[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sdrawkcab * Then they are imbeciles. The fact is that if they hate something so central about me, so defining about every other sapect of my character, as my sexuality, then they hate me. I am my sexuality. The two cannot be separated. Hate it, and you hate me, no matter what you think. Most people who hate homosexuality are so stupid that it should be illegal, so its not surprising that they don’t understand the situation. Doesn’t mean its not the case, though.
Oh, so you think it should be illegal to express the opinion that homosexuality is a sin? This is a still a free country, Sdrawkcab. I disagree that you can’t separate the person from the sin. I don’t have to endorse or like your homosexuality in order to care about you. And hating homosexuality doesn’t equal hating the homosexual no matter what you say.
**The best thing for everyone in the world, particularly Christians, would be to gather every single copy of the Bible together and burn it. No single work of fiction has ever inflected more damage on the world than that asinine book. **
I disagree with you that the Bible is a work of fiction. And burning it wouldn’t change a thing. The words would still be true and they would still be in the hearts and minds of those who believe that it’s God’s word. No single work of divine truth has brought the greatest news there is to mankind. Christians aren’t going to burn God’s word up just because you don’t like what it says.
And where I see a lot of the so called hate coming from is from those who can’t stand to be disagreed with. Regardless of what you may think of me or others who happen to disagree with you, I still care about you.
Sorry, Sdrawkcab, I feel I must say “Horsepuckey” to you also. I can’t let this comment of yours go by. While I can agree that a person may not be able to choose how he feels about someone, he can choose whether or not to act on it. I have nothing but commendation for “mommy dearest” and how she handled that situtation.
I have to take strong exception to you saying being gay is a gift of God. I cannot agree with this. It’s not a gift for He would not condemn something and then turn around and make someone what He has condemned. It is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. That’s why you hate and wish to discredit the Bible. Christians (for the most part) will always say it’s a sin because God says it’s a sin. Period.
You need to accept the fact that not everyone in the world is ever going to endorse or approve of homosexuality. And stop with the hateful accusations and name calling just because you can’t get everyone to agree with you. Most of us are willing to agree to disagree and give opinions in a curteous manner. So not everyone is going to approve this thing, deal with it (without the name calling) please.
As a youngster I spent a lot of time in Sunday School, Wednesday Prayer Meetings, Youth Choir, Revivals, Dinner on the Ground, etc. What I have discovered is that frequently the choir director is banging the organist. The deacons go off to deer camp and get blasted. The preacher’s daughters have the best pot. And everybody shows up on Sunday thinking about the poor wretched town queen that is probably living the most open and honest life of any of the bunch mentioned above.
And yet the nearly unanimous testimony of gay people and the conclusions of more than 30 years of research tells us that indeed, homosexuality is not chosen and is an innate, immutable characteristic.
I’ll agree with you that “He would not condemn something and then turn around and make someone what He has condemned”. The difference is, that that means I have to evalute the validity of the ancient scriptures in light of the discovered truths of the modern age.
Since I can’t believe in a God who would condemn his own creation. And homosexuals exist naturally, then it is the condemnation that is false.
Kindly speak for yourself. Or perhaps you didn’t get the memo that there is actually a significant debate going on in most of the mainstream Protestant reigions and I’ll not mention Catholics since you don’t consider them Christian anyway.
And as one poster has already pointed out, the persecution of homosexuality doesn’t date to the early church (prior to approx. 300 CE) and they, in fact, had ceremonies to celebrate homosexual unions.
And you need to accept the fact that those of you who cling to outdated bigotry will become less and less signficant. An aside to Sdrawkcab
Let go of the shrillness before become the next Kirkland. If you don’t know what I mean, search for that username.
Right. So by the clear evidence of the Bible taken as legal dicta (the way you appear to be interpreting it), you are permitted to “put away” your abusive first husband, but must then live a celibate life.
You know and I know that that is not what God called you to do. But that was the tempering of a rigid reading of Christ’s own commandment with the mercy that He calls us to show to one another.
Get this very straight. As long as you dredge out commandments addressed to the gratification of lust through same-sex sex acts to condemn people who have fallen in love and desire to make lifelong commitments including a healthy sex life, you’re going to get your own multiple marriages thrown back in your face. I am not out to “judge you for your sin” – I think you were following His leading to “find your bliss” and live a happy, loving life with your husband. But I don’t see what gobear and Mr Visible are doing with their life partners as one bit different, save for the legal recognition that you can get by going through the proper forms of divorce and remarriage – and which many who hold views similar to yours are insistent on denying them.
Memo: The Bible does not say that homosexuality is a sin. It condemns certain sex acts (in contexts that make it clear that they were being condemned as things the Canaanites did, not as in themselves evil, by the way). It condemns the turning of another person into a sex object – lust – rather than desiring them as a person with whom one can make love for mutual pleasure and satisfaction – and it doesn’t seem to care whether that sex object is male, female, young, old, black, white, married, single, sheep, goat, or porcupine. All lust (as distinct from sexual desire) is condemned.
So we have the unanimous evdence of people who are gay (talking here the orientation, now) that they did not choose to be gay. And according to you (though not the Bible) it’s sinful to be gay. So tell me, His4Ever, where in Hell did this state of being gay come to afflict these people? (And I warn you, if you say it’s on account of their having turned away from God you will be the subject of the fastest growing Pit thread in board history – without any effort on my part. I know of at least three regular members here who were raised as good Christians, tried their best to be good Christians, and discovered they were gay at puberty. They, and all their friends, will inform you of your ignorance on the subject in strong detail.)
Yep. I don’t expect that you endorse or approve of homosexuality. (With a nod to matt_mcl, I don’t approve of thunderstorms either.) However, I do expect you to deal with the gay people here in the way that our Lord commanded us to. And intentionally being obtuse about what they’re talking about, and making claims based on your misreading of Scripture*, are not things He commanded. Listen to them, speak to them with compassion; if you must, cite Scripture to them as jjrt did – with an assurance that they are loved.
I am sorry to keep dwelling on this. You are very much entitled to your opinion on who is or is not a sinner. But I’d ask that you keep in mind what Jesus said we sinners are to do towards other sinners, and what we are to refrain from doing. Then maybe we can have some constructive dialogue on this and other subjects.
I am quite well aware that Leviticus states that one should not lie with a man as with a woman, and that Paul states that malakoi and arsinokaitoi, which are usually translated more or less as homosexuals, will not inherit the Kingdom. But God does not condemn the orientation – he cannot, any more than he can condemn you for “the sin of having been born female” or Herve Villeneuve for “the sin of having been born short.” These are conditions that one is born with and for all practical purposes cannot change. It’s what you do with what you’ve been given to work with that counts.
Memo: The Bible does not say that homosexuality is a sin. Posted by Polycarp
I’m sorry, brother Polycarp, but this statement I can’t ever agree with. I don’t see any defining statements in Scripture that state “it’s okay as long as you’re not using someone or being lustful.”. Let’s agree to disagree. You are right that though I believe the Bible teaches this to be wrong, I still need to treat the gays here in a courteous kind manner. And I meant what I said about “mommy dearest”. I beleive she handled that situation in a loving manner while still not compromising the truth she believed in.
Also it’s your opinion that I’m misreading the Scripture. How do you know you’re not misreading it? You don’t want it to be wrong, therefore it can’t possibly be wrong, right? Evidently millions of other Christians are also misreading it, according to your opinion.
I sometimes wonder how you would interpet those Scriptures that condemn it, if you read them with no preconceived bias or if there were not all the homosexuals we have today who are demanding our acceptance of. This post was not intended to be rude or anything, but we aren’t going to agree on this subject.
Let me clarify, Polycarp. In my post above, I’m talking about the actions of homosexuality, not the feelings or orientation, but the acting out sexually.
I agree (again) that he doesn’t condemn the orientation. I also think that lesbians aren’t mentioned but once, if that.
I’ll go one further and say that the knowing the context of Leviticus is just as necessary as the actual text, and once you do you’ll see the impracticality of taking anything in Levitus ‘literally’. 20:13 is within a subset of laws about sexual relations. They include forbidding a man to lie with his neighbor’s wife, his mother-in-law, his daughter-in-law, other men, his wife’s mother, his sister, an animal…taken as guidelines for husbands or future husbands, they make all the sense in the world.
Or, they would if the list included his daughter…or if it didn’t necessitate the killing of the offenders, which lands you in a heap of trouble nowadays. Not being a literalist, I’m understandably a little nervous of people who claim to want to follow Scripture to the letter. There are also things of this nature:
That’s an explicit condemnation too…it speaks more about (human) ignorance of bodily functions of the time than anything else though, to me…it must be absolutely right though to others since it’s God’s Word. Menstruation is a sickness, the Bible says it, that settles it.
I’m getting more nervous as time goes on, actually.
I do too. And said as much. And I think only Backwards[sup]2[/sup] saw anything really objectionable in it, once it was made clear that she clothed her message in a clear act of love towards the boy. Homebrew, am I right? You were the other person voicing objections to what jrt first said.
As for the remainder – I believe that we are all condemned by our sin, but saved through the grace of God. It’s incumbent on me to live morally by my own conscience as indwelled and guided by the Holy Spirit – if asked to judge, I’d say that the same is true for you, Homebrew, and everybody else.
Because I seem to have inherited a role of exegete on matters religious around here, you are correct in your challenge to my assuming I’m reading Scripture correctly.
But we’re told to “divide it properly” in Scripture itself. I can only understand that to mean: read it in context. And with what Jesus the Incarnate God the Son said were the most important parts being the most important parts for me. And that means that I see a list of prohibitions on Jews doing sexual stuff in the ways the Canaanites did, and don’t assume that that is applicable to people today who may be doing a few of the same behaviors, but not out of a desire to be assimilated into the local population, but rather out of love for someone else (or perhaps out of sheer horniness).
If a goldsmith makes a set of statuary representing a herd of cattle, is he therefore guilty of idolatry? After all, the young males in that herd are certainly Golden Calves! And if the answer in your mind is “no” then you have a handle on how a given action can be sinful or not depending on the context it’s done in.
Yes, Polycarp, I do still object to what jjrt said. Let’s review:
BZZZZZ. As we’ve discussed repeatedly, they don’t talk about homosexuality in the modern sense of the word.
Where’s the comfort the afflicted that Jesus calls for? “That’s your decision, you can go to hell if you want.”
Love with a “but” isn’t. And once again, we see that she, like many other here, can’t seem to understand that being homosexual is a state of being, not the act of having gay sex. “I don’t above of what you do…” What does he do? Go to school, hang out with friends, talk on the phone, watch TV? Love someone? You don’t approve of him loving someone? Then you don’t approve of having God in his life, for God is Love.
Gee. I have the same problems with heterosexuals. See, according to my faith, all heterosexuals who PRACTICE heterosexuality and do not repent are laden with sin and destined to Tartarus.
I find it a vile affliction which has no purpose other than reproduction which could be better handled by the sacred turkey baster as the gods intended.
But… though the practising heterosexual is laden with sin, it is not my place to judge their morally repugnant way of life.
I must just hold myself up as a symbol of what is right, good, and pure.
