And not a one of those address homosexuality as we understand it in modern terms. At most they condemn homosexual sex. But they most assuredly do not address homosexual attraction.
Try again.
Simply being attracted to others of the same sex is not a sin.
Temptation and action are two different things. Jesus makes the case that dwelling on a sin is the same as committing it (see his thoughts on adultery), but we know that tempation is not a sin because Jesus was tempted by Satan.
The one passage in Scripture that discusses gay desire, as distinct from the acts that constitute it, is the tag end of the first chapter of Romans, as His4Ever noted. The interesting thing about this passage, however, is that it is directed to heterosexuals who, rejecting God for “things of this world,” are looking for “kicks” – and the inflaming of desire of men for men and women for women as God’s punishment, IMHO conceived of as a sort of “shock treatment” for these folks. It has about as much application to people who discovered their orientation to be gay as does the Levitical prohibition on mixed fabrics to textile engineers today (or possibly less).
I have a distinct problem with the term “condone” in this context, because it implies (to me, at least) one with a right to judge whether or not something ought to be done by another. I’d see the situation in quite different terms: By His4Ever’s standards, for example, two people coming before a Mormon bishop to be married are not in fact marrying before either a civil magistrate nor a Christian minister, since she considers Mormons not to be Christian. (Or, if you prefer, use a rabbi, to avoid a hijack.) Yet I don’t see her protesting the idea that that man and woman have a right to be married in the church of their choice. (And dear, please don’t see that as picking on you again; I simply needed a case where somebody had firm views on another belief system, and your views on Mormonism came to mind.)
It would seem to me to be quite reasonable to have legislation in place where two gay people wishing to be joined in a covenanted union could contract a civil marriage of some sort or be married in a church which accepts their union, and that acceptance of such a law would not imply “condoning” their union, but simply allowing them to be free to contract that union, just as you might be opposed to two flighty eighteen-year-olds deciding to get married when you foresee trouble ahead for them, yet accept that they do have that legal right. What are your thoughts on this?
Why is sucking a penis a sin but sucking a lollipop is not?
:rolleyes:
Ah, I can illuminate here…
Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
It appears contradictory at a glance, but versus 2-5 explain verse 1. In the Mithrilhawk Paraphrase “You have no right to judge others because you’re a sinner, and probably a worse sinner. Besides, I’m going to use your own standards against you, which you will fail, so concentrate on your own relationship with God. When you have the sin in your life under control, then you can help your brother with his.”
Verse 6 clearly shows that using valid observations is not a sin. For example, if someone is bitterly hostile to the Word of God and utterly unrepentant, don’t waste time when you could be witnessing to someone more open to Christ.
consider condone retracted and replaced with endorsed. you’re correct, it does seem to imply some authority or influence on my part.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yes, all of them, every last one. :rolleyes:
Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick – homosexuality is the condition – homsexuality is NOT an action. It is a state of being. I’ve been watching you debate on this board for months (if you can call your ignore-those-who-trump you style "debating)… Have you learned nothing? Wait, sorry. I know the answer to that.
Yes. Unless you support total, 100% equality in all things for gays and lesbians – including the right for gays and lesbians to adopt, to serve in the military and to legally marry (or civil unionize or whatver) – then you are a bigot, because you do not believe in equality.
So sayeth Hiss, the “Christian” woman whose a serial polygamist that enjoys spreading unsubstantiated lies about Mormons and Catholics with abandon.
Hiss, Satan owes you a great big hug for all the people your actions will convert away from God.
What do the surrounding verses say? Why are you so passionate about these few and interpretable verses?
If being a homosexual is a sin, in an of itself, then why did God make them?
I mean, it’s not like homosexuals can take a pill and “Shazam!” they aren’t homosexual anymore.
“V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.”
A minimal rtranslation is "“And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination.”
Which could refer to males not doing things with males in a woman’s bed. This goes along with not wearing two kinds of fibers, having the meat and diary products seperate, etc.
“V’ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk’vei ishah to’evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d’meihem bam.”
Basically the same, but with a death sentace.
“And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is upon them.”
arugments against this (too much to write here)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm
This is a list of people who can not inherent the kingdom of God.
Malakoi - translated by some to mean effeminant.
however, “It could also mean “loose” or “pliable,” as in the phrase “loose morals,” implying “unethical behavior.” In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards.”
Arsenokoitai - translated as “homosexuals” although most scholars believe this actually refers to male temple prostitutes.
Also, in the early church, the relationship between David and Jonathan was considered romantic, and during same sex marriages, the names would be evoked.
If gays could be married in medieval times by the church, why isn’t it true today? Perhaps you religious folk would do good to take a look at how anti-homosexuality has been used to destroy the church for many years.
cite and more stuff is
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
Darlin’, I am so WITH you here…it is exactly how I feel, and what I believe.
WHICH is where I was when a point was brought up which made me start wondering about the fine line between “NOT judging” and “condoning.” 
I can see that I should DEFINATELY have titled this thread differently. It SHOULD have been “WHERE Is The Line Between NOT Judging and Condoning?” Please forgive me, for I am NOT wise in the ways of GD. And I am TOTALLY serious here.
Ummmmmmmm, yeah. :rolleyes:
And, for the umpteenmillionth time, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, only sex between men.
(And we start the dance again…)
Esprix
That’s it? Ok…ava talked a bit about what Paul said in Romans, discussing the destruction of Sodom. It’s open to interpretation but I think the idea that it was destroyed because of ‘homosexuality’ is way, way simplistic especially since he lists so many other charges against the place. I also had the impression that “God gave them up” to unnatural desires as a form of punishment - recreational sex, if you will. Judge for yourselves of course.
Leviticus is a set of OT laws. Included in or about Chapter 18-20 are the directives on who and what not to sleep with, including one’s livestock and one’s mother-in-law. This book is not, by itself, to be taken seriously and literally in practice. I hope.
Corinthians 6:9: *Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
6:10
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. *
This is another from Paul and that colors my perception of what is said. I don’t have to take it literally; I’m not a literalist. I see that the ‘effeminate’ could possibly mean homosexuals but probably meant male prostitututes; I know that Paul also recommended a life of abstinence unless you’re not strong enough to do so which I believe is mentioned a few times. Paul is the one who also tells slaves to obey thy masters and says that women cannot have authority over men, etc. I have a lot of trouble, personally, ascribing his words to God Himself because where Christ was outwardly inclusive, self-sacrificing, setting examples for others to follow, Paul was actively trying to impose a religious order on the people he is addressing, and actively encouraging them to be more like Paul himself. It’s a big issue with me even without any matters of sexuality.
Matthew 7, Judge not is a great passage because it reminds us that we tend to be hypocritical, and in this case I think it is highly relevant. Paying special attention to Leviticus nowadays when we’ve all agreed as a society to ignore mixing-fiber issues and dietary restrictions and God knows what else is a bit hypocritical. IMO.
I just plain disagree that it is ‘strongly’ condemned in the Bible.
I’m sure you don’t act on it, as you’ve said, but you still don’t like it. You would want someone to stop being gay and/or having sex, because you think it is wrong. How would you describe that?
I appreciate the acknowledgement.
Given your paragraph above, are you surprised?
Esprix
Are you keeping Old Testament law, or did Jesus form a new covenant, or what? If you’re going to bring up Leviticus to justify an anti-gay stance, you are a hypocrite - period. (Yes, I know you’re just answering a question about Biblical verses, but it’s also obvious you believe these passages.)
Esprix