a woman as Jesus and the Church? How does that apply for two men or women?
 
Ok one more here, so we all know the story of creation etc. Here's the rest of the story god went to Adam and said I'm going to make you a campanion what traits would you like so Adam thought awhile and said I would like love, compasion, understanding someone who can walk by my side who can be everything I cant. This went on for sometime finally Adam said ok I think that's it what will that cost me ? God said a arm and a leg. So Adam thought for awhile and finally said what can I get for a rib ?
 
Redrocker13 said:
Sorry Feedz, I don't want you to feel dumped on but i can't help but respond.

For one, this should be a matter of common sense. In Genesis 2 God puts Adam to sleep and creates Eve from his own body and brings her to Adam. Jesus confirms the divine institution of man and woman in marriage when questioned by the pharisees about divorce. And the remainder of scripture is clear in that sexual conduct outside of that boundarie is sin. Period. I have read your explanation in other's writings and entertaining as it is, that's an awfully long end run to try and get God's approval of their own desire. Same gender sex is no more or less wrong than hetero sex outside of marriage. Its the way God set it up from the beginning.

Next, your statement above missed the mark badly. Paul's comments are by way of trying to give great emphasis to just how far mankind could fall to depravity in their sin. So far did they fall that they fell into "vile affections"...Paul admonishes us to flee fornications. In 1Cor 7:2 he emphasizes God's standard again, 'let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband.' Again, the teaching of scripture is clear. God ordained sex between a man and a woman inside the bounds of marriage. The clear message of the bible is seen from start to finish.
Click to expand...

Funny you should bring up God creating woman from man in Genesis 2, because in Genesis 1, God created man and women together, simultaneously. So yeah, God never contradicts Himself.

If God has such a problem with this, why are there scriptures welcoming Eunochs and the effeminate in to His kingdom?

And my statement did not miss the mark. In the thousands of pages of the Bible, and the hundreds of laws, rules and teachings do you really think if God had wanted it to be known that a man should not love another man, or a woman love another women, He would not have made it known? I just can't agree with that. Somehow, he found the time to tell us of so many evils, even took the time to tell us lustful homosexual sex was wrong, but He somehow thinks homosexual love is wrong but left that out?
 
AFeedz said:
Your example is far fetched and you know it. lol @ starting this with saying I'm stretching, then coming up with this example.

So what you are saying is, when the Bible says something is wrong, it could only possibly mean the action is wrong, not the intent behind it. Funny. I believe all seven of the seven deadly sins are really involving someone's motive for an action, not actions themselves. You'll notice the sins are anger, lust, greed, etc. They are not murder, homosexual sex, etc.

So it's funny you're trying to argue that motive itself could not possibly be the sin. Are you calling God a liar?!!!!!!!!!

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.



^ Sounds to me like God has no problem saying intent is just as, if not more a sin than actions.
Click to expand...

The New Testament says certain actions are wrong.

On some issues, the New Testament goes even further and says even thinking certain issues are wrong (i.e. The Sermon on the Mount).

But you are intentionally using the intent issue to derail the real point of the passage -- using homosexual sex as an example of behavior distasteful to God.

Again... read the scriptures any way you want. But you are setting the bar very low for interpretation. For example, the New Testament marriages were entirely religious -- they weren't part of Roman law. I don't see anywhere that Christ instructs us that men can only exclusively have one wife either. So if I'm married and meet another woman in a bar, why can't I just declare her my wife under Christian law and then bang the hell out of her? Show me scripture that explicitly prevents me from having additional "spiritual" wives under New Testament law.
 
cindylou said:
technically the 7 deadly sins are not in the bible...formally but I get what you're saying.

Annie, what about the picture of marriage between a man and a woman as Jesus and the Church? How does that apply for two men or women?
Click to expand...

I don't get the question, but I'm sure I have an answer. lol
 
Smurfy said:
It's interesting to me to see Christians arguing with their fellow Christians over the meaning behind the passages in their book.
Click to expand...

I know you aren't talking about me here. I'm an atheist.
 
EarthRider said:
Most theologians would disagree with you. They studied all day, there whole lives. Now your claiming to know what the Bible "actually says". What if you have changed the scriptures to say what your agenda is. I mean you can't deny the fact NT talks about same sex relationships not being ok. Now do I claim they will go to hell, I sure hope not. I wish nobody goes to hell, not a great place.
Click to expand...

Their
 
cindylou said:
technically the 7 deadly sins are not in the bible...formally but I get what you're saying.

Annie, what about the picture of marriage between a man and a woman as Jesus and the Church? How does that apply for two men or women?
Click to expand...

The seven deadly sins were taken out of context.
 
Honestly unless you can read Greek and Hebrew the best info you ever get will be someone else interpretation which is biased on there beliefs and opinions.
 
mrplunkey said:
The New Testament says certain actions are wrong.

On some issues, the New Testament goes even further and says even thinking certain issues are wrong (i.e. The Sermon on the Mount).

But you are intentionally using the intent issue to derail the real point of the passage -- using homosexual sex as an example of behavior distasteful to God.

Again... read the scriptures any way you want. But you are setting the bar very low for interpretation. For example, the New Testament marriages were entirely religious -- they weren't part of Roman law. I don't see anywhere that Christ instructs us that men can only exclusively have one wife either. So if I'm married and meet another woman in a bar, why can't I just declare her my wife under Christian law and then bang the hell out of her? Show me scripture that explicitly prevents me from having additional "spiritual" wives under New Testament law.
Click to expand...

I'm not derailing the point of the scripture. By Christian belief, the words of the Bible can not be coincidental...and yet, the author made sure to include that the people taking part in these acts offensive to God, were in a lustful state brought on by their idolatry. If this passage claims that homosexual sex at all was distasteful to God, why include that this act was lustful?

And lets go ahead and discuss the passage after which Jesus says one should not divorce his wife (singular).

Matthew 19:9-12
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Click to expand...
 
You mutha fuckas make me sick, who the fuck are you unworthy bunch of cock suxers to interpret the Bible. You're all going to hell, how's that.
 
I cant believe people argue over shit like this.....live your life!!! who cares what other people think
 
AFeedz said:
I'm not derailing the point of the scripture. By Christian belief, the words of the Bible can not be coincidental...and yet, the author made sure to include that the people taking part in these acts offensive to God, were in a lustful state brought on by their idolatry. If this passage claims that homosexual sex at all was distasteful to God, why include that this act was lustful?

And lets go ahead and discuss the passage after which Jesus says one should not divorce his wife (singular).

Matthew 19:9-12
Click to expand...

Matthew 19:9-12

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Yet someone who does not qualify as an elder under the New Testament church because he has only had one wife ever can still qualify as a deacon, as long as he is committed to his current wife. And deacons are considered a higher station than an ordinary member in good standing of the New Testament church.

But if divorced/remarried people are adulterers, then the church obviously sanctions adultery. I guess all those Christian married men can commit adultery as they please. Matthew 19:9 is obviously Jesus' way of telling us that adultery is acceptable now.
 
Wootooom said:
I cant believe people argue over shit like this.....live your life!!! who cares what other people think
Click to expand...

Really? Do you realize how many people argue over sports and other nonsense? If you don't like the theme of a certain thread, don't click on it. I don't go in the sports threads and post Sports are stupid! Live your life! Who cares who wins or loses?!
 
cindylou said:
Really? Do you realize how many people argue over sports and other nonsense? If you don't like the theme of a certain thread, don't click on it. I don't go in the sports threads and post Sports are stupid! Live your life! Who cares who wins or loses?!
Click to expand...

Im sorry :(
 
My view is plain & simple: You are born with your sexuality, and you have no choice. Sadly for those whose sexual orientation is against the views of some religions, some people are labeled as rejects, and I reject that attitude. I have too many Gay & Lesbian friends who are good people; in fact more honest and fair people than many bible-thumping churchly people I know, to think otherwise. If somebody told me I am wrong to like girls who are "tomboys", and I had to like other men or Barbie-type women who pretend they can't lift a beer bottle, I'd be VERY unhappy.

Now looking at it from the point of view of many of the religious anti-Gay & Lesbian groups, I think they got those ideas from the churches' founders who knew that homosexuality would fail to cause the churches to grow by the members marrying and reproducing into the church. And I think that if there's a supreme power, or God, that homosexuality might be a means for population control while keeping every man and woman fulfilled and happy, without reproducing to excess.

Just my 2c worth, as a baptized Methodist but declared Agnostic.


Just to be clear, I respect and listen to all opinions, and in return I expect the same for mine. The fact is that nobody "really knows". And I have a couple of male friends who believe homosexuality is a choice, and are outspokenly judgmental on it, and THEY ARE closet Gay themselves. I've seen them checking guys out, and when they've had what they pretended to be marriages or girlfriends, it ended fast. I can usually tell when someone is in the closet, as he/she will get all scared & nervous when the subject comes up, and they'll start preaching about how they just can't understand Gayness, and how awful it must feel to be Gay, and on & on. Straight guys don't act like that; at least the ones I've known. And I don't act that way. Psychologically, most people won't need to pick out a group of people to villify, unless they need a diversion from a doubt they have about themselves.


Charles
 
misguided03 said:
Sbeezy get em they are arguing the bible on a steroid chat forum I r not smart enof for this
Click to expand...

LMAO thats because they all use bogus joose and look like shit, so they have to find something to argue about other than the obvious.
 
Going to hell is no laughing matter.
 
Charles,

Saying your gay friends are more honest and fair then most bible-thumping Christians is unfair and ignorant. There alot of us who are not bound by the old ideologies of our forefathers. I wish everyone's soul to be saved regardless of their sexual orientation usually those who make a bad name for groups in general account for a very small portion of the group.
Judging others only leads to more judgement.
 
AFeedz said:
Funny you should bring up God creating woman from man in Genesis 2, because in Genesis 1, God created man and women together, simultaneously. So yeah, God never contradicts Himself.

If God has such a problem with this, why are there scriptures welcoming Eunochs and the effeminate in to His kingdom?

And my statement did not miss the mark. In the thousands of pages of the Bible, and the hundreds of laws, rules and teachings do you really think if God had wanted it to be known that a man should not love another man, or a woman love another women, He would not have made it known? I just can't agree with that. Somehow, he found the time to tell us of so many evils, even took the time to tell us lustful homosexual sex was wrong, but He somehow thinks homosexual love is wrong but left that out?
Click to expand...

lol...it's not a contradiction Feedz. The 2nd chapter is simply a more in depth explanation of the creation events. Thats all. They were not created at the same moment. The 2nd chapter states that clearly!
You're making this much more complicated than need be. God didn't leave it out. You are choosing to ignore it as many do. As CS Lewis wrote, "Its not the parts of the bible I don't understand that trouble me. It's the parts i do understand that I don't want to abide by that trouble me." Hence the problem. And I own that dilemma better than most I'd guess.

And here's a huge hang up for many. No one I know chooses to have homosexual desires. No more so anyway than someone chooses addictive desires or anger issues. But just because you have a desire for something doesn't make it right nor should you act on it. Thousands of examples can be provided. So the excuse that well God made me this way one, is a lie. God didn't 'make' you that way any more than He made me an adulterer or Strongbow a pedophile. Our sinful desires are born of our sin nature. I didn't have to teach my son to disobey me or throw tantrums. He did that quite naturally on his own. As his father I had to teach him the RIGHT way to behave. My point, obviously, just because you have a 'natural' desire for something doesn't put God's stamp of approval on it. Far from it. Especially as it stands against the clear teaching of God's Word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Homosexuals - What is your opinion about Christianity?
Replies
30
Views
3K
JayC9
JayC9
shirlene29
the internet is a strange place
Replies
52
Views
9K
nangiggles
nangiggles
javaguru
I Am Adam Lanza’s Therapist
Replies
13
Views
3K
WoodyO
WoodyO
javaguru
War, Peace and the State
Replies
7
Views
3K
javaguru
javaguru
hanselthecaretaker
Interesting piece: How to prevent the "End of America"
Replies
6
Views
2K
-SD-
-SD-
Top Bottom