# Raindog, why can't a loving God accept homosexual relationships? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305 "2004-05-09T17:13:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/101 "2004-05-16T03:07:20Z")
**Polycarp said:** > [@](#): > > Greetings, **Raindog**. I’d enter into this dialogue with you, if I may. Greetings Polycarp. > [@](#): > > There are only a couple of things I feel appropriate to bring up. First one is referencing the Peter story in Acts 10 which you and others have dealt with, principally in addressing why Christians are no longer subject to the Jewish dietary law. > > But it’s Paul’s contention that _ **we are free from the Law** _ – not a pick-and-choose dietary-is-out, ritual-is-out, moral-well-that’s-still-valid (and, by the way, I gather there’s a fair amount of overlap in Talmud between those categories; they’re Christian moral theological inventions, not ways in which the Jews subdivided the Law). And it’s particularly worth noting what Peter says when he speaks with Cornelius after the vision of the bedsheet of clean and unclean foodstuffs. > > Peter got the message. It’s not the dietary law that’s been abrogated – it’s the whole separation of man from God and from fellow man. My contextual understanding of the account in Acts was that the message of the Christ was now to be sent to the whole world, (the Gentiles) not simply the world of the Jews. The reference to the Law in Peter’s vision was appropriate as the Law was a mechanism designed to lead to the Messiah. And, I agree with your comment. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, despite claiming the opposite, most Christians still, perhaps unconsciously, divide the world into righteous and sinners (the righteous being sinners who are aware of it, repent, and try to eschew their sins). > > And that doesn’t work. We’re all sinners, and we’re all forgiven for our sins – at least when we repent, and I think God’s mercy extends well beyond that. It’s His love and grace, not our own efforts to avoid sin, that make the difference. Well…I would have to agree in part…I personally do not see the world in this context though. I don’t see anyone as “righteous” although that is a word that can be used in different contexts. For example God referred to Job as “righteous”, (“blameless” in some translations). **(Job 1:8) Malachi spoke of the difference between the righteous and wicked saying, “And YOU people will again certainly see [the distinction] between a righteous one and a wicked one, between one serving God and one who has not served him.”” (Mal 3:18) Jesus spoke of the righteous. (Matt 13:43, 5:45 and others) God himself is said to have his eyes on the righteous one,and makes a distinction towards those doing bad, saying "For [the] eyes of God are upon the righteous ones, and his ears are toward their supplication; but [the] face of God is against those doing bad things.” (1 Pet 3:12)** \*\* (others Pr 15:28, 29:2, Acts 24:15)\*\* Yet, Paul said at **Romans 3:10** “just as it is written: “There is not a righteous [man], not even one; …” Proverbs says “Who can say: “I have cleansed my heart; I have become pure from my sin”” **(Pr 20:9)** Ecclesiastes says “For there is no man righteous in the earth that keeps doing good and does not sin.” **(Ec 7:20)** The bible would indicate that we cannot, through our efforts, redeem ourselves and become “saved” (as one would perceive saved…). We cannot never become “good”. **(Mark 10:18)** So, I would agree with you that God’s grace, love and mercy is what gives us any hope for redemption. It is certainly necessary as no matter how “righteous” one is to lead their life, they can never “earn” salvation. Nonetheless, the cites that indicate that we still have an obligation to try are legion. Our salvation is not an all or nothing proposition; that either we can do it ourselves or there’s no point in trying. So I would have to say “that our own efforts to avoid sin” do make a difference. > [@](#): > > We’re free from the Law, not to sin, but to live a new life characterized by love. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” And the key commandments are to love God, love one’s fellow man, love each other as He loved us, do unto others as one would have them do unto yourself. That is what Jesus gave as the Summary of the Law, the New Commandment which He gave on Maundy Thursday night, and the Golden Rule which is the only thing aside from the Summary of the Law which He stated to encapsulate Law and Prophets. > > So if I sin, or am tempted to sin, what am I supposed to do? Well, have faith in God’s forgiveness of me and His faithfulness and lovingkindness towards me. Try to avoid sin. But that isn’t easy. How to do it? Well, the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, inducing repentance, and gives strength to avoid it in future. I agree. We must try to avoid sin. That requires not just action and effort on our part, but a willingness to rely on the holy spirit to give us the necessary strength. > [@](#): > > That’s the key point on moral theology – it’s the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin – not Jerry Falwell or Polycarp or the Raindog or Vanilla or Diogenes – or even the Bible. The Bible gives some good clues as to how to live a moral life, sandwiched in with a lot of other stuff, some of high importance and some of interest only to a Jewish genealogist or etymological researcher. But the day it gets converted to a rulebook for living is the day that people have stopped following the Living God to Whom it bears witness, and started becoming a legalistic group of historicists. I would have to disagree here. Once again, one has to have balance. The bible surely gives a lot more than ‘clues’ as to how to live a moral life. And, it’s usefullness as a guidebook for relationshios, marriage, raising kids, business affairs and others is as pertinent as it ever was. For those who consider it’s principles when making decisions, it can hardly be said that they are a group of legalistsic historicists. > [@](#): > > If and when God the Holy Trinity wants **Esprix** to live a celibate life, He is more than capable of convicting him of his sin, and over four years of friendship have persuaded me that **Esprix** is a man who would listen to such a call. In the interim, God wants **Esprix** – and you, and me – to keep His most important laws – and that involves love of our fellow man. It involves speaking up when they are misunderstood, ostracized, condemned by people who refuse to believe the plain truth about them. It involves defending them when they are assaulted, physically or verbally. It involves standing foursquare against unjust laws that would harm them, no matter how “Biblical” those laws are. (Might I point out that if one went back with a time machine and brought the major Old Testament figures to the present, approximately three-quarters of them would immediately be thrown in jail for sex crimes, notably bigamy? “One man and one woman” is about as Biblical as Jerry Falwell’s polyester suit!) While I agree with much of what you’ve said, I have to disagree with some as well. (Some of it strongly) And I would note that in the months I spent as a lurker I read many of your posts and I can see why you are held in high esteem here. I have never condemned a homosexual, and I would stand in defense of someone who was attacking one. I would stand and defend one verbally and physically as well. Over the years I have had gay friends and workmates and have spent time in homosexaul environments. Still, it is the practice (behavior) that my reading of the bible indicates is unapproved. I do not believe that the homosexaul orientation is an overt act of sin. I do however believe that is incumbent upon the homosexual to refrain from homosexual behavior that God condemns. I know that opinion is anathema to most homosexuals, and hasn’t made me popular here. I do appreciate though that I have been treated, by and large, with respect and dignity. And I apologize for those I may have offended. > [@](#): > > Are you prepared to stand up and do what Jesus told you to do – even if it means that a lot of “good Christians” will condemn you for it? Those are curious words to me… I’m not sure what you mean by that. I hope you don’t feel that my views are influenced by what a lot of “good Christians” (I presume the religious or “conservative” religious establishment…) think. I don’t know any "good Christians, and if I did, I wouldn’t care much about their opinions as it related to the practice of my faith. And despite not being good myself, I do try to live the model that Christ left us. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/102 "2004-05-16T03:35:09Z")
**Diogenes the Cynic said in 2 successive posts:** > [@](#): > > You’re still missing the point that a loving God cannot condemn homosexual relationships. To condemn a loving relationship is an act of evil. If God is all good then he doesn’t condemn homosexuality, period. It’s a contradiction in terms to say that he does. > > And the Bible doesn’t say anything about homosexual relationships, as has been abundantly pointed out to you by people who know more about Greek than you. > > (Start screaming) Well…I think we’ve covered this ad nauseum. I think the bible supports that, A) God has demonstrated that he has condemned some “loving” relationships (pre-relationship) and gone on and whipped some butt when some people tested him out and did there own thing. (post-relationship) And that’s even when the basis of the defense was , “hey, we were in love!.” And despite your command of Greek, I’m left unconvinced as to your assertion, “the Bible doesn’t say anything about homosexual relationships…” (Screaming commences…) **And:** > [@](#): > > The only obligation is to love, and any rule which is contradictory to love is not from God. The cites that would indicate that a Christian has obligations in addition to “love” are too numerous to count. Love is the greatest command, but hardly the only one, as you’ve said. And “love” is not an invitation to a standardless spiritual environment where all the requiremtns set down by God are rendered invalid as long as love is present. That jus can’t be supported. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/103 "2004-05-16T03:40:41Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > The cites that would indicate that a Christian has obligations in addition to “love” are too numerous to count. Love is the greatest command, but hardly the only one, as you’ve said. And “love” is not an invitation to a standardless spiritual environment where all the requiremtns set down by God are rendered invalid as long as love is present. That jus can’t be supported. Any other “obligations” are really just the natural results of feeling love. As long as love is present, all obligations have been met. If an action proceeds from love, then it can’t be a sin. And any God who wiould condemn a loving relationship is not a God of love. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/104 "2004-05-16T03:41:30Z")
All… I must say that I’ve enjoyed the exchanges, although I’m not they accomplished much. But they have taken more time in the last few days than I really had to give. So, I neglected a few other items that I should have spent more time on. In the coming days I may post again to this thread , but it would appear that it’s on the wane. But I may not have the time to devote to the thread as I have in the last week or so. ---
**Author:** ![Freyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/freyr/32/5763_2.png) [@Freyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freyr)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/105 "2004-05-16T03:51:44Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > I do not believe that the homosexaul orientation is an overt act of sin. I do however believe that is incumbent upon the homosexual to refrain from homosexual behavior that God condemns. I’m curious, why does God condemn homosexual acts/behavior? You’ve compared them to adultry and drunkeness. The physical, emotional and mental damage of those behaviors are plain. However, homosexual behavior doesn’t damage anyone. If you can prove so, I’d love to hear about it. Otherwise, I find it illogical for an omnipotent, omniscent and omnibenevolent being to condemn a behavior that doesn’t hurt anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/106 "2004-05-16T04:25:59Z")
Raindog, What about shopping? Isn’t it incumbent upon a true believing Christian to avoid shopping? Why isn’t that of greater interest to Heterosexual American Christians? Perhaps because shopping is a sin they like, rather than a sin that they don’t. But to even pretend that it is a sin that ranks below, or above some other sin is self serving hypocrisy. How can anyone claim to be following God’s law, and coveting his neighbor’s goods as a form of entertainment? We can’t, you see. We are sinners. And preaching about sin is an abomination. Preach about Salvation! Preach about the love of God. None are righteous, no, not one! So let’s get over this lie that Christians are not sinners. They are all sinners, every single one of them. And to decide that you are called to enumerate the appropriate choices of which sin is a worse sin than anther one is . . . well, a sin. Christ will decide what our sins are, when we meet, on Judgement Day. And when He does, each of us will weep in the deepest places of our hearts. Those places which we tried to hide from Him, so that we could sin our sins, and still deny the sins of others. What vile wickedness we humans cling to. But those sins, like all others will be blow away like dust, and we will be lifted up, above our most petty desires, and make anew. It’s gonna rock! Tris ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/107 "2004-05-16T04:32:58Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > Raindog, > > What about shopping? > > Isn’t it incumbent upon a true believing Christian to avoid shopping? > > Why isn’t that of greater interest to Heterosexual American Christians? > > Perhaps because shopping is a sin they like, rather than a sin that they don’t Um, why in the world do you think that shopping is a sin? And can you cite any Biblical support for this claim? ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/108 "2004-05-16T05:37:02Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Um, why in the world do you think that shopping is a sin? And can you cite any Biblical support for this claim? Exodus, Chapter 20, Verse 17. ---
**Author:** ![Israfel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/87869e/32.png) [@Israfel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Israfel)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/109 "2004-05-16T05:43:14Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > Exodus, Chapter 20, Verse 17. Is this the passage? “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Isn’t this a commandment against jealousy? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/110 "2004-05-16T05:45:06Z")
> [@Israfel](#): > > Is this the passage? > “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” > Isn’t this a commandment against jealousy? Some consider it a prohibition against materialism. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/111 "2004-05-16T06:08:17Z")
To covet it to desire, or want. The stuff at the store is not mine; it is my neighbor’s. Coveting it is a sin. Spending the day comparison coveting is pretty much reveling in sin. The fact that my neighbor wants me to covet his things is irrelevant. Tris ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/112 "2004-05-16T19:41:14Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > To covet it to desire, or want. Not quite true. Here is what [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) has to say on this matter: > [@](#): > > cov·et > _v._ cov·et·ed, cov·et·ing, cov·ets > _v. tr._ > > 1. To feel blameworthy desire for (that which is another’s). See Synonyms at _envy_. > 2. To wish for longingly. See Synonyms at _desire_. > > _v. intr._ > > 1. To feel immoderate desire for that which is another’s. Note the emphasis provided in these definitions. While it _can_ mean a general longingness, it is also used to denote “blameworthy” or “immoderate” desire for such a thing. You’re insisting that it’s the former definition which applies, whereas a more appropriate alternate definition exists – one which more closely fits the context. Exodus 20 speaks about various grave offenses, and so it is only logical to assume that it is referring to the _inappropriate_ longing for someone elses goods, which goes beyond mere desire. Indeed, here is what [netbible.com](http://www.netbible.com/netbible/) has to say about the original Hebrew phraseology used in that passage: > [@](#): > > The verb dmj (hamad) focuses not on an external act but on an internal mental activity behind the act, the motivation for it. The word can be used in a very good sense (Ps 19:10; 68:16); but it has a bad connotation in contexts where the object desired is off limits. This command is aimed at curtailing the greedy desire for something belonging to a neighbor, a desire that leads to the taking of it or the attempt to take it. It was used in the story of the Garden of Eden for the tree that was desired. > [@Triskadecamus](#): > > The stuff at the store is not mine; it is my neighbor’s. > > Coveting it is a sin. > > Spending the day comparison coveting is pretty much reveling in sin. “Comparison coveting” (if such a term is meaningful) would indeed be a sin. Mere shopping is not. You are insisting on applying the more innocuous definition of the term “covet,” whereas it is the malicious definition that more properly applies. Indeed, both the context and the connotations of the original Hebrew term used demonstrate this to be so. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/113 "2004-05-17T02:26:47Z")
> [@Freyr](#): > > I’m curious, why does God condemn homosexual acts/behavior? You’ve compared them to adultry and drunkeness. The physical, emotional and mental damage of those behaviors are plain. However, homosexual behavior doesn’t damage anyone. If you can prove so, I’d love to hear about it. Otherwise, I find it illogical for an omnipotent, omniscent and omnibenevolent being to condemn a behavior that doesn’t hurt anyone. Frankly, I don’t know why from God’s POV, or the bible. God has his own sense of moraility and justice and it is he, and only he, that can determine what is ‘moral.’ The fact that there isn’t any cites (that I know of) that explains his reasoning for the prohibition, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have any. It’s quite possible that there is a reason and he hasn’t shared it with us. Further, it is possible that it does hurt us as a species in a way that we don’t recognize. **(Isa 55:8,9)** As any parent knows, our children often can’t see the logic in rules we set out for them. At times, we engage them and explain our rationale. Sometimes they agree, once the reasons are explained. Other times, even after the explanation, they still disagree. If they choose to defy their parent, they do so at their own peril. Often there is bitter consequences for disobeying. But, in the final analasys, a parent has no obligation to explain every decision. A parent has the right to say from time to time, “because I said so.” A loving parent will use this approach sparingly. And God has. Time and again he humbled himself and appealed to the Israelites to recognize the value in keeping his commandments.\*\* (Isa 48:17)\*\* **(Micah chapter 6 is a great example)** And so God, like any loving parent explains himself when he feels that it is appropriate, and at other times he appeals to his children with reason, although he certainly has the authority to force the issue. But there are times when he’s established a requirement and apparently saw no need to explain himself. **(See Dan 4:37)** No matter though, in every case we have an obligation to be humble and accept that God loves us, and his requirements are always for our benefit. (Even when we don’t see how, or like them)\*\* (Micah 6:8, Jas 4:10, 1 Pet 5:5-7, Phil 2:5-8, Matt 18:3-4, Luke 14:7-11, Matt 23:12, John 13:5, Col 3:12, Dan 10:11-12, Pr 22:4)\*\* It takes humility to accept a set of requirements that are difficult, or distasteful. It’s particularly hard when it is against our natural inclinations, and even worse when we disagree. (or cannot see any logical value in the prohibition) As a society we speak of love often, and we should. It is the greatest commandment. Nonetheless, to follow in Christs’s steps takes an extraordinary amount of humility. But humans are (sinfully) selfish and humility is a quality that has to be cultivated. In western society (vis a vis many oriental cultures) humility is not spoken of, and is often seen as weakness. It may be extrememly difficult for a homosexual to reconcile the biblical prohibition on homosexuality. Still, many other people suffer as well, and the prohibition on sex between unmarried (hetero) persons is just as difficult to accept. (Especially since many people see this too as a “victimless” behavior) This is not likely to be an acceptable answer in this forum. But IMHO, a measure of humility is essential to carry out one’s faith. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/114 "2004-05-17T03:35:07Z")
**Raindog** , there’s a lot you say that I don’t agree with (though quite a bit that I do, including your point about humility in that last post). But can I say that the approach you have taken in this thread is head and shoulders above virtually every other debate on this subject in the history of this board. For that, many thanks! Just out of curiosity, I’d be interested in your take on a series of points made on several boards by a large number of people, and founded in the sort of Bible scholarship that takes into account the customs of the people to whom the particular book of the Bible was addressed, and those of the peoples surrounding them. This would take the view that the Leviticus passages condemn Canaanite fertility rites, that Romans 1:22ff condemn either similar fertility rites or the First Century equivalent of “gay chic” as a part of a world-and-personal-pleasure-oriented lifestyle, not specifically a gay lifestyle, and that the I Corinthians passage condemns boy prostitution, which was a significant part of the burgeoning prostitution industry in the port city of Corinth. The Sodom story is already dealt with quite effectively by Ezekiel 16:49-50, which defines “the sin of Sodom” in terms that should make suburbanites rather than gays start to worry. In other words, God is thoroughly ticked off at man using other men for selfish gratification or idolatrous purposes, just as he is men using women for said purposes, not specifically because it’s gay sex, but because it’s sinful attitudes and behaviors expressed through gay sex acts. In other words, there are heinous sins of idolatry and sexual exploitation which God condemns, but two gay people in love and wanting to enter into a Christian marriage with each other are no more committing those sins than the young straight couple marrying are guilty of the assorted condemnations of adultery, fornication, and whoredoms with which the same collection of passages are replete. ---
**Author:** ![Danger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Danger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danger)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/115 "2004-05-17T04:08:26Z")
First of all most if not all “religions” are ignorant of their origins and make it up as they go through time. The truth is man in general has no knowledge of even what a god is! This being the case one must rely on two things. History and true spiritual insight. The CREATOR created the gods,(both male and female) to teach mankind and lead them to a greator future. The Creator has no gender but has the ability to create gender. Well folks, the gods of earth, each given his or her realm to be in charge of on earth…literally screwed up big time!!! For this reason the Creator gave them hard time to repent. Does todays world look like they have repented? No…so they are REALLY REALLY SCREWED THIS TIME AND NO TURNING BACK! You may think this is a little lengthy and not to the point but it is necessary. By what is mankind judged?? Just about forever we are and have been judged by what is in our hearts. If one loves his fellow man or woman is this something evil that plagues the heart? No. Is man ultimately just exactly as the Creator made us? Yes. Far too much study has long since proven that first, there have been homosexuals in all known history and every deviation of what may be called the norm. I am an intellect and am not gay…but I cannot deny truth. Typically, what is termed a gay, is more precisely a homosexual…but there are also gender dysphoria problems where a male or female knows themselves to be of the opposite gender. No matter what civilization in general rationalizes, all those people are simply trying to be as close to normal as they can be and live with their problems. They are in fact what the Creator made them to be. Everything has a purpose in life. If one is full of respect and love for their fellow man than no harm is done and the Creator is pleased that we are tolerant. But if we are intollerant we will have no forgiveness. Look at it this way because psychologists certainly do…first, there is no such thing as “normal!” It is simply an ignorant myth. Even the difference of race and racial habits should have taught man something. Apparently it has not. Men and women are different as well, which should give us a clue and it has not. One MUST ask this question…am I somehow threatened by gays? I would say from my experience from marriage that I have probably been caused more personal grief with this relationship than by any other association. Maybe life would be better just by happily mating and abandon marriages. : ) ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/116 "2004-05-17T05:16:01Z")
So, it’s OK to covet, as long as I only covet a little bit. And if I want to do something that might be forbidden in the Law of Moses, all I need is a little work with dictionaries, and bibles and some interpreting. Of course, no interpreting when we are discussing those things that the mainstream protestant churches happen to agree on. So, cotton/poly leisure suits are not an abomination before God, and I can eat milk gravy all I want, as long as I do my research diligently. Like I said earlier, we mostly concern ourselves with sins that we don’t particularly want to commit, and condemn those sins publicly, and kinda keep it quiet about our own favorite sins. Homosexuality has lots of critics, but organized gambling in churches is certainly not sinful, after all, churches are doing it. No hypocrisy there. We are not put on the earth to avoid sin, but to give love. Do good. Not to gain reward; not even to please God. Choose to do good because it is better than doing evil. And doing good takes a bit more effort than such self pleasing things as celibacy, honesty, or sanctity. Doing good means giving to our brothers because our brother needs us. Filling the measure, and shaking, and tamping it down, filling again, to overflowing. That is doing good. The only sin we need to attend to is our own. The sins of our brothers are the burden for which they must seek the Lord’s help. And which sins those are is really none of our business. I repeat my major point. None are righteous, no, not one. Telling other people that they are sinful, is not the job of human judges. Human judges only judge the law of men. God has given us grace, not because we are good enough, but because He is good enough. To preach against sin is to preach self glorification. Preach Salvation. Preach of the love God has for Man. Preach of our Savior, and His love. And love sinners. It is the ultimate answer to “What would Jesus do?” And while you are busy running your life by WWJD, when matters of authority come up, remember, YANJ. “You are not Jesus.” Tris ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/117 "2004-05-17T09:49:05Z")
So, **raindog** , you’ve cited several passages discussing heaven from both old and new testaments. You’ve responded to people who posted before me and after me. I admit to being a touch disappointed. You see, on page 2 of this thread I cited a passage in Matthew 15 where I not only cited a passage where Jesus discusses how the law applies to mankind under his new covenant, I put the passage itself into the text so you and others would be able to see exactly what words I was looking at. Do you have a response? Are you still working on your response to that passage? You’ve spoken a great deal of Christians’ obligation to follow the law yet, once again, I’ll cite Christ’s response to those who slavishly follow the letter of the law. It’s from that bit of Matthew 15 I cited this weekend. Jesus said, "You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: > [@](#): > > " ‘These people honor me with their lips, > but their hearts are far from me. > They worship me in vain; > their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ " For me, to deny others a blessing and a sacrament I would like for myself because of ambiguously worded passages about homosexual act would make me a hypocrite. It seems to me Christ saved his worst criticism not for homosexuals, adulterers, or others who commited sexual immorality, but for those same hypocrites. If I must be a sinner, I would much rather be the sort of sinner Christ took compassion on than the sort of sinner he denounced. Respectfully, CJ ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/118 "2004-05-17T13:16:43Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > So, it’s OK to covet, as long as I only covet a little bit. No. It’s okay to covet _if_ this word is used in the more general, morally neutral sense. It is NOT okay to covet in the sense of an inappropriate longing for what another person owns. You have no case here. The Bible does NOT condemn shopping, either directly or indirectly. > [@](#): > > And if I want to do something that might be forbidden in the Law of Moses, all I need is a little work with dictionaries, and bibles and some interpreting. Nonsense. Words frequently have multiple meanings, and a _responsible_ reader will attempt to determine the most appropriate meaning using both context and logic. This holds true for both religious and secular writings. For example, the word “love” has a multitude of meanings. if I were to say “I love my country,” then the context of this word would clearly indicate patriotic fervor, rather than romantic affection. Only someone who is intellectually dishonest would insist that this means that I somehow hold my country with romantic regard. In contrast, you insisted on using the more general sense of the word “covet,” when both logic and its immediate context showed that this word was meant in its negative sense. It would be intellectually dishonest to continue insisting that Yahweh meant to use the former definition, when it is the latter definition that is more logical and more sensible in this context. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/119 "2004-05-17T19:26:20Z")
**Esprix** \<3 **Triskadecamus** ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/120 "2004-05-17T20:50:05Z")
Re The Mosaic Laws I agree that most of these have some purely secular reason. However, knowing that reason does not automatically render the law null and void. Further, following the laws is well recognised way for a Jew to show that they love G-d, as well as honoring their mother and their father ('You’ve started keeping kosher?! Oy, such simchas! Your zeide, may he rest in peace, would be so proud! I’m all faklempt in my gonnechtegezoit!). It’s a silent and unobtrusive type of witnessing. No shouting or handing out pamphlets, just the occasional ‘Remember guys, we need at least one pizza with no meat.’. I’ve long taken a passage from Job as meaning not ‘Hey! I’m the Lord here! I don’t haveta explain to you why I do the things I do!’ but ‘Look, bubbele, I’m eternal and all-knowing. You can’t understand why I do what I do. I could change you so that you could understand. But, I’d have to change you so much you wouldn’t be human anymore. You just gotta trust that I love you and I have a plan.’ Re Ecclesiastes Of course it says there is not one righteous man. It’s more pessimistic than Eyore on downers. It’s also preceded and followed by tales of righteous men and righteous women. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305.md?page=7)