for the Bible tells me so

Originally posted by KellyJay
Where is the scripture in all of your post, seem to be void of it.
Kelly

I'll take that to mean you didn't read my post. I'm not surprised. You know that from the opening
that you'll disagree with it and, since you're mind is made up, there is really no utility for you in
reading it. You shown this incapacity in the Science forum as well.

Recall the opening post.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Please share your views. I'm interested in either the Christian literalist perspective or the scientific perspective on homosexuality, evidence for and against.

This is what I did. I shared my views. There was no request for Scripture, but that having been
said, I cited several passages in different ways. Three of those citations were Scriptural sources
which say women can't have short hair, wear gold or braid their hair, and that men can't have
long hair. I also made mention of the passage that said that divorce is forbidden, though I didn't
see the need to cite the actual passage. I cite these commands proclaimed in the 'name of
God' by His inspiration as things roundly ignored by Christians, dismissed because they reflect
the odd cultural mores of the time and have no bearing today. I, like Epiphinehas, think that
this is the case with homosexuality, that St Paul's experience with homoerotic behavior was
not representative of what exists today.

I also cited those passages which I thought were particularly inspired -- the Prodigal Son, the
Woman Caught in Adultery, and the Sheep and the Goats -- as a sidebar.

So, instead of trolling me and just trying to start an argument either ignore my posts (like I suggested
at the outset) or actually take the time to read, understand and inwardly digest them. Otherwise,
you're just wasting both of our times.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'll take that to mean you didn't read my post. I'm not surprised. You know that from the opening
that you'll disagree with it and, since you're mind is made up, there is really no utility for you in
reading it. You shown this incapacity in the Science forum as well.

Recall the opening post.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Please share nwardly digest them. Otherwise,
you're just wasting both of our times.

Nemesio

[/b]This is fine, no I did not read your book. You take on this subject we
have covered before.
Kelly

According to Freud, men are more moral than women because women suffer from penis envy.............

...............................so much for accademia😀

Oh well, everyone makes mistakes (including Freud)! I think it's actually men that would be suffering from penis envy. 😛

Originally posted by KellyJay
This is fine, no I did not read your book. You take on this subject we
have covered before.
Kelly[/b]

Oh KJ. Say it ain't so!! For the first time, I must award a point in this debate to Nem. You rarely stoop to that level when making your points on these forums.
Maybe it was just a lousy day...🙂

Originally posted by jaywill

It seems that this sin stems from making an idol out of sex. In either case, homo or hetero, the fallen man may exalt sexual union to a level of idolatry competing with God Himself and violating God's creation.

Nicely put. We are often deluded in thinking that sex is apart from God in that so long as the relationship is mutual and "loving" then God MUST condone it. We then ignore all other admonishments in scripture such as Christ admonishing us not marrying after becoming divorced and fornication being frowned upon in general etc. We ignore such admonishments at our own peril.

Originally posted by whodey
Nicely put. We are often deluded in thinking that sex is apart from God in that so long as the relationship is mutual and "loving" then God MUST condone it. We then ignore all other admonishments in scripture such as Christ admonishing us not marrying after becoming divorced and fornication being frowned upon in general etc. We ignore such admonishments at our own peril.

I suppose you ignore the admonishments for women to have short or braided hair, wear gold or
fine clothing at your own peril, too.

Nemesio

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Oh KJ. Say it ain't so!! For the first time, I must award a point in this debate to Nem. You rarely stoop to that level when making your points on these forums.
Maybe it was just a lousy day...🙂

Well, he gets the win on this one, I admit it. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by Nemesio
I suppose you ignore the admonishments for women to have short or braided hair, wear gold or
fine clothing at your own peril, too.

Nemesio

I don't ignore the admonishments because you must look at the spirit in which they were made. They were made so as to put an end to prideful attire within the church which seems to have been creating conflict. In fact, attire is an issue that should not be ignored even today. For example, does your attire provoke negative reactions in the public arena and/or does it lend itself oppurtunity for you to drown in personal pride? Also, notice the bit about short hair. Clearly, Paul was worried about gender bending appearances that may lead to confusion socially between the sexes. I think this still to be an issue and do not consider men, for example, dressing as women and vice versa to be prudent behavoir. Having said that, I see no where that such behavior is considered Biblically as being an abomination in the sight of God as other behavoir is mentioned as being are abominations. In addition, it is ONLY Paul who mentions such things Biblically and only for a breif few sentences.

I suppose you could argue that the spirit in which homosexuality is condemned in the Bible was not a spirit in which God was personally offended at such interactions, rather, he was simply offended by the promiscuous nature of the act that seemed to be directly linked to that life style. Perhaps we can agree with this much? For example, Christ seemed to have scolded the woman caught in adultery even though he showed mercy upon her by sparing her life when he said to go and sin no more. In addtion, Christ took a hard line regarding those who divorce and remarry. Clearly, the church has abandon such teachings which I believe was made to discourage people from dumping their respective mates for a new and improved model, if you will or for other frivolous reasons so as to enjoy life more with someone else. Of course, divorce is necessary at times as Christ points out but, at the same time, it should be done only as a last resort. His call to chastity after divorce high lights this attitude of divorce being a weighty matter that should be avoided if possible. After all, the family unit is the foundation upon which society rests, therefore, the strength of this foundation dictates the stability of society at large. Perhaps we can agree with this much?

As for the part we may not agree, I think procreation, especially in the OT, is a continuous theme in the Mosaic era that may have been a driving force for the rejection of homosexual behavior. After all, they were attempting to create a nation and as such homosexual unions had a negative impact upon this endevour. We can see this Biblically as women who could not have children were described as "barren". In fact, it was looked upon as a curse not to be able to procreate. Perhaps this was a continuing view in the era in which Paul lived as well? You then had the issue of promiscuity related to such life styles. I think we can both agree on this as well, however, does it continue today? For example, , I have friends who are gay and who have confided with me that even though they have "partners" there is still a great deal of promiscuity within the homosexual community. Is this true or is it a lie? Of course, whether it is a lie or not the fact remains that it is possible that one could have a committed gay union between two people. So if I am not mistaken this is the issue at hand is it not? Do we agree to this point?

Originally posted by jaywill
Some preliminary comments

I am cautious about becoming "sin centered". Whether or not homosexuality is a sin, it does not help the Christian to focus his or her attention upon the sin. My experience is that we have to look away to Jesus and enjoy Him.

By enjoying Christ, as by product of that, the Christian will be freed from all manner of sins. Ha ...[text shortened]... o far I think you have misaimed somewhat here.

I am cautious about becoming "sin centered". Whether or not homosexuality is a sin, it does not help the Christian to focus his or her attention upon the sin. My experience is that we have to look away to Jesus and enjoy Him.

Well said!

Part of the reason I'm concerned about the homosexuality issue in general, as it applies to the Christian church, is that entirely too much time and resources are being spent by otherwise good Christians to "combat" homosexuality. Even if homosexuality is a sin, why does it deserve to be singled out above all other sins, as if it is the ultimate sin? Rape is definitely as heinous as the worst sin imaginable, yet homosexuality is the "enemy" of the church? Why is that?

I've been to church meetings expecting to be encouraged with a good sermon, fellowship, and some scripture, and instead have heard nothing but gay bashing. The small-mindedness of it all is not far above pure bigotry. Any church which devolves into a place where a minority segment of the population is consistently discriminated against is no church I want to be a part of.

In my opinion there are gay people who are legitimately gay and it is a travesty that they cannot feel welcome in many congregations due to the thinly veiled prejudices of regular Christian people. James said, "My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism... If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers" (James 2:1,8-9). Shouldn't Christians disburden themselves of the weight of judging others?

Christians are fond of saying, after calling homosexuality a sin, "but we all are sinners." If that is truly the case, then obviously being a sinner did not bar you from getting into heaven; why, then, should being gay bar a person from getting into heaven? We're all sinners, right? However, that's not what is being communicated to gay people. They are often instructed to give up their gayness before cleaving to Jesus Christ as their Savior. Instead of being taught the Gospel, gay people are being judged and alienated. Can you see the danger in this? Especially considering that scripture does not explicitly condemn those who may have been born gay?

If homosexuality is a sin and absolutely everyone is born heterosexual (regardless of the fact that we live in a fallen universe), I still see no reason to single out gay people for public chastisement. Should they not be able to accept or reject the Gospel on its own merits the same as every other sinner? Shouldn't gay people, if their gayness is truly a sin, also be allowed to be convicted by the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit should so choose?

If, on the other hand, there exist gay folks who are legitimately gay (in the same way you or I are legitimately straight), then the generic Christian position that homosexuality is always evil can do nothing but alienate gay people from the Truth (since they will conclude that Christ has rejected them already because of who they are).

The bottom line: Christians need to judge others less (as in, not at all), and start loving people instead (and spread the Gospel indiscriminately). To do otherwise is to have the wrong focus, IMO.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]I am cautious about becoming "sin centered". Whether or not homosexuality is a sin, it does not help the Christian to focus his or her attention upon the sin. My experience is that we have to look away to Jesus and enjoy Him.

Well said!

Part of the reason I'm concerned about the homosexuality issue in general, as it applies to the Christian ...[text shortened]... e Gospel indiscriminately). To do otherwise is to have the wrong focus, IMO.[/b]

===================================
Well said!
==============================

Thanks. Introspection is not spirituality. The way of deliverance lies in enjoying the Holy Spirit. We simply have to find Something or Someone more enjoyable than our sins. Then we gradually drop the inferior for the superior.

There is no enjoyment on earth like the enjoyment of having Jesus Christ fill you up and live in you.

Sin centeredness and introspection towards our weaknesses is like pulling on a tangled yarn of thread. The more you pull the tighter it gets.

=================================
Part of the reason I'm concerned about the homosexuality issue in general, as it applies to the Christian church, is that entirely too much time and resources are being spent by otherwise good Christians to "combat" homosexuality. Even if homosexuality is a sin, why does it deserve to be singled out above all other sins, as if it is the ultimate sin? Rape is definitely as heinous as the worst sin imaginable, yet homosexuality is the "enemy" of the church? Why is that?
===================================

I think with people like this you have to be careful. You commend them for their strong moral feeling. Then you gently ask them what they think about the passage which says "The wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God."

Sorry. I have to go now. Latter ...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Part of the reason I'm concerned about the homosexuality issue in general, as it applies to the Christian church, is that entirely too much time and resources are being spent by otherwise good Christians to "combat" homosexuality. Even if homosexuality is a sin, why does it deserve to be singled out above all other sins, as if it is the ultimate sin? Rape ...[text shortened]... nous as the worst sin imaginable, yet homosexuality is the "enemy" of the church? Why is that?

Why is that? Two things come to mind. The first is that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination in both New and Old Testament which was worthy of stoning. There is not much of a stronger word to denote condemnation than that. It is like committing a felony on the legal spectrum. I think this is why it is singled out in the church as "The Sin" to avoid as well as their own personal disdain for it.


Now as for their own personal disdain for it, you have what I talked about before which is that people fear becoming what they do not want to become whether it is physcially challenged or mentally or sexually challenged. However, it is untangible disorders that people fear the most such as being gay or mentally ill. In addition, there appears to be no cure for these disorders. However, to add insult to injury, the gay person seems to have a choice in whether they act out their inclinations as where the mentally ill person should not be expected to be able to help themselves. In fact, I would say the more hostile crowd are those who are not religious but simply think that it is unatural and know that it is referred to as an abomination in religious circles. For example, I knew a woman once who said that she once made a freind with someone who was gay and he would come over and talk and they became friends. Years later, however, she found out he was gay and jokingly said, "You know, I had no idea he was gay all those years, in fact, he even drank out of my glasses and ate off my plates. Yuck!!" At the time, I was shocked and offended even though at the time I did not think homosexuality was natural. I just thought she was plain mean whether she realized it or not. I asked her if her religion had anything to do with her feeling that way but she just smiled and said no, in fact, she had never been to church but she assured me that he was going to hell.

As for the whole bit about focusing on sins rather than Christ, I whole heartidly agree. Our focus should be Christ and let him work in our lives to deal with our sins, not the other way around.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I've been to church meetings expecting to be encouraged with a good sermon, fellowship, and some scripture, and instead have heard nothing but gay bashing. The small-mindedness of it all is not far above pure bigotry. Any church which devolves into a place where a minority segment of the population is consistently discriminated against is no church I want to be a part of.

I have to say that I can relate to this as well. However, I no longer run in these circles. The church I go to now does not approve of homosexuality but at the same time it is not a topic in which homosexuals are singled out as being the worst of offenders. In fact, they are not treated any differently than any one else would be from what I have observed and heard. Of course, I can't say this about 100% of them but I would say it is in the high 90% range. You know, there are some in every crowd. 😛

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Christians are fond of saying, after calling homosexuality a sin, "but we all are sinners." If that is truly the case, then obviously being a sinner did not bar you from getting into heaven; why, then, should being gay bar a person from getting into heaven? We're all sinners, right? However, that's not what is being communicated to gay people. They are ...[text shortened]... (and spread the Gospel indiscriminately). To do otherwise is to have the wrong focus, IMO.[/b]

I would have to disagree with this line of reasoning. For example, what if someone was a habitual adulterer? What if they were a habitual fornicator? Is there allowance for such a one to be saved? Could they be once saved always saved? Of course, there are scriptures that indicate that such habitual offenders are not saved as you well know. Now am I going to sit here and tell you that they are not saved, no, because I am not God, however, I will say that there are admonishments to be heeded and will not pretend otherwise. To say otherwise would be deciteful in my opinion.

By the way, I think there should be clarification in regards to people being gay and people who openly engage in such activity. It is like someone who is straight and is chaste compared to someone who is a fornicator.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
If homosexuality is a sin and absolutely everyone is born heterosexual (regardless of the fact that we live in a fallen universe), I still see no reason to single out gay people for public chastisement.

Agreed.