|
Post by writer on Oct 25, 2006 9:52:02 GMT -5
^ question. Is there a new testement verse that is against homosexuality? And aren't the priests of Corthith, gay at one point?
and here is the clincher, brace yourself..
Does Jesus even give a f*ck what you are as only as you choose him? The Bible says a lot of things are wrong. Bible is also condrictory. My take is, if you're toleratant and act like good Christain to homosexuals and do not judged them for want they do. Then I feel there is sense of mutal welcoming and tolerance. In this day in age, we are live in a new era. Homosexuality will one day be the norm, there might be more gay pastors and reverands. What then? Are we going to stone them too? I tolerate and respect homosexuals (I've told you I'm a Yaoi fan girl) and because I sin like the rest of the human population. I don't judge them.
So Question for you then. Even though I don't practive the act, I do read alot of Yaoi fictions and arts. I Rp with gay characters. Even thought I excepted christ into my heart. Do I still burn in hell?
|
|
|
Post by strangepigtails on Oct 25, 2006 12:43:42 GMT -5
i tolerate it, and i see no problem with gay marrage either, what annoys me the most though is when some of them always feel the need to tell you of their sexual exploits. but i feel the same way about straight people too =\ i mean... come on. NO ONE wants to hear were you stuck your wut in their where.
if there's pure love then theres no problem.
|
|
Wilderness Writer
Wolf Sokka
Zutarian Propaganda Writer
~Weaver of Words~
Posts: 2,802
|
Post by Wilderness Writer on Oct 25, 2006 13:01:14 GMT -5
Answer:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: 9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Romans 1 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 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. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
I do not hate homosexual people. I have 2 friends who are openly so. However, I *do* consider homosexuality to be a sin. I am in no way saying that I am sinless, or that I am better than anyone else. What I am saying is that the Bible does acknoledge homosexuality as a sin.
|
|
[[Himiko]]
Teo
I know my happy ending's out there. And one day, when I least expect it, I'm going to find it.
Posts: 448
|
Post by [[Himiko]] on Oct 25, 2006 16:20:43 GMT -5
Ok. My viewpoint. I am against homosexuality because of the Bible. (And, no, the regulations about shaving your hair and eating pork are not an analogy to the regulation against homosexuality, but that's another topic, and one that is quite lengthy) However, I don't enforce it on public policy because we aren't a theocracy. Also, I think that there is very little evidence for a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, mainly because most of the major studies alleging a "gay gene" have been significantly flawed in their methodology (which is another big issue, which I might bring up should someone respond to this post). However, one thing I have to say is that if it's genetic, then it's a multitude of genes working together to create a predisposition (of any level) towards a certain sexual orientation. Just my take. i totally agree
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Oct 25, 2006 17:56:53 GMT -5
Does Jesus even give a f*ck what you are as only as you choose him? Yes, he does. Read the story of the rich young man. I spend practically my entire life researching these issues. I can take you on if you wish. However, I remained for this to be a nice discussion, but quite frankly, you're pretty much frothing at the mouth at my response. You don't really understand Jesus' teachings, then. "do not judge them for what they do" is such a massively broad category that, using your application, Christians should not oppose every single sin mentioned in the Bible. No. The old covenant and its sacrifices, and the response to many of the sins, is dead. The fact that many sins are still sins is a part of the new covenant in Christ Jesus. That's why the Law has not been changed, according to the Gospel of Matthew, while the Law has been changed according to the Gospel of Luke. The Hebrew concept of Torah is much more complex than simply laws set down in one time period, and can refer to both cultural and objective laws. If you look at homosexual pornography, then you are disobeying the commandment to obstain from lust in the Bible: Colossians 3:5 5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.One can believe that a sin is wrong without preaching hell-fire and screaming at them. The purpose of the church is to edify its believers, and to help them come out of their sin (and I mean sin in general; I'm not talking about whether or not one can "leave" their homosexual orientation). However, the church can judge its members for sinning against the God who redeemed them. They cannot judge unbelievers, because that is God's job. Read 1 Corinthians 5.I can't be the judge of that. I can't know you enough to know well enough whether or not the fact that you accepted Christ into your heart is legitimate. However, I can point out that your current practices are going against scripture.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Oct 25, 2006 18:07:16 GMT -5
The only arguement religious folk have against homosexuality is "the Bible says it's wrong" which it does, it also tells how to treat your slaves, and to cut off someones hand for stealing. Also, in the Old Testament, God was a vengeful God, (Old Testament being where homosexuality was condemned) in the New Testament God is a loving and forgiving God (Homosexuality not mentioned in the New Testament)
There are a lot of Biblical contradictions and old folklore, and personally, I don't care. As an athiest the only thing I have driving me is facts and common sense. I see no reason why gays can't enjoy the same rights as hetros. In fact, making laws against it soley on the basis of religion violates seperation of Church and state and basically establishes a precident for religious laws.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Oct 25, 2006 18:20:30 GMT -5
The only arguement religious folk have against homosexuality is "the Bible says it's wrong" And I also said that I do not enforce it on the government. The Bible is our "constitution" that applies to Christians. If you are a Christian, you follow the rules of the Bible. Not really an objectionable scenario, IMO. Which were not analogous to New World slaves, but to our concept of a servant.Actually, it says to pay back the person you stole from, but in multiple. (see Exodus 22:1 as an example) Furthermore, you have to remember that this was a document that was addressed to what were essentially a bunch of nomads in the desert relying on God's promise that He would protect them if they followed his laws. (The Book of Deutoronomy, which is a summary of the law, was written in the form of a Hittite suzerainty covenant treaty. In other words, it was a contract between the people of God and the people of Israel. If the Israelites lived up to their obligations, God would live up to His) They were wandering a desert being attacked on all sides, so for them to have extremely strict enforcements of their law is to be expected. Very general, but not really getting into specificities. If you read my last post, I said that it shouldn't be enforced on the government for precisely that reason. [/quote]
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Oct 25, 2006 18:26:27 GMT -5
I really wasn't commenting on your post Q (Tertius ) I saw how you mentioned the govt. shouldn't impose itself. Also I know if you strict Christian you do what the Bible says. Which doesn't leave much open to interpretation unless you are willing to compromise for modern ideals. Do it on one thing (slaves, stealing) and you have to do it for everything. (Also, I seem to remember Jesus saying once that if you catch someone commiting adultry you should run him through with a spear...)
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Oct 25, 2006 18:35:03 GMT -5
I really wasn't commenting on your post Q (Tertius ) I saw how you mentioned the govt. shouldn't impose itself. Oh, Ok. Well, that's a very simplistic understanding of the concept of Torah and of the new covenant that exists in Christ. I will expound on this further if you wish (don't worry when I say that it's simplistic, it's something I used to hold for a long time myself until I read about it Also, one of the regulations about "slaves" (in quotes because they were actually servants, and indentured servants at the worst level) in the Bible is that if you knock out his/her tooth that you're supposed to set him/her free, and if your "slave" runs away that you're not allowed to go after him or her. In other words, "slavery" (actually servanthood) was a voluntary institution in the Hebrew Bible, for the vast majority of people (with the exception of enemy POWs). Actually, he said to pluck your eye out it was tempting you to look at a woman in lust. The thing though, is he was using Jewish hyperbole, which was the practice of saying something in the extreme to make a point about something. It's paralleled in other Jewish writings of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Amira on Oct 25, 2006 18:35:35 GMT -5
I'm just of the mind that with all of the problems in this world: children being neglected and starving, the child sex trade, women being abused in other countries, war, the environment being damaged, religious fanatics continually using western countries as terrorist targets, problems at home like a diminishing middle class and the problems with our government, etc. the last thing we need to worry about is what two people do in their own bedroom.
I have many homosexual friends and two family members who are gay who want nothing more than some of the legal rights offered to heterosexual couples. I had a friend who was denied access to his terminally partner's bedside in the ICU because he was not a "family member." His partner died alone. They want the same medical benefits and legal protections. Quite frankly, I don't see any problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by writer on Oct 25, 2006 18:52:15 GMT -5
Does Jesus even give a f*ck what you are as only as you choose him? Yes, he does. Read the story of the rich young man. I spend practically my entire life researching these issues. I can take you on if you wish. However, I remained for this to be a nice discussion, but quite frankly, you're pretty much frothing at the mouth at my response. You don't really understand Jesus' teachings, then. "do not judge them for what they do" is such a massively broad category that, using your application, Christians should not oppose every single sin mentioned in the Bible. No. The old covenant and its sacrifices, and the response to many of the sins, is dead. The fact that many sins are still sins is a part of the new covenant in Christ Jesus. That's why the Law has not been changed, according to the Gospel of Matthew, while the Law has been changed according to the Gospel of Luke. The Hebrew concept of Torah is much more complex than simply laws set down in one time period, and can refer to both cultural and objective laws. If you look at homosexual pornography, then you are disobeying the commandment to obstain from lust in the Bible: Colossians 3:5 5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.One can believe that a sin is wrong without preaching hell-fire and screaming at them. The purpose of the church is to edify its believers, and to help them come out of their sin (and I mean sin in general; I'm not talking about whether or not one can "leave" their homosexual orientation). However, the church can judge its members for sinning against the God who redeemed them. They cannot judge unbelievers, because that is God's job. Read 1 Corinthians 5.I can't be the judge of that. I can't know you enough to know well enough whether or not the fact that you accepted Christ into your heart is legitimate. However, I can point out that your current practices are going against scripture. I spend practically my entire life researching these issues. I can take you on if you wish. However, I remained for this to be a nice discussion, but quite frankly, you're pretty much frothing at the mouth at my response.Frothing at the mouth. Because I have been in mortal stasis with my faith for 3 years? Geee sorry that I'm not a right-wing zelot like you Pastor T. If you look at homosexual pornography, then you are disobeying the commandment to obstain from lust in the Bible: How else one extert sexual energy? We can screw anyone until marriage. and if I'm correct, you probably object to the thought of jerking off in private. Because thats lust right? Think about the naughty. Oh Poor Bard she doomed to burn. I can't be the judge of that. I can't know you enough to know well enough whether or not the fact that you accepted Christ into your heart is legitimate. However, I can point out that your current practices are going against scripture.Thank you for you insight Pastor T. After all your being so nice to this poor heathen girl. *sigh* now if I can only be a good Christain and go into a Convent. [/Ends satire and sarcasm]
|
|
|
Post by Paraiba Ocean on Oct 25, 2006 18:55:27 GMT -5
If I recall, Tetrius, I believe there was a passage where a woman was having an affair with a married man and the government insisted to throw stones at her until she was out of sight, yet Jesus refused to consent to it and claimed for any of them who hadn't sinned to throw a stone at her. None of them did.
As for homosexuals, I do not agree with it, but it is none of my business of why they have their orientation, however, I will not hate them just because I do not agree with their orientation. What they chose is their own business, not mine.
@wilderness writer: Precisely. I just read your post and I agree with it 100%.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Oct 25, 2006 19:21:47 GMT -5
Ah. Actually though, I was referring to your angry tone in your first post. I admit, I overstated the amount of anger expressed, and I sincerely apologize. I should not have overstated your tone in this fashion; that was completely wrong of me.
EDIT: I re-read your post, and I realize that you weren't really expressing an angry attitude at all. So this makes my condemnation of you in this area even worse. Once again, I sincerely apologize and hope that my unrightful blunder won't impede the possibility of an appropriate discussion about these topics.
Yes, the sin in sexuality exists in the thought. Jesus himself [url=said that if you look at a woman in lust that you are committing adultery with her in your heart.[/url] It starts in the thought, at least, according to the Bible. I'll be honest with you: Yes, I occasionally sucumb to my sex drive and jerk off. However, I make an active effort to keep myself from doing it, and the "interval" of how often I do it has been increasing in time since I've started trying to keep myself from participating in the act. And I'm also going to be honest with you. Yes, I used to look at pornography. That's the cold, hard truth. It took me literally about four months after I became a Christian to keep myself from looking at pornography, but I managed it. Also, I never said that you were doomed to burn in hell, as you heavily implied in your response. I specifically said that I did not have the knowledge to judge the legitimacy of your salvation. However, as a Christian, I do have the right to call others in the church out on their side; it's the church's duty. (once again, read 1 Corinthians 5) You have the same right for me, assuming that you're a legitimate Christian (and I'll take your word for it on this one). The church is supposed to edify believers so that they become increasingly righteous in their character. Sin grieves the heart of God, and to be honest, I don't know why one would want to actively engage in it as a Christian. Call me a right-wing maniac if you wish, but those are my beliefs, and they are clearly based off the Bible.
Ok. You don't like saying that you're sinning; I can understand that. Quite frankly, I don't think anybody would actively enjoy having alleged flaws pointed out to them. But, quite frankly, this is stuff from the Bible. You can accept it or you can reject it; that's your decision. However, if one can pick and choose what commandments they want to obey and the ones they want to disobey then I would have to wonder why the Bible was written at all. (Don't bring up the commandment about shaving your beard; that was a cultural law, and specifically one addressed to Levite priests. It was the same as a dress code regulation for participating in a job: If one were employed as a White House press secretary one wouldn't be allowed to have hair going down to their waists. The commandments about shellfish, etc, or also cultural laws and not objective laws as expounded elsewhere in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deutoronomy) You think we're in some sort of new age of tolerance? The New Testament was written during a time in which having a male homosexual partner was widely considered a coming-of age practice for Greek men. The New Testament was written during this time. In other words, it has to be an objective moral, not a cultural one (since the Bible says that homosexual "offenders", or people who indulge in homosexuality, won't be in heaven, because it's considered an objective law.) You don't seem to have any other criterion for determining the "rightness" of the Bible other than "my current culture says X, and if the Bible doesn't align with X then it is false in those areas". Since cultures can come up with almost anything, you're essentially proclaiming your belief that the Bible is worthless. Again, it isn't me bashing you. Quite frankly, it's really just basic logic. You can get angry, and if you do, I understand. However, don't call me a right-wing fundy for pointing out that your practices don't agree with Biblical doctrine, because that's a fact.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Oct 25, 2006 19:30:02 GMT -5
If I recall, Tetrius, I believe there was a passage where a woman was having an affair with a married man and the government insisted to throw stones at her until she was out of sight, yet Jesus refused to consent to it and claimed for any of them who hadn't sinned to throw a stone at her. None of them did. Well, that's because the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. The Jews weren't allowed to execute people at the time, only the Romans were. The Jews had obviously let the man involved escape (they said that the woman was caught in adultery, which means that she was caught with a man other than her husband. Yet, only the woman was brought to Jesus, and the man was allowed to slip by). The Jews asked Jesus what they should do with the woman, because if Jesus said anything other than executing her, they could claim that he was going against the Torah's teachings, and if he said to execute her, they could claim that he was inciting practices contradictory to Roman law. They were trying to make Jesus slip up and lose followers (or get "put down" by the Romans) by playing a "heads=I win, tails=you lose" sort of situation. Jesus instead decided to respond by saying that "Let the man who has no sin cast the first stone". Because he mentioned stoning, the Pharisees couldn't claim that he was disobeying Mosaic law. However, if you read, because none of the men were sinless, they all left, and the woman was not executed. Because of this, the Pharisees could not whine to the Romans and claim that he had caused an unlawful execution of the woman. In other words, Jesus, in His cleverness (that's my Messiah for ya outsmarted the Phariesees. Jesus then told the woman that he forgived her, but specifically told her to "leave your life of sin". In other words, Jesus ackowledged that the woman was sinning, but he gave her a second chance at life. The point though is the woman was still told not to sin anymore. As Christians, we are not supposed to indulge in sinful practices.
|
|
|
Post by writer on Oct 25, 2006 19:55:41 GMT -5
Ow.. That was insulting. You are a right wing fundie. You're over-rightiousness prooves it. In any of my posts did I say the Bible was wrong? Second. How do you know what church I follow? If any at all, so can you call on my practices? Feh...this is why I'm so irrated at my faith. I swear, when I'm 28, I'm going to be a raving nilhist <<
|
|