Sorry for the overlap in posting, Jersey. I missed your first post there.
Where did Christ say homosexuality was against the rules?
And if one cannot be a Christian without following all the rules, then Esprix’s question stands: Do you wear clothing of mixed fabrics? For that matter, do you wear sideburns?
**
The Christians I know all say that Christians still “sin.” Do you act in perfect accordance with every Biblical command all the time? If not, then you are not a Christian, by your own standard.
And again, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Paul did, and Mosaic law did.
But hey, maybe some homosexual out there does happen to subscribe to your belief that homosexuality is wrong. (Why, I dunno. Maybe he’s trying to recapture his self-loathing.) He can still engage in “sinful” behavior and be a Christian. Just like you can tell a lie today and still be a Christian tomorrow.
Easy. When you fill out your voter registration card, check Republican. When you go to the polls, pull the lever next to the Democratic candidate. Or punch out the appropriate hole, but let’s not get into that; you probably won’t have to worry about using that system ever again. 
I am so glad we’re in agreement here, JerseyDiamond!
OK, so take that cotton/poly blend shirt off, that’s right. Oh, and no sex during menstruation, if your wife wasn’t/isn’t a virgin when you married/marry her, stone her to death, don’t ever be naked around anyone else ever, polygamy is ok, and your wife is your property.
What? Well, that’s what the Bible says!
OK, now I’m confused…
Esprix
Throughout the Bible it says that it’s wrong. I will get back to on it! As for me wearing sideburns :eek:
I think myself to be an attractive woman, I don’t think sideburns would go well on me
As we all know, nobody is perfect. So I don’t want you to think that I’m saying I do everything the Bible says. I only wish it was so easy! I just believe that there are some things, maybe only to me, that are obvious!
I personally don’t care if your straight or gay, (unless you are a cute guy) 
… I would hang hang out with you just the same, and I would love you the same, we just see things differently… I guess that’s why I chose my signature below…I ain’t mad atcha, I got nuttin but luv for ya!
Grienspace:“I would suggest that the homosexual community has suffered tremendous hardship in the past and that society in general should attempt to accomadate their concerns. The big issues as I see it are marriage and children.”
Homosexuality is abnormal.
If you were to believe that it was OK and Homo’s should be able to marry and adopt children then whats wrong with those odd types who prefer to spend their free time having sex with farm animals?
Why can’t a guy in Indiana Marry his favorite goat then?
Or what about the Woman who enjoys the company of her German Shepard?
This must be acceptable as well, correct?
I could not imagine having two Dads. It just isn’t right. 2 Moms? Hell no. WTF. I wouldn’t wish that punishment on and kid.
Imagine being a kid and inviting your friends over to meet your two dads!
It wouldn’t happen.
Y’know, Biblical interpretation is a game everybody can play, and no two people are gonna come up with the same answers, as a general rule.
If you believe that every word of the Bible holds today, and is verbatim inspired by God, then you’re obliged to keep the Torah. And there are a few Jews for Jesus who were Orthodox Jews and do just that. For the most part, Christianity seems to have taken the attitude that Jesus’s self-sacrifice eliminated the need for the ritual law, and His teachings, combined with Peter’s vision about the clean and unclean food on the sheet from heaven, eliminated the dietary law, but that the “moral law” left when those were eliminated is still binding.
And it is so easy to find a proof text to support whatever personal prejudices you have for or against something.
I respect Jersey and Joe for holding true to their beliefs. I will observe some points, however:
The Bible has never condemned “homosexuality” – the word is never mentioned. It’s an abstract noun used to define a group of things. It does appear to condemn certain acts that modern society terms “homosexual acts.”
I don’t think it’s possible to pick and choose what Old Testament laws you’re going to keep. If you consider any as binding, you’ve gotta go for the whole package. Anything else is interpretive selectiveness – the same sort of thing that conservative Christians condemn liberal Christians for doing.
Paul’s comments would seem to reflect that Christians may not commit homosexual acts. However, there are some interesting twists here:
a) In Romans 1, he seems to feel that same-sex desire is something that replaces “natural” heterosexual desire. This does not accord with the testimony of most gays. Beyond that, it is not a sin condemned, but rather a punishment by God for turning from him to the things of this world – along with a list of vile attitudes. And he follows it with Romans 2:1 “So also were some of you.” This hits home to me: “There but for the grace of God…” In my perspective, he’s talking about “queer chic” as practiced in big cities a few years ago, and as was common in 1st Century Rome, where people jaded with “normal” sex would “try out” a gay affair, along with other things considered vices. This is a whole different ball game from what present-day gays and lesbians are talking about when they discuss their sexuality.
b) The other places he and other letter writers mention it is in a list of sins or sinners who will not inherit the kingdom. Note carefully that it’s tied into fornication, prostitution, etc., along with some non-sexual sins. My take on these passages is that they’re condemning lust in the classic sense in which it’s among the Seven Deadly Sins – not normal healthy sexual desire for one’s beloved, but the need to use another as a sex object for immediate gratification with no significant relationship involved. The variety of heterosexual sins have this in common; to suggest that in the middle of gratifications of lust Paul throws in an entirely different concept – a form of sexual behavior that is condemned regardless of context, strikes me as erroneous reasoning.
To be sure, there’s a yuck factor among many heterosexuals about any form of homosexuality. But to read that into this passage is another case of prooftexting to cloak your own feelings with “what the Good Book says.”
And, as andygirl pointed out, most homosexual Christians hear, “Love the sinner; hate the sin” with the emphasis on the second half and an attitude that the first half means, “when they repent of having such sinful desires.” Which is never what it means anywhere else.
The couple of occasions in which Jesus deals with sexual sin, he is reasonably gentle with it. Seems reasonable, considering that He created people with sexual desires and is now human himself, and has a pretty good handle on what sexual temptation is all about. What he does get up in arms about is self-righteous vainglory and the tendency to want to make rules for other people to follow. He generally hewed to the Pharisee line in theology, but came down on the selfrighteousness and rulemongering of the leading Pharisee group so strongly that the name has become synonymous with the attitude today. And it seems to me that most Christians, particularly the conservative evangelicals, have failed to learn anything from that.
We Christians are quite flatly commanded to love every other human being as ourselves, unless I’ve got the point to the parable of the Good Samaritan all wrong. And not to judge. Which means, to me, that Dr. James Dobson and Gary Bauer and a few other homophobes that trot out those verses I mentioned above to condemn gay people are sinning far more grievously than the typical gay person ever thought of doing.
Jersey? Joe? your take on this?
That’s why we should all be glad that GOD forgives!!!
As for pre-marital sex, I do think it’s wrong, did I mess
up? YES! That’s why I’m greatful for his forgiveness. We
were all born into sin, and GOD knows we are only humans.
As for sex during menstruation, I wouldn’t want to do it anyway. As for the wife being the property of the man, I do believe that’s true and vise versa. GOD made woman for man, so when you get married, you are one and the man is the ruler. That is the way GOD intended it. I didn’t always think that way, but it is the truth.
[/quote]
by Mike Scott …It’s true that several Old Testament characters engaged in Polygamy, but a careful study of these cases indicates the terrible consequences attached to going outside the will of God in marriage. In our passage from Matthew 19, Jesus stated that the reason God overlooked divorce in times past was because of the hardness of the heart of man, not because it was part of God’s plan. He might have said the identical thing with regard to Polygamy, if it had been practiced in the first century. God’s plan is that a man and a woman become one together, because in God’s plan, man and woman compliment each other. Woman was to be helper for man.
[/quote]
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
I must mention though Esprix that the bible is a historical document. Jesus is what you should focus on if you want to talk about rules christans should follow. Not the bible. Though if you want to be technical Jesus is in the bible.
So you’re picking and choosing. Therefore, there can be gay Christians.
Gee, I’m glad we cleared that up. Thanks for the info.
Esprix
Well, then, since Jesus never mentioned homosexuality or marriage, I guess they’re both up for grabs. Great! Thanks!
Esprix
minister mike scott
[/quote]
Is homosexuality a sin? Yes, just as fornication is condemned by the Bible, and for the same reason; it is a perversion of God’s plan.
God’s plan is one man for one woman, for life, and the sexual relationship between a man and a woman is a sacred, God given right, privilege, and pleasure, intended by God to be exercised only within the confines of marriage. Any and every other allowance for sexual practices on the part of human beings is sexual perversion.
Man does not have the right to do what he pleases. God sets the standard for morality, although man seems to feel that he is free to set his own standard. God grants man the opportunity to obey him. We can choose to obey, or we can choose to be disobedient. God’s law for human beings is sexual relations within marriage, period. Man thinks this to be too restrictive, so he looks for ways to rationalize his perversion. Some sexual perverts enjoy pornographic material, some sexual perverts are adulators, some perverts want sex with children, some sexual perverts engage in sex with animals, some are homosexuals. All of these are previsions of God’s plan. An adulator is an immoral person because he has violated God’s standard of morality. A homosexual is an immoral person for the same reason.
[/quote]
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 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.
Rom 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:
Rom 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 recompense of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 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;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
ok, I’ll leave it alone now…love you much…AND PLEASE, remember my signature, cause I really do mean it!!!
If you mean what your signature says don’t use so much caps. It makes it alot harder to read your posts.
About all that, does god any where say he did that? Or is it someone claiming god did that? Its a important distinction as the writers of the bible were not omnscient.
No, just that a significant number of males gay or straight are a danger to children.The presence of a woman in the household significantly reduces the risk to children. As a man, I suppose you could take issue with that.
Tzel, please don’t think I was serious about gayriage as a word
Andros, A very interesting take on marriage and civil marriage. Perhaps Christians and Moslems and whoever else might have a problem with gay marriage can elect to be registered under holy marriage and leave marriage to everyone else.
Mx-6- I can’t say it any better than Polycarp but I want to add one more thing from my point of view. Nowhere in the new testament can I find where Christians are exhorted to be political. That means trying to control other peoples behavior. Rancour and acrimony in our society should not be contributed to by Christianity . Remember the “Golden Rule”
I think this belongs in the pit. Seriously though, I remember somewhere that Paul laments his own struggle with the flesh, and how he was incapable of resisting.
Sorry about the caps to all it offends!
Did GOD say he did what? I’m not sure what your asking!
grienspace
[/quote]
I think this belongs in the pit. Seriously though, I remember somewhere that Paul laments his own struggle with the flesh, and how he was incapable of resisting. **
[/QUOTE]
It probably does belong in the pit
I’ll have to read more into the above.
It’s called levirate marriage, buddy. Get used to it!
Personally, my opinion is that Christian “marriage” is obviously just modelled on the traditional Jewish institution of marriage. Obviously Christians should have the same rights and expectations of monogamy and whatnot, but we should refer to the institution by a different term, in order to keep it separate from real Jewish marriage. I suggest “goyriage.”
(Lest anyone take offense at my joke, remember that I am a gentile.)
-Ben
Jersey, nice way to dodge all my points and questions by hacking up scripture, which, of course, means absolutely zilch to me. Want to debate? Learn how.
Esprix
An excellent article about homosexuality and Christianity is available here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/rainey1.html
Basically, the author laments the fact that fundamentalist Christians are willing to go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid the implications of Romans 13:1-3,6-7–that men must obey all human laws–while taking a simplistic approach to Romans 1:27. In other words, when a simplistic interpretation is desirable, that’s the one they take. But when a simplistic interpretation ends up putting Martin Luther King Jr. in the same class as Jeffrey Dahmer, they go through all sorts of hoops to explain how the verse can mean something other than what it appears to mean.
So–to Jersey Diamond, Joe Cool, et. al.–yes, every Christian picks and chooses what parts of the Bible to obey. I don’t see many Christians condemning women who braid their hair or wear pearls, do you?