Question about the Homosexuality

[shadze]

Sigh The Bible is so vague and can be assumed very easily.
This is the example of Adam and Eve . Most use the variuos
scriptures a confirmation that it was Gods will that the only
sexual act that was approved was hetereosexuality. I
have reall problemns with this .

My name is neither Adam or eve.

God gave these two individuals separating them
from mankind to bear children .* I can hear your gospel brains ticking ehehehehe*
When the reference to one flesh actually can be translated to a type of mankind
not to mankind in general.Also is it not true God called both male and female
Adam or Adamah Thier are many things we do not know. It was Adam who
was created in Gods Image not Eve. Eve was a part of Adam .Mankind
has always reflected the female part of God with Christ as the Head.
In reality Christ is going to marry both men or woman whether this is
argued as symbolic or not if marrying the same sex was wrong
this could be interred as a sinful act as it has the appearance of evil.

Eve was in the garden less than 9 months.
We really don't know whether same sex identities
we of God or not as woman gave birth to anyone until
she was sent outside of the garden. With this in mind
we cannot appropriately interpret scripture using the
audacity that one sexual identity is approved.Neither
can we try to use scripture whose backgrounds is based
on idol worship to confirm our beliefs.

The only real point can be that same sex identity
wasn't written much in both testaments . It
actuaally was sublty portrayed .Christ was never stupid.
supporters of gay hate flex your muscles and
walk in a stride in your arrogance you dont realise
Christ said you are going to be his Wife. Not a Bromance
a Wife.Christ the man said you would have to love him
as a Wife. You would argue symbolic but under legal
terms you are marrying a man. .

Is anti gay statements racist.

Yes they are .

[Soyeong]

I think you need to do a lot less assuming. That, or just post directly into the screwball section.

[Xru]

Genetic or otherwise . . . so what. Say I have an emotion . . . rage. I would like to bash someone. I do not bash someone because I choose not to.

People choose NOT to act on impulses, or emotions all the time every day.

Born with Homosexuality? I was born with a rage response and a really really big one that has got me into a lot of trouble (not lately thankfully).

Grow up and take responsibility for your actions or sins.

Attracted sexually to men and ONLY men. Then don't have sex . . . period. It's a tough world. Stop wining.

[Der Kanzler]

How much of Mosaic law do we follow today? Or do we follow Christ's law, to the best of our abilities? We don't stone our children for acting out. What happened to "do not judge"?

The point being that we don't follow the majority of Mosaic law. Why, then, should we nitpick? Either follow all of it or dismiss all of it in favor of Christ's teachings, which don't include homosexuality being immoral. I think Christ's word was more than sufficient for teaching us how to live our lives. I'd say Mosaic law was more about pragmatism (the spread of homosexuality leads to a lower birthrate leads to no more Isreal).

http://barkbite.blogspot.com/2005/07...sexuality.html

Edit: Oh wow this is an old thread

[Soyeong]

How much of Mosaic law do we follow today? Or do we follow Christ's law, to the best of our abilities? We don't stone our children for acting out.

The Mosaic law can be divided into three categories: ceremonial, civil, and moral. Ceremonial laws were given to the Levites concerning ceremonies, civil laws were given to Israelites concerning how they should behave as a society, and moral were given to expound upon what is moral. While some argue that we should follow more than just the moral laws, most Christians can agree that moral laws are objective and we are obligated to at least follow them regardless of who they were given to.

What happened to "do not judge"?

Matthew 7:1-5

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

For some reason this is often misunderstood and makes no sense as you are suggesting because we judge many times a day, every time we make a decision. Rather, in context, the passage is not saying do not ever remove the speck from your brother's eye, but to not be hypocritical about it and first remove the plank from your own eye before you do theirs.

[Der Kanzler]

In that case, my question is: Why is the moral section of the Mosaic law not replaced by the teachings of Christ, when all the others are? They're all part of "the law", which would not end until all was fulfilled, correct? Was all fulfilled with Christ's sacrifice? I believe so.

Apologies for any weak arguments, I'm more used to debating atheists than theists, lol.

Anyways, I tend to think of it along these lines:
http://www.mlp.org/resources/packet/porter.pdf

[Soyeong]

In that case, my question is: Why is the moral section of the Mosaic law not replaced by the teachings of Christ, when all the others are? They're all part of "the law", which would not end until all was fulfilled, correct? Was all fulfilled with Christ's sacrifice? I believe so.

God's moral authority is based on His nature, which does not change. In other words, what is morally wrong can not ever be replaced because it will always be morally wrong. Commandments being given in the Bible is not what makes them moral or immoral; they are included in the Bible because they describe God's objective moral standard. This standard is written on our hearts, so it applies to everyone regardless of who it was described to.

I'm in the middle of a debate with my mom on the topic of whether we should still keep laws like the Sabbath, so I'm undecided at the moment, plus it's a bit off topic, but here is a pretty good article on the subject from a messianic Jewish perspective.

Anyways, I tend to think of it along these lines:
http://www.mlp.org/resources/packet/porter.pdf

A homosexual who is someone who is naturally more inclined to sin sexually, is not significantly different from a kleptomaniac who is is naturally more inclined to steal, or a impulsive liar who is naturally more inclined to lie, or a sinner who is naturally more inclined to sin. While we don't have a choice about being a sinner, that does not excuse sinning, so the whole line of reasoning about homosexuality being natural and not something chosen is a load of bunk.

The Bible tells us that everyone sins, so I fully expect that everyone, including church leadership, has certain sins that they struggle with. I'm fine if the sin they happen to struggle with is the desire to practice homosexuality, but I expect that they try to resist that sin, along with any other sin, and that they will be repentant afterwards. Only people who have made Jesus their Lord should be allowed to be members of the church, so under no circumstances should someone who is unwilling to repent be accepted. In other words, that line that line of reasoning that "we are telling them we accept you as long as you don’t behave the way you are" is also a load of bunk.

Yet, nowhere in scripture does the Bible condemn homosexuality as it is understood or practiced today.

This line and those that dismiss other verses against practicing homosexuality seem to be really weak rationalizations trying to say "oh it says it's an abomination, but it doesn't really mean that."

[Der Kanzler]

I see. Thanks!

[shadze]

Genetic or otherwise . . . so what. Say I have an emotion . . . rage. I would like to bash someone. I do not bash someone because I choose not to.

People choose NOT to act on impulses, or emotions all the time every day.

Born with Homosexuality? I was born with a rage response and a really really big one that has got me into a lot of trouble (not lately thankfully).

Grow up and take responsibility for your actions or sins.

Attracted sexually to men and ONLY men. Then don't have sex . . . period. It's a tough world. Stop wining.

Ridiculiuos what is ignored and I repeat again is Eve only lived in the garden less than 9 months. Thier is NO evidence both her and Adam had any children
prior to this. When Cain was born it would of been outside of Eden. Eve would of been 100 percent fertile so from her creation to when she left can be simply
based with a 10 month period. Eve never had any chance to give birth to many normal births like Hermaphrodites or even Gay people. When God cursed
Adam and Eve with labour and birth pains it was clear this was because of Sin. Which the Bible teaches through the Sin of One man sin came into the world
this is referring to even not Adam but Eve as God called both these creation Adam or Adammah red dirt or mankind.One could argue that sin mutated mankinds
hetereosexual passion and people where born into the wrong physical bodies. As Gay people are just finding the other part of themselves to be complete.
With this in mind the relationship will still be blessed from God as they are entering a union that God wanted in the first place. Apart from the one flesh example
which can be translated as a type of Man not the human race. The Church judges a minority not because the scripture says otherwise is because these group
of people do not fit in the Churchs so called perfect plan. Wake up Church nothing is perfect. The Adam and Eve is not a story of sexual example as we know
Eve had no time to validate different sexusalitys but a history of the mistakes of our forefathers.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Ridiculiuos what is ignored and I repeat again is Eve only lived in the garden less than 9 months.

Where do you get "less than 9 months" from? And why would that be relevant?

There is NO evidence both her and Adam had any children
prior to this.

Agreed... the Biblical account does seem to indicate that Adam and Eve were the only ones evicted from the Garden as a result of their sin and since Eve is the "mother of all living".

Eve never had any chance to give birth to many normal births like Hermaphrodites or even Gay people.

By what basis are you establishing that hermaphrodites, gays, people with bad eyes, bad lungs, bad hearts, juvenile athritis, etc. are normal births? Because they were born in a Sin Fallen world?

One could argue that sin mutated mankinds
hetereosexual passion and people where born into the wrong physical bodies. As Gay people are just finding the other part of themselves to be complete.

As Xru pointed out, he was born with "rage response". Would it not be reasonable to grant that when he fulfills his rage response with rage, he's becoming more complete? No. Absolutely not. And neither is it reasonable to grant that gays are becoming complete when they act on there homosexual tendencies.

With this in mind the relationship will still be blessed from God as they are entering a union that God wanted in the first place.

Where does the idea that God wanted them in a homosexual relationship? Does that mean that, since i was born into sin, God wants me to be a sinner?

The Church judges a minority not because the scripture says otherwise is because these group
of people do not fit in the Churchs so called perfect plan.

What does the Scripture say on the matter? Both the New Testament and the Old say that same gender sex is a sin. Sin is a rebelling against God and His will/plan/desire.

Eve had no time to validate different sexusalitys

Where is any indication that, had Adam and Eve remained sinless longer, different sexualities would have emerged?

[shadze]

Where do you get "less than 9 months" from? And why would that be relevant?


eve was fertile you cannot convince me she could not have children later. Eve was a perfect fertile woman soby the time of her creation to her first child would of been at least 10 months.


By what basis are you establishing that hermaphrodites, gays, people with bad eyes, bad lungs, bad hearts, juvenile athritis, etc. are normal births? Because they were born in a Sin Fallen world?

Because of sin thier has not been a time prior to sin that Eve could have had these different births.


As Xru pointed out, he was born with "rage response". Would it not be reasonable to grant that when he fulfills his rage response with rage, he's becoming more complete? No. Absolutely not. And neither is it reasonable to grant that gays are becoming complete when they act on there homosexual tendencies.

This is irrelevent we somee are born with blue eye should I say to my hormones tommorrow I choose to have green eyes. Our if I was Dark skinned should I say to my skin to change. Homosexuality is not a chioce it is a persons nature.


Where does the idea that God wanted them in a homosexual relationship? Does that mean that, since i was born into sin, God wants me to be a sinner?


another irelevant statement as homosexuality is not a sin. It is what one is born as. I could say the same staytement you have written in a hetereosexual sence

What does the Scripture say on the matter? Both the New Testament and the Old say that same gender sex is a sin. Sin is a rebelling against God and His will/plan/desire.

No - scripture does not say that. It REFFERS IN FULL CONTEXT that those who practice same sex under IDOL WORSHIP to be sin .We can condemn hetereosexuality under the same rule you use . Dont you read the full context of scrpture or do you takes parts of it to suit your oppressive doctrine


Where is any indication that, had Adam and Eve remained sinless longer, different sexualities would have emerged

Where is the possibilty that this could not happen. One does not take a few badly misinterrpretted ideas and assume that thier is only one type of sexuality. Like the truine God thier is three.. Homosexuality - Hermaphrodites - hereosexual. Adam most probably a Hermaphrodite. After all Eve came out of Adams womb

By they way if the Church is the Bride of Christ every male will have a same sex relationship with Christ

[xtreem5150ahm]

Where do you get "less than 9 months" from? And why would that be relevant?

eve was fertile you cannot convince me she could not have children later. Eve was a perfect fertile woman soby the time of her creation to her first child would of been at least 10 months.

You said that she lived in the Garden less than 9 months but we do not know how long she was in the Garden.
We can deduce that no children were conceived while they were in the Garden, since Eve is the mother of all living, and that the kids are not mentioned in the Garden account, and that A&E were evicted from the Garden as a result of disobedience (and through one man, sin entered the world).... but it would be possible that they lived in the Garden 70, 80, or even more than 100 years (since Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old). We don't know how old Cain & Abel were at the time of the first murder, so we can not deduce A & E's time in the garden.

By what basis are you establishing that hermaphrodites, gays, people with bad eyes, bad lungs, bad hearts, juvenile athritis, etc. are normal births? Because they were born in a Sin Fallen world?

Because of sin thier has not been a time prior to sin that Eve could have had these different births.

That does not make them normal births. Those afflictions are a result of sin. As long as they occurred after the first sin, they are a result of sin in the world.

As Xru pointed out, he was born with "rage response". Would it not be reasonable to grant that when he fulfills his rage response with rage, he's becoming more complete? No. Absolutely not. And neither is it reasonable to grant that gays are becoming complete when they act on there homosexual tendencies.

This is irrelevent we somee are born with blue eye should I say to my hormones tommorrow I choose to have green eyes. Our if I was Dark skinned should I say to my skin to change. Homosexuality is not a chioce it is a persons nature.

It's not irrelevant. Eye color and skin color are not actions. The problem with the claim that homosexuality is like skin or eye color, is that a person's sexuality, in and of itself, is not an action. But once the sexuality is acted out, it is no longer the same. I think the fallacy is called 'equivication'.

Where does the idea that God wanted them in a homosexual relationship? Does that mean that, since i was born into sin, God wants me to be a sinner?

another irelevant statement as homosexuality is not a sin. It is what one is born as. I could say the same staytement you have written in a hetereosexual sence

Again, it's not irrelevant. A person's sexuality is not the action, therefore, i agree here, that homosexuality is not a sin. But homosexuality is a sin, when it violates God's law--- that is to say, when it becomes an action (and, according to the Bible, that includes 'lust').

However, what i am curious about, is how, for example, one could be a liar, without having told a lie.
How could a person be homosexual without having committed homosexual behavior?
As i said before, "when they act on there homosexual tendencies".

What does the Scripture say on the matter? Both the New Testament and the Old say that same gender sex is a sin. Sin is a rebelling against God and His will/plan/desire.

No - scripture does not say that. It REFFERS IN FULL CONTEXT that those who practice same sex under IDOL WORSHIP to be sin .We can condemn hetereosexuality under the same rule you use . Dont you read the full context of scrpture or do you takes parts of it to suit your oppressive doctrine

First of all, i'm not taking Scripture to suit any doctrine. Doctrine should come FROM Scripture.


Second, the full context is, "thou shalt not commit adultery".

ANY and ALL sin is idolatry. It is, in effect, saying that God does not have the right.
God called His people an adulterous nation.

Where is any indication that, had Adam and Eve remained sinless longer, different sexualities would have emerged?

Where is the possibilty that this could not happen.

We live in a Fallen world. If there were a possibility that different sexualities could have emerged in a sin free world, we could not know it. However, thou shalt not commit adultery is a pretty good indication that same-gender sex is forbidden.

One does not take a few badly misinterrpretted ideas and assume that thier is only one type of sexuality.

Would you care to demostrated that they are misinterpretations?

Like the truine God thier is three.. Homosexuality - Hermaphrodites - hereosexual. Adam most probably a Hermaphrodite. After all Eve came out of Adams womb

Please show, from Scripture, that Adam had a womb?

By they way if the Church is the Bride of Christ every male will have a same sex relationship with Christ

Let's deal with the issues first, before we joke about wild speculations.


If the doctrine is incorrect, please show the correct doctrine. I want to learn the truth, rather than joke around--- in other words, if i'm being oppressive and i'm wrong, i want to be corrected.
But if there are people that are going to hell because it's been incorrectly taught that homosexual BEHAVIOR is OK, then i would hope both you and i would be doing everything in our power to help them understand there folly, so that they might ask Christ for forgiveness and repent.

Fair enough?

[shadze]

only a quick note. Eve could not live 100 years in the garden without having children. Gods commandment was to breed. Eve was fertile and would of got pregnant almost instantly.
It is then logical to say that she was only in the garden for a short time as children were not recorded

That does not make them normal births. Those afflictions are a result of sin. As long as they occurred after the first sin, they are a result of sin in the world.


No it is because thier has not been enough time to establish where hermaphrodites and gay people are through natural birth as Eve never had children in the garden because of the time frame

We live in a Fallen world. If there were a possibility that different sexualities could have emerged in a sin free world, we could not know it. However, thou shalt not commit adultery is a pretty good indication that same-gender sex is forbidden.

How amusing you marry same sex gender to adultery. Heteroesexual acts are also adultery. Even better let us be extreme and say noone marries like Paul .The blinded irrelevance to this statement
does not require me to write further. After all I do not throw pearls to swine.


.


It's not irrelevant. Eye color and skin color are not actions. The problem with the claim that homosexuality is like skin or eye color, is that a person's sexuality, in and of itself, is not an action. But once the sexuality is acted out, it is no longer the same. I think the fallacy is called 'equivication'.

You are incorrrect in your assumptions. Attraction is intrinistic meaning you are born with it and it is not a matter of mental chioce. If you accept hetereosexualism as a natural born attraction then you must also accept homosexuality. People may choose to be involved in either act but will eventually revert to what they are born as. This is inevitable.

We live in a Fallen world. If there were a possibility that different sexualities could have emerged in a sin free world, we could not know it. However, thou shalt not commit adultery is a pretty good indication that same-gender sex is forbidden


Nowhere does it forbid same sex relationship in Godly marriage.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Eve could not live 100 years in the garden without having children. Gods commandment was to breed. Eve was fertile and would of got pregnant almost instantly.
It is then logical to say that she was only in the garden for a short time as children were not recorded

Although i do agree that eviction was most likely shortly after creation, there is nothing from the Bible that necessitates "almost instantly". There is nothing that indicates 10 days or ten years or 100 years.
Even the record of Cain as the first recorded child does not necessitate Cain as the first child.

No it is because thier has not been enough time to establish where hermaphrodites and gay people are through natural birth as Eve never had children in the garden because of the time frame

The time frame of Eve in the garden has nothing to do with it. No where in Scripture is the first hermaphrodite or gay recorded.
Had Eve not sinned and never been evicted from the Garden, there is no indication that hermaphrodites or gays would be a reality.
Everything you and i see around us, is really a result of sin being in the world--- disease, deformity, war, famine, and yes, sin--- in part, because WE are sinful and see things through sinful minds. Even Jesus' birth, death and resurrection, as wonderful as those are, are because of sin.

How amusing you marry same sex gender to adultery.

How else does one get the point across? There is no doubt that male-female marriage is endorsed by Scripture. Sex outside of marriage is ..... adultery. Is there one gay marriage in Scripture? Let alone, one blessed gay marriage in Scripture?

Heteroesexual acts are also adultery.

Only those outside of marriage.

Even better let us be extreme and say noone marries like Paul .

You assumed that i was not taking Scripture in context, and then you try to insert this?

The blinded irrelevance to this statement
does not require me to write further. After all I do not throw pearls to swine.

so, in other words, you don't want to find the truth or help others with the truth.. you just want to pound your fist on the table?

You are incorrrect in your assumptions. Attraction is intrinistic meaning you are born with it and it is not a matter of mental chioce.

Every human was born with sin. Does that make sin right?... even sin that might be outside of choice?
When a person steals in order to eat/survive, stealing is still wrong.

If you accept hetereosexualism as a natural born attraction then you must also accept homosexuality.

Attraction is not what is condemned.

People may choose to be involved in either act but will eventually revert to what they are born as. This is inevitable.

That does not make it a non-sin.

Nowhere does it forbid same sex relationship in Godly marriage.

And no where does God's Word recommend, endorse, encourge, or even suggest same sex marriage.
It also does not forbid slavery... does that mean we should be calling our congressmen to re-instate slavery?

[shadze]

Every human was born with sin. Does that make sin right?... even sin that might be outside of choice?
When a person steals in order to eat/survive, stealing is still wrong.

Again a distraction of relevance.I will attain it to personal ignorance or lack of attentiveness.
Homosexuality is not a sin. So your statement has no relevance.

Although i do agree that eviction was most likely shortly after creation, there is nothing from the Bible that necessitates "almost instantly". There is nothing that indicates 10 days or ten years or 100 years.
Even the record of Cain as the first recorded child does not necessitate Cain as the first child.

Well nature would dictate that a woman who is 100% fertlie and perfect who is commanded to breed would be pregnant less than a year. It is irelevant who her firstborn was as thier is no record of them having children. So my point stands We do not know what sort of sexuality these children would have.

How else does one get the point across? There is no doubt that male-female marriage is endorsed by Scripture. Sex outside of marriage is ..... adultery. Is there one gay marriage in Scripture? Let alone, one blessed gay marriage in Scripture?

Actually this is incorrect the greatest same sex marriage will be Christ the groom to the Church and Im sure not all are female. Legally on your marriage certificate your husband will be Jesus.