For clarification!

[Tarheel Baptist]

I our recent ‘discussion’ on homosexuality, we had, as usual per the FFF, more heat than light. Many seemed to think I, among others here, were ‘gay bashing’. That was certainly not my intention or the intention of most those who were on that thread.

I would like to clarify my (and therefore the definitive) position on homosexuality.

I have not and do not preach about homosexuality on any semblance of a regular basis although we do have homosexuals who often attend our services. I usually preach expositional messages and only cover the subject if it’s already in the text. Fornication and adultery seem to be much more common in our congregation…along with pride, greed, lust etc.

I’m referencing homosexuality because it is a ‘hot button’ issue today in the culture and therefore, in the church.

The Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin!
That fact is reiterated in both testaments, under multiple dispensations/covenants.
(Lev. 18:22; Judges 19:16-24; Romans 1; 1 Cor. 6:9-11….among many other passages verify that fact).

That is no excuse for homophobia to run rampant in the church, and for the most part, the opposite of that seems to be true….many are contorting scripture in an attempt to accept sodomy into the mainstream of evangelicalism.

I believe God hates sin, but loves the sinner.
He hates lies, but loves liars.
He hates stealing but loves thieves.
He hates immorality but loves immoral people.
And He commands all men everywhere to repent.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Concerning my positions in these debates, if and WHEN I err, I pray it is always on the side of the distribution of grace and mercy. Sometimes that means living in a world of gray instead of being dogmatic in favor of one side over the other.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

so... let me ask you guys a question.......... if a christian has a desire to steal or lie..... maybe even has fantasies about robbing banks and getting away with it....... wishes he or she could lie rather than tell the truth...... but turns those temptations and wrongful desires over to God.. like a christian should do with any sin........and continues to tell the truth and deal honestly...... is that person still considered a liar or a thief?.......

Considered by whom?

Again, being homosexual is not simply desiring homosexual sex. It is about desiring via an emotional need for an intimate connection with a member of the same sex as a heterosexual couple does. This is whether or not the physical activity takes place.

one of the biggest injustices the world has done to people... especially children.... who have problems with same sex attraction... for whatever reason...... is to teach them that those desires alone mean they are automatically homosexual.... or "gay".... and that nothing can be done about it........ the world teaches them they should just give in to it and take up the lifestyle........ and some within christianity are starting to tell people with those desires the same thing.......

Those within Christianity who tell people that, believe that since kids are born with this inclination, they are born of God that way because it is as much genetic as sin nature. I'm kinda torn between the two thoughts myself.

other christians look at the person who has those kinds of desires.... even if they are not the predominant drive they have and might be only a small percentage of it... and tells them there is something horribly wrong with them....... they tell them the desire alone means they are an abomination to God whether or not they ever act on it........... ... this is completely opposite of what christians teach about every other sinful desire or temptation.....and it does fellow christians... especially children... whose emotions and drives can be mixed up at various times in their lives anyway... an enormous injustice........... it leaves them feeling pigeon holed for the rest of their lives with no recourse .... or as if they were created as an abomination to God...... and in most case either tragedy or a lifetime of wrong choices result..........

why the differences in how these temptations to sin are addressed and treated?............ 

If I understand what you are saying, this is more geared to Tarheel's involvement in the argument.

For me, I believe homosexuality is a gray area in the Bible. One can take the OT Law as an absolute (oh, but lesbianism is allowed) but then must also hold to the absolute that rebellious children and non-virgin brides must be stoned. Rapists should be allowed to escape punishment by marrying their victims, etc. Sodom (and hence, sodomy) is about forcing rape upon strangers, not consensual sex between two members of the same sex. The prophets preached against the sins of Sodom but never mentioned homosexual sex. Jude mentions Sodom and their desire for "strange flesh" which corroborates the idea of "strangers' flesh" in being raped by the citizens of Sodom. Then we have Pauline teaching in which he came up with his own ideas (head coverings anyone?) and turned the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel about Jesus. Though he did have some good and important stuff to say, since there is nothing else in the teachings of the prophets or Jesus to run it through, how authentic is his teaching?

That being said, I believe that committing a homosexual act (among other things) would fit under the umbrella of immorality which is why I believe committing such would be sinful. There is no absolute that puts that under that umbrella, so I am willing to grant others to believe differently than I on that.

Using the main law of Jesus, "love God utmost and love your neighbor as yourself", if there is consensual homosexual activity, I cannot see how it violates that "legal grid" Jesus set forth as He mentioned the topic nowhere else. Again, my perspective. That being said, stealing and purposely trying to deceive another for selfish gain/power DOES violate the main law of Jesus, hence is different in my mind.

 

[Bruh]

so... let me ask you guys a question.......... if a christian has a desire to steal or lie..... maybe even has fantasies about robbing banks and getting away with it....... wishes he or she could lie rather than tell the truth...... but turns those temptations and wrongful desires over to God.. like a christian should do with any sin........and continues to tell the truth and deal honestly...... is that person still considered a liar or a thief?.......

Considered by whom?

Again, being homosexual is not simply desiring homosexual sex. It is about desiring via an emotional need for an intimate connection with a member of the same sex as a heterosexual couple does. This is whether or not the physical activity takes place.

one of the biggest injustices the world has done to people... especially children.... who have problems with same sex attraction... for whatever reason...... is to teach them that those desires alone mean they are automatically homosexual.... or "gay".... and that nothing can be done about it........ the world teaches them they should just give in to it and take up the lifestyle........ and some within christianity are starting to tell people with those desires the same thing.......

Those within Christianity who tell people that, believe that since kids are born with this inclination, they are born of God that way because it is as much genetic as sin nature. I'm kinda torn between the two thoughts myself.

other christians look at the person who has those kinds of desires.... even if they are not the predominant drive they have and might be only a small percentage of it... and tells them there is something horribly wrong with them....... they tell them the desire alone means they are an abomination to God whether or not they ever act on it........... ... this is completely opposite of what christians teach about every other sinful desire or temptation.....and it does fellow christians... especially children... whose emotions and drives can be mixed up at various times in their lives anyway... an enormous injustice........... it leaves them feeling pigeon holed for the rest of their lives with no recourse .... or as if they were created as an abomination to God...... and in most case either tragedy or a lifetime of wrong choices result..........

why the differences in how these temptations to sin are addressed and treated?............ 

If I understand what you are saying, this is more geared to Tarheel's involvement in the argument.

For me, I believe homosexuality is a gray area in the Bible. One can take the OT Law as an absolute (oh, but lesbianism is allowed) but then must also hold to the absolute that rebellious children and non-virgin brides must be stoned. Rapists should be allowed to escape punishment by marrying their victims, etc. Sodom (and hence, sodomy) is about forcing rape upon strangers, not consensual sex between two members of the same sex. The prophets preached against the sins of Sodom but never mentioned homosexual sex. Jude mentions Sodom and their desire for "strange flesh" which corroborates the idea of "strangers' flesh" in being raped by the citizens of Sodom. Then we have Pauline teaching in which he came up with his own ideas (head coverings anyone?) and turned the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel about Jesus. Though he did have some good and important stuff to say, since there is nothing else in the teachings of the prophets or Jesus to run it through, how authentic is his teaching?

That being said, I believe that committing a homosexual act (among other things) would fit under the umbrella of immorality which is why I believe committing such would be sinful. There is no absolute that puts that under that umbrella, so I am willing to grant others to believe differently than I on that.

Using the main law of Jesus, "love God utmost and love your neighbor as yourself", if there is consensual homosexual activity, I cannot see how it violates that "legal grid" Jesus set forth as He mentioned the topic nowhere else. Again, my perspective. That being said, stealing and purposely trying to deceive another for selfish gain/power DOES violate the main law of Jesus, hence is different in my mind.

You say all this but I will not believe for one second, that if your daughter returns home with a woman and says, this is my girlfriend, and we are having premarital sex,  you would not react the same if she brought home a young man and said the same thing.

You would react differently behind closed doors with your wife discussing what your daughter brought home.

Deep down in your heart you know it is not the same and if this would happen you would rather it be a man and not a member of the same sex.  Why?

 

[praise_yeshua]

For me, I believe homosexuality is a gray area in the Bible. One can take the OT Law as an absolute (oh, but lesbianism is allowed) but then must also hold to the absolute that rebellious children and non-virgin brides must be stoned. Rapists should be allowed to escape punishment by marrying their victims, etc. Sodom (and hence, sodomy) is about forcing rape upon strangers, not consensual sex between two members of the same sex. The prophets preached against the sins of Sodom but never mentioned homosexual sex. Jude mentions Sodom and their desire for "strange flesh" which corroborates the idea of "strangers' flesh" in being raped by the citizens of Sodom. Then we have Pauline teaching in which he came up with his own ideas (head coverings anyone?) and turned the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel about Jesus. Though he did have some good and important stuff to say, since there is nothing else in the teachings of the prophets or Jesus to run it through, how authentic is his teaching?

Matthew 19:4-6 still exist. Do you accept the words of Jesus or not?

Mat 19:4  He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5  and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6  So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

This was and still is.... God's plan and desire for humanity. Regardless of DNA, regression, progression, evolution or anything of similar manner....... How can you not recognize the "ideal" situation as explained by your Master Himself?

 

[Izdaari]

Tarheel, I appreciate the clarification. I wouldn't attend a church like that, because to me it would seem too homophobic, but your position is about as good as I would expect from any fundamental-ish Baptist.

:-*

 

[Izdaari]

so... let me ask you guys a question.......... if a christian has a desire to steal or lie..... maybe even has fantasies about robbing banks and getting away with it....... wishes he or she could lie rather than tell the truth...... but turns those temptations and wrongful desires over to God.. like a christian should do with any sin........and continues to tell the truth and deal honestly...... is that person still considered a liar or a thief?.......

Considered by whom?

Again, being homosexual is not simply desiring homosexual sex. It is about desiring via an emotional need for an intimate connection with a member of the same sex as a heterosexual couple does. This is whether or not the physical activity takes place.

one of the biggest injustices the world has done to people... especially children.... who have problems with same sex attraction... for whatever reason...... is to teach them that those desires alone mean they are automatically homosexual.... or "gay".... and that nothing can be done about it........ the world teaches them they should just give in to it and take up the lifestyle........ and some within christianity are starting to tell people with those desires the same thing.......

Those within Christianity who tell people that, believe that since kids are born with this inclination, they are born of God that way because it is as much genetic as sin nature. I'm kinda torn between the two thoughts myself.

other christians look at the person who has those kinds of desires.... even if they are not the predominant drive they have and might be only a small percentage of it... and tells them there is something horribly wrong with them....... they tell them the desire alone means they are an abomination to God whether or not they ever act on it........... ... this is completely opposite of what christians teach about every other sinful desire or temptation.....and it does fellow christians... especially children... whose emotions and drives can be mixed up at various times in their lives anyway... an enormous injustice........... it leaves them feeling pigeon holed for the rest of their lives with no recourse .... or as if they were created as an abomination to God...... and in most case either tragedy or a lifetime of wrong choices result..........

why the differences in how these temptations to sin are addressed and treated?............ 

If I understand what you are saying, this is more geared to Tarheel's involvement in the argument.

For me, I believe homosexuality is a gray area in the Bible. One can take the OT Law as an absolute (oh, but lesbianism is allowed) but then must also hold to the absolute that rebellious children and non-virgin brides must be stoned. Rapists should be allowed to escape punishment by marrying their victims, etc. Sodom (and hence, sodomy) is about forcing rape upon strangers, not consensual sex between two members of the same sex. The prophets preached against the sins of Sodom but never mentioned homosexual sex. Jude mentions Sodom and their desire for "strange flesh" which corroborates the idea of "strangers' flesh" in being raped by the citizens of Sodom. Then we have Pauline teaching in which he came up with his own ideas (head coverings anyone?) and turned the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel about Jesus. Though he did have some good and important stuff to say, since there is nothing else in the teachings of the prophets or Jesus to run it through, how authentic is his teaching?

That being said, I believe that committing a homosexual act (among other things) would fit under the umbrella of immorality which is why I believe committing such would be sinful. There is no absolute that puts that under that umbrella, so I am willing to grant others to believe differently than I on that.

Using the main law of Jesus, "love God utmost and love your neighbor as yourself", if there is consensual homosexual activity, I cannot see how it violates that "legal grid" Jesus set forth as He mentioned the topic nowhere else. Again, my perspective. That being said, stealing and purposely trying to deceive another for selfish gain/power DOES violate the main law of Jesus, hence is different in my mind.

You say all this but I will not believe for one second, that if your daughter returns home with a woman and says, this is my girlfriend, and we are having premarital sex,  you would not react the same if she brought home a young man and said the same thing.

You would react differently behind closed doors with your wife discussing what your daughter brought home.

Deep down in your heart you know it is not the same and if this would happen you would rather it be a man and not a member of the same sex.  Why?

Of course I can't answer for SC, but...

IF I had kids, I would treat my daughter and her girlfriend exactly as I would treat my daughter and her boyfriend. Assuming my daughter was old enough and mature enough, and if I liked the bf or gf, I'd welcome them and bless their relationship, while counseling them to be wise and to take any necessary precautions.

And I might have preferred just a little that she be with a man, but only because if they became a permanent couple, I'd want grandkids someday.

 

[Bruh]

so... let me ask you guys a question.......... if a christian has a desire to steal or lie..... maybe even has fantasies about robbing banks and getting away with it....... wishes he or she could lie rather than tell the truth...... but turns those temptations and wrongful desires over to God.. like a christian should do with any sin........and continues to tell the truth and deal honestly...... is that person still considered a liar or a thief?.......

Considered by whom?

Again, being homosexual is not simply desiring homosexual sex. It is about desiring via an emotional need for an intimate connection with a member of the same sex as a heterosexual couple does. This is whether or not the physical activity takes place.

one of the biggest injustices the world has done to people... especially children.... who have problems with same sex attraction... for whatever reason...... is to teach them that those desires alone mean they are automatically homosexual.... or "gay".... and that nothing can be done about it........ the world teaches them they should just give in to it and take up the lifestyle........ and some within christianity are starting to tell people with those desires the same thing.......

Those within Christianity who tell people that, believe that since kids are born with this inclination, they are born of God that way because it is as much genetic as sin nature. I'm kinda torn between the two thoughts myself.

other christians look at the person who has those kinds of desires.... even if they are not the predominant drive they have and might be only a small percentage of it... and tells them there is something horribly wrong with them....... they tell them the desire alone means they are an abomination to God whether or not they ever act on it........... ... this is completely opposite of what christians teach about every other sinful desire or temptation.....and it does fellow christians... especially children... whose emotions and drives can be mixed up at various times in their lives anyway... an enormous injustice........... it leaves them feeling pigeon holed for the rest of their lives with no recourse .... or as if they were created as an abomination to God...... and in most case either tragedy or a lifetime of wrong choices result..........

why the differences in how these temptations to sin are addressed and treated?............ 

If I understand what you are saying, this is more geared to Tarheel's involvement in the argument.

For me, I believe homosexuality is a gray area in the Bible. One can take the OT Law as an absolute (oh, but lesbianism is allowed) but then must also hold to the absolute that rebellious children and non-virgin brides must be stoned. Rapists should be allowed to escape punishment by marrying their victims, etc. Sodom (and hence, sodomy) is about forcing rape upon strangers, not consensual sex between two members of the same sex. The prophets preached against the sins of Sodom but never mentioned homosexual sex. Jude mentions Sodom and their desire for "strange flesh" which corroborates the idea of "strangers' flesh" in being raped by the citizens of Sodom. Then we have Pauline teaching in which he came up with his own ideas (head coverings anyone?) and turned the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel about Jesus. Though he did have some good and important stuff to say, since there is nothing else in the teachings of the prophets or Jesus to run it through, how authentic is his teaching?

That being said, I believe that committing a homosexual act (among other things) would fit under the umbrella of immorality which is why I believe committing such would be sinful. There is no absolute that puts that under that umbrella, so I am willing to grant others to believe differently than I on that.

Using the main law of Jesus, "love God utmost and love your neighbor as yourself", if there is consensual homosexual activity, I cannot see how it violates that "legal grid" Jesus set forth as He mentioned the topic nowhere else. Again, my perspective. That being said, stealing and purposely trying to deceive another for selfish gain/power DOES violate the main law of Jesus, hence is different in my mind.

You say all this but I will not believe for one second, that if your daughter returns home with a woman and says, this is my girlfriend, and we are having premarital sex,  you would not react the same if she brought home a young man and said the same thing.

You would react differently behind closed doors with your wife discussing what your daughter brought home.

Deep down in your heart you know it is not the same and if this would happen you would rather it be a man and not a member of the same sex.  Why?

Of course I can't answer for SC, but...

IF I had kids, I would treat my daughter and her girlfriend exactly as I would treat my daughter and her boyfriend. Assuming my daughter was old enough and mature enough, and if I liked the bf or gf, I'd welcome them and bless their relationship, while counseling them to be wise and to take any necessary precautions.

And I might have preferred just a little that she be with a man, but only because if they became a permanent couple, I'd want grandkids someday.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you do not believe same sex marriages are sin?

 

[Izdaari]

No, Bruh, not at all.  8)

 

[Smellin Coffee]

so... let me ask you guys a question.......... if a christian has a desire to steal or lie..... maybe even has fantasies about robbing banks and getting away with it....... wishes he or she could lie rather than tell the truth...... but turns those temptations and wrongful desires over to God.. like a christian should do with any sin........and continues to tell the truth and deal honestly...... is that person still considered a liar or a thief?.......

Considered by whom?

Again, being homosexual is not simply desiring homosexual sex. It is about desiring via an emotional need for an intimate connection with a member of the same sex as a heterosexual couple does. This is whether or not the physical activity takes place.

one of the biggest injustices the world has done to people... especially children.... who have problems with same sex attraction... for whatever reason...... is to teach them that those desires alone mean they are automatically homosexual.... or "gay".... and that nothing can be done about it........ the world teaches them they should just give in to it and take up the lifestyle........ and some within christianity are starting to tell people with those desires the same thing.......

Those within Christianity who tell people that, believe that since kids are born with this inclination, they are born of God that way because it is as much genetic as sin nature. I'm kinda torn between the two thoughts myself.

other christians look at the person who has those kinds of desires.... even if they are not the predominant drive they have and might be only a small percentage of it... and tells them there is something horribly wrong with them....... they tell them the desire alone means they are an abomination to God whether or not they ever act on it........... ... this is completely opposite of what christians teach about every other sinful desire or temptation.....and it does fellow christians... especially children... whose emotions and drives can be mixed up at various times in their lives anyway... an enormous injustice........... it leaves them feeling pigeon holed for the rest of their lives with no recourse .... or as if they were created as an abomination to God...... and in most case either tragedy or a lifetime of wrong choices result..........

why the differences in how these temptations to sin are addressed and treated?............ 

If I understand what you are saying, this is more geared to Tarheel's involvement in the argument.

For me, I believe homosexuality is a gray area in the Bible. One can take the OT Law as an absolute (oh, but lesbianism is allowed) but then must also hold to the absolute that rebellious children and non-virgin brides must be stoned. Rapists should be allowed to escape punishment by marrying their victims, etc. Sodom (and hence, sodomy) is about forcing rape upon strangers, not consensual sex between two members of the same sex. The prophets preached against the sins of Sodom but never mentioned homosexual sex. Jude mentions Sodom and their desire for "strange flesh" which corroborates the idea of "strangers' flesh" in being raped by the citizens of Sodom. Then we have Pauline teaching in which he came up with his own ideas (head coverings anyone?) and turned the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel about Jesus. Though he did have some good and important stuff to say, since there is nothing else in the teachings of the prophets or Jesus to run it through, how authentic is his teaching?

That being said, I believe that committing a homosexual act (among other things) would fit under the umbrella of immorality which is why I believe committing such would be sinful. There is no absolute that puts that under that umbrella, so I am willing to grant others to believe differently than I on that.

Using the main law of Jesus, "love God utmost and love your neighbor as yourself", if there is consensual homosexual activity, I cannot see how it violates that "legal grid" Jesus set forth as He mentioned the topic nowhere else. Again, my perspective. That being said, stealing and purposely trying to deceive another for selfish gain/power DOES violate the main law of Jesus, hence is different in my mind.

You say all this but I will not believe for one second, that if your daughter returns home with a woman and says, this is my girlfriend, and we are having premarital sex,  you would not react the same if she brought home a young man and said the same thing.

You would react differently behind closed doors with your wife discussing what your daughter brought home.

Deep down in your heart you know it is not the same and if this would happen you would rather it be a man and not a member of the same sex.  Why?

Do you think you know me and know how I would react?

 

[Bruh]

so... let me ask you guys a question.......... if a christian has a desire to steal or lie..... maybe even has fantasies about robbing banks and getting away with it....... wishes he or she could lie rather than tell the truth...... but turns those temptations and wrongful desires over to God.. like a christian should do with any sin........and continues to tell the truth and deal honestly...... is that person still considered a liar or a thief?.......

Considered by whom?

Again, being homosexual is not simply desiring homosexual sex. It is about desiring via an emotional need for an intimate connection with a member of the same sex as a heterosexual couple does. This is whether or not the physical activity takes place.

one of the biggest injustices the world has done to people... especially children.... who have problems with same sex attraction... for whatever reason...... is to teach them that those desires alone mean they are automatically homosexual.... or "gay".... and that nothing can be done about it........ the world teaches them they should just give in to it and take up the lifestyle........ and some within christianity are starting to tell people with those desires the same thing.......

Those within Christianity who tell people that, believe that since kids are born with this inclination, they are born of God that way because it is as much genetic as sin nature. I'm kinda torn between the two thoughts myself.

other christians look at the person who has those kinds of desires.... even if they are not the predominant drive they have and might be only a small percentage of it... and tells them there is something horribly wrong with them....... they tell them the desire alone means they are an abomination to God whether or not they ever act on it........... ... this is completely opposite of what christians teach about every other sinful desire or temptation.....and it does fellow christians... especially children... whose emotions and drives can be mixed up at various times in their lives anyway... an enormous injustice........... it leaves them feeling pigeon holed for the rest of their lives with no recourse .... or as if they were created as an abomination to God...... and in most case either tragedy or a lifetime of wrong choices result..........

why the differences in how these temptations to sin are addressed and treated?............ 

If I understand what you are saying, this is more geared to Tarheel's involvement in the argument.

For me, I believe homosexuality is a gray area in the Bible. One can take the OT Law as an absolute (oh, but lesbianism is allowed) but then must also hold to the absolute that rebellious children and non-virgin brides must be stoned. Rapists should be allowed to escape punishment by marrying their victims, etc. Sodom (and hence, sodomy) is about forcing rape upon strangers, not consensual sex between two members of the same sex. The prophets preached against the sins of Sodom but never mentioned homosexual sex. Jude mentions Sodom and their desire for "strange flesh" which corroborates the idea of "strangers' flesh" in being raped by the citizens of Sodom. Then we have Pauline teaching in which he came up with his own ideas (head coverings anyone?) and turned the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel about Jesus. Though he did have some good and important stuff to say, since there is nothing else in the teachings of the prophets or Jesus to run it through, how authentic is his teaching?

That being said, I believe that committing a homosexual act (among other things) would fit under the umbrella of immorality which is why I believe committing such would be sinful. There is no absolute that puts that under that umbrella, so I am willing to grant others to believe differently than I on that.

Using the main law of Jesus, "love God utmost and love your neighbor as yourself", if there is consensual homosexual activity, I cannot see how it violates that "legal grid" Jesus set forth as He mentioned the topic nowhere else. Again, my perspective. That being said, stealing and purposely trying to deceive another for selfish gain/power DOES violate the main law of Jesus, hence is different in my mind.

You say all this but I will not believe for one second, that if your daughter returns home with a woman and says, this is my girlfriend, and we are having premarital sex,  you would not react the same if she brought home a young man and said the same thing.

You would react differently behind closed doors with your wife discussing what your daughter brought home.

Deep down in your heart you know it is not the same and if this would happen you would rather it be a man and not a member of the same sex.  Why?

Do you think you know me and know how I would react?

No, I do not know you.  But, I do believe I am right.  LOL!!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

For me, I believe homosexuality is a gray area in the Bible. One can take the OT Law as an absolute (oh, but lesbianism is allowed) but then must also hold to the absolute that rebellious children and non-virgin brides must be stoned. Rapists should be allowed to escape punishment by marrying their victims, etc. Sodom (and hence, sodomy) is about forcing rape upon strangers, not consensual sex between two members of the same sex. The prophets preached against the sins of Sodom but never mentioned homosexual sex. Jude mentions Sodom and their desire for "strange flesh" which corroborates the idea of "strangers' flesh" in being raped by the citizens of Sodom. Then we have Pauline teaching in which he came up with his own ideas (head coverings anyone?) and turned the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel about Jesus. Though he did have some good and important stuff to say, since there is nothing else in the teachings of the prophets or Jesus to run it through, how authentic is his teaching?

Matthew 19:4-6 still exist. Do you accept the words of Jesus or not?

Mat 19:4  He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5  and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6  So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

This was and still is.... God's plan and desire for humanity. Regardless of DNA, regression, progression, evolution or anything of similar manner....... How can you not recognize the "ideal" situation as explained by your Master Himself?

Jesus' topic is about divorce, not about homosexuality. The disciples kicked back on His teaching.

The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus then makes a comment concerning those that don't marry by the cultural, heterosexual means:

But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

Jesus never told His disciples that heterosexual marriage was the only option, but rather that divorce among the heterosexual marriage was disallowed "for any reason" as the law of Moses stated. He didn't bash those who were "eunuchs from birth" and telling them that they must marry females nor did He say that they must not have a relationship with one another.

In fairness, I agree with your ideal but there is this other appeal that can be made that grays the area so I cannot condemn someone who loves and serves Jesus and is gay, practicing or not.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

so... let me ask you guys a question.......... if a christian has a desire to steal or lie..... maybe even has fantasies about robbing banks and getting away with it....... wishes he or she could lie rather than tell the truth...... but turns those temptations and wrongful desires over to God.. like a christian should do with any sin........and continues to tell the truth and deal honestly...... is that person still considered a liar or a thief?.......

Considered by whom?

Again, being homosexual is not simply desiring homosexual sex. It is about desiring via an emotional need for an intimate connection with a member of the same sex as a heterosexual couple does. This is whether or not the physical activity takes place.

one of the biggest injustices the world has done to people... especially children.... who have problems with same sex attraction... for whatever reason...... is to teach them that those desires alone mean they are automatically homosexual.... or "gay".... and that nothing can be done about it........ the world teaches them they should just give in to it and take up the lifestyle........ and some within christianity are starting to tell people with those desires the same thing.......

Those within Christianity who tell people that, believe that since kids are born with this inclination, they are born of God that way because it is as much genetic as sin nature. I'm kinda torn between the two thoughts myself.

other christians look at the person who has those kinds of desires.... even if they are not the predominant drive they have and might be only a small percentage of it... and tells them there is something horribly wrong with them....... they tell them the desire alone means they are an abomination to God whether or not they ever act on it........... ... this is completely opposite of what christians teach about every other sinful desire or temptation.....and it does fellow christians... especially children... whose emotions and drives can be mixed up at various times in their lives anyway... an enormous injustice........... it leaves them feeling pigeon holed for the rest of their lives with no recourse .... or as if they were created as an abomination to God...... and in most case either tragedy or a lifetime of wrong choices result..........

why the differences in how these temptations to sin are addressed and treated?............ 

If I understand what you are saying, this is more geared to Tarheel's involvement in the argument.

For me, I believe homosexuality is a gray area in the Bible. One can take the OT Law as an absolute (oh, but lesbianism is allowed) but then must also hold to the absolute that rebellious children and non-virgin brides must be stoned. Rapists should be allowed to escape punishment by marrying their victims, etc. Sodom (and hence, sodomy) is about forcing rape upon strangers, not consensual sex between two members of the same sex. The prophets preached against the sins of Sodom but never mentioned homosexual sex. Jude mentions Sodom and their desire for "strange flesh" which corroborates the idea of "strangers' flesh" in being raped by the citizens of Sodom. Then we have Pauline teaching in which he came up with his own ideas (head coverings anyone?) and turned the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel about Jesus. Though he did have some good and important stuff to say, since there is nothing else in the teachings of the prophets or Jesus to run it through, how authentic is his teaching?

That being said, I believe that committing a homosexual act (among other things) would fit under the umbrella of immorality which is why I believe committing such would be sinful. There is no absolute that puts that under that umbrella, so I am willing to grant others to believe differently than I on that.

Using the main law of Jesus, "love God utmost and love your neighbor as yourself", if there is consensual homosexual activity, I cannot see how it violates that "legal grid" Jesus set forth as He mentioned the topic nowhere else. Again, my perspective. That being said, stealing and purposely trying to deceive another for selfish gain/power DOES violate the main law of Jesus, hence is different in my mind.

You say all this but I will not believe for one second, that if your daughter returns home with a woman and says, this is my girlfriend, and we are having premarital sex,  you would not react the same if she brought home a young man and said the same thing.

You would react differently behind closed doors with your wife discussing what your daughter brought home.

Deep down in your heart you know it is not the same and if this would happen you would rather it be a man and not a member of the same sex.  Why?

Do you think you know me and know how I would react?

No, I do not know you.  But, I do believe I am right.  LOL!!

You can believe what you want, but just because something is believed doesn't make it true.

 

[rsc2a]

Yes...Jesus the practicing Jew didn't mention the modern idea of homosexuality (since sexual orientation was largely a foreign concept) so He must okay with it. Or something.

 

[Bruh]

so... let me ask you guys a question.......... if a christian has a desire to steal or lie..... maybe even has fantasies about robbing banks and getting away with it....... wishes he or she could lie rather than tell the truth...... but turns those temptations and wrongful desires over to God.. like a christian should do with any sin........and continues to tell the truth and deal honestly...... is that person still considered a liar or a thief?.......

Considered by whom?

Again, being homosexual is not simply desiring homosexual sex. It is about desiring via an emotional need for an intimate connection with a member of the same sex as a heterosexual couple does. This is whether or not the physical activity takes place.

one of the biggest injustices the world has done to people... especially children.... who have problems with same sex attraction... for whatever reason...... is to teach them that those desires alone mean they are automatically homosexual.... or "gay".... and that nothing can be done about it........ the world teaches them they should just give in to it and take up the lifestyle........ and some within christianity are starting to tell people with those desires the same thing.......

Those within Christianity who tell people that, believe that since kids are born with this inclination, they are born of God that way because it is as much genetic as sin nature. I'm kinda torn between the two thoughts myself.

other christians look at the person who has those kinds of desires.... even if they are not the predominant drive they have and might be only a small percentage of it... and tells them there is something horribly wrong with them....... they tell them the desire alone means they are an abomination to God whether or not they ever act on it........... ... this is completely opposite of what christians teach about every other sinful desire or temptation.....and it does fellow christians... especially children... whose emotions and drives can be mixed up at various times in their lives anyway... an enormous injustice........... it leaves them feeling pigeon holed for the rest of their lives with no recourse .... or as if they were created as an abomination to God...... and in most case either tragedy or a lifetime of wrong choices result..........

why the differences in how these temptations to sin are addressed and treated?............ 

If I understand what you are saying, this is more geared to Tarheel's involvement in the argument.

For me, I believe homosexuality is a gray area in the Bible. One can take the OT Law as an absolute (oh, but lesbianism is allowed) but then must also hold to the absolute that rebellious children and non-virgin brides must be stoned. Rapists should be allowed to escape punishment by marrying their victims, etc. Sodom (and hence, sodomy) is about forcing rape upon strangers, not consensual sex between two members of the same sex. The prophets preached against the sins of Sodom but never mentioned homosexual sex. Jude mentions Sodom and their desire for "strange flesh" which corroborates the idea of "strangers' flesh" in being raped by the citizens of Sodom. Then we have Pauline teaching in which he came up with his own ideas (head coverings anyone?) and turned the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel about Jesus. Though he did have some good and important stuff to say, since there is nothing else in the teachings of the prophets or Jesus to run it through, how authentic is his teaching?

That being said, I believe that committing a homosexual act (among other things) would fit under the umbrella of immorality which is why I believe committing such would be sinful. There is no absolute that puts that under that umbrella, so I am willing to grant others to believe differently than I on that.

Using the main law of Jesus, "love God utmost and love your neighbor as yourself", if there is consensual homosexual activity, I cannot see how it violates that "legal grid" Jesus set forth as He mentioned the topic nowhere else. Again, my perspective. That being said, stealing and purposely trying to deceive another for selfish gain/power DOES violate the main law of Jesus, hence is different in my mind.

You say all this but I will not believe for one second, that if your daughter returns home with a woman and says, this is my girlfriend, and we are having premarital sex,  you would not react the same if she brought home a young man and said the same thing.

You would react differently behind closed doors with your wife discussing what your daughter brought home.

Deep down in your heart you know it is not the same and if this would happen you would rather it be a man and not a member of the same sex.  Why?

Do you think you know me and know how I would react?

No, I do not know you.  But, I do believe I am right.  LOL!!

You can believe what you want, but just because something is believed doesn't make it true.

I believe you were brought up in a very flawed system that taught overly strict rules that was way far on the "right" side in a ditch. 

Now you are trying desperately to get away from them that you are way far on the "left" side in a ditch. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

born of God that way?.......... right ........blame God for whatever it is you cannot seem to understand or wrap your mind around........ God never intended people to be born with that inclination....... but ever since the fall of adam sin has had it;s way with the world..... and with mankind....... where do you see God telling people it;s ok to give in and live a lifestyle associated with any other sinful inclination?............

Again, in Matthew 19, Jesus clearly teaches about "eunuchs from birth".

Talmud Bavli, Tractate Yevumos (The Schottenstein Edition, Mesorah Publications Ltd., Brooklyn, NY, 1999), Chapter 8, 80b

This Talmud explains the Jewish view of the eunuch:  Signs of natural eunuchs are said to include lateness of pubic hair, urine that does not form an arch, absence of a beard, softness of hair, smoothness of skin, a high voice, and a body that does not steam when bathing in winter.

Inanna’s Descent into the Nether World, (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 4, # 4, 1950), page 200 mentions the reason duties to protect women were given to "natural born eunuchs" in Sumarian literature was because “do not satisfy the lap of women.” They were specifically created because "they can resist the wiles of women".

The book of Sirach, in the OT of the Catholic Bible, says that embracing a girl makes a eunuch sigh or groan. (Sirach 30:20)

The Kama Sutra (ancient text) Part II, Chapter 9 shows how eunuchs would try to seduce men.

Point of all of this is that in the ancient literature, "eunuchs" would include what we would consider homosexual men and Jesus said that some were born with that bent. And absent from the text is Jesus' preaching against their behaviors.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

so... let me ask you guys a question.......... if a christian has a desire to steal or lie..... maybe even has fantasies about robbing banks and getting away with it....... wishes he or she could lie rather than tell the truth...... but turns those temptations and wrongful desires over to God.. like a christian should do with any sin........and continues to tell the truth and deal honestly...... is that person still considered a liar or a thief?.......

Considered by whom?

Again, being homosexual is not simply desiring homosexual sex. It is about desiring via an emotional need for an intimate connection with a member of the same sex as a heterosexual couple does. This is whether or not the physical activity takes place.

one of the biggest injustices the world has done to people... especially children.... who have problems with same sex attraction... for whatever reason...... is to teach them that those desires alone mean they are automatically homosexual.... or "gay".... and that nothing can be done about it........ the world teaches them they should just give in to it and take up the lifestyle........ and some within christianity are starting to tell people with those desires the same thing.......

Those within Christianity who tell people that, believe that since kids are born with this inclination, they are born of God that way because it is as much genetic as sin nature. I'm kinda torn between the two thoughts myself.

other christians look at the person who has those kinds of desires.... even if they are not the predominant drive they have and might be only a small percentage of it... and tells them there is something horribly wrong with them....... they tell them the desire alone means they are an abomination to God whether or not they ever act on it........... ... this is completely opposite of what christians teach about every other sinful desire or temptation.....and it does fellow christians... especially children... whose emotions and drives can be mixed up at various times in their lives anyway... an enormous injustice........... it leaves them feeling pigeon holed for the rest of their lives with no recourse .... or as if they were created as an abomination to God...... and in most case either tragedy or a lifetime of wrong choices result..........

why the differences in how these temptations to sin are addressed and treated?............ 

If I understand what you are saying, this is more geared to Tarheel's involvement in the argument.

For me, I believe homosexuality is a gray area in the Bible. One can take the OT Law as an absolute (oh, but lesbianism is allowed) but then must also hold to the absolute that rebellious children and non-virgin brides must be stoned. Rapists should be allowed to escape punishment by marrying their victims, etc. Sodom (and hence, sodomy) is about forcing rape upon strangers, not consensual sex between two members of the same sex. The prophets preached against the sins of Sodom but never mentioned homosexual sex. Jude mentions Sodom and their desire for "strange flesh" which corroborates the idea of "strangers' flesh" in being raped by the citizens of Sodom. Then we have Pauline teaching in which he came up with his own ideas (head coverings anyone?) and turned the Gospel of Jesus to the Gospel about Jesus. Though he did have some good and important stuff to say, since there is nothing else in the teachings of the prophets or Jesus to run it through, how authentic is his teaching?

That being said, I believe that committing a homosexual act (among other things) would fit under the umbrella of immorality which is why I believe committing such would be sinful. There is no absolute that puts that under that umbrella, so I am willing to grant others to believe differently than I on that.

Using the main law of Jesus, "love God utmost and love your neighbor as yourself", if there is consensual homosexual activity, I cannot see how it violates that "legal grid" Jesus set forth as He mentioned the topic nowhere else. Again, my perspective. That being said, stealing and purposely trying to deceive another for selfish gain/power DOES violate the main law of Jesus, hence is different in my mind.

You say all this but I will not believe for one second, that if your daughter returns home with a woman and says, this is my girlfriend, and we are having premarital sex,  you would not react the same if she brought home a young man and said the same thing.

You would react differently behind closed doors with your wife discussing what your daughter brought home.

Deep down in your heart you know it is not the same and if this would happen you would rather it be a man and not a member of the same sex.  Why?

Do you think you know me and know how I would react?

No, I do not know you.  But, I do believe I am right.  LOL!!

You can believe what you want, but just because something is believed doesn't make it true.

I believe you were brought up in a very flawed system that taught overly strict rules that was way far on the "right" side in a ditch. 

Now you are trying desperately to get away from them that you are way far on the "left" side in a ditch.

I am not gay nor do I have any gay family members, so there is no agenda on my end to try to support it.

Using your analogy, the other side of the ditch is where I choose to extend grace.

 

[praise_yeshua]

born of God that way?.......... right ........blame God for whatever it is you cannot seem to understand or wrap your mind around........ God never intended people to be born with that inclination....... but ever since the fall of adam sin has had it;s way with the world..... and with mankind....... where do you see God telling people it;s ok to give in and live a lifestyle associated with any other sinful inclination?............

Again, in Matthew 19, Jesus clearly teaches about "eunuchs from birth".

Talmud Bavli, Tractate Yevumos (The Schottenstein Edition, Mesorah Publications Ltd., Brooklyn, NY, 1999), Chapter 8, 80b

This Talmud explains the Jewish view of the eunuch:  Signs of natural eunuchs are said to include lateness of pubic hair, urine that does not form an arch, absence of a beard, softness of hair, smoothness of skin, a high voice, and a body that does not steam when bathing in winter.

Inanna’s Descent into the Nether World, (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 4, # 4, 1950), page 200 mentions the reason duties to protect women were given to "natural born eunuchs" in Sumarian literature was because “do not satisfy the lap of women.” They were specifically created because "they can resist the wiles of women".

The book of Sirach, in the OT of the Catholic Bible, says that embracing a girl makes a eunuch sigh or groan. (Sirach 30:20)

The Kama Sutra (ancient text) Part II, Chapter 9 shows how eunuchs would try to seduce men.

Point of all of this is that in the ancient literature, "eunuchs" would include what we would consider homosexual men and Jesus said that some were born with that bent. And absent from the text is Jesus' preaching against their behaviors.

Why are you ignoring Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9?

 

[praise_yeshua]

born of God that way?.......... right ........blame God for whatever it is you cannot seem to understand or wrap your mind around........ God never intended people to be born with that inclination....... but ever since the fall of adam sin has had it;s way with the world..... and with mankind....... where do you see God telling people it;s ok to give in and live a lifestyle associated with any other sinful inclination?............

Again, in Matthew 19, Jesus clearly teaches about "eunuchs from birth".

Talmud Bavli, Tractate Yevumos (The Schottenstein Edition, Mesorah Publications Ltd., Brooklyn, NY, 1999), Chapter 8, 80b

This Talmud explains the Jewish view of the eunuch:  Signs of natural eunuchs are said to include lateness of pubic hair, urine that does not form an arch, absence of a beard, softness of hair, smoothness of skin, a high voice, and a body that does not steam when bathing in winter.

Inanna’s Descent into the Nether World, (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 4, # 4, 1950), page 200 mentions the reason duties to protect women were given to "natural born eunuchs" in Sumarian literature was because “do not satisfy the lap of women.” They were specifically created because "they can resist the wiles of women".

The book of Sirach, in the OT of the Catholic Bible, says that embracing a girl makes a eunuch sigh or groan. (Sirach 30:20)

The Kama Sutra (ancient text) Part II, Chapter 9 shows how eunuchs would try to seduce men.

Point of all of this is that in the ancient literature, "eunuchs" would include what we would consider homosexual men and Jesus said that some were born with that bent. And absent from the text is Jesus' preaching against their behaviors.

Why are you trying to change the definition of a "eunuch"? There is no capacity of an eunuch to receive any gratification from a sexual act. You're being entirely ridiculous with the comparison.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

born of God that way?.......... right ........blame God for whatever it is you cannot seem to understand or wrap your mind around........ God never intended people to be born with that inclination....... but ever since the fall of adam sin has had it;s way with the world..... and with mankind....... where do you see God telling people it;s ok to give in and live a lifestyle associated with any other sinful inclination?............

Again, in Matthew 19, Jesus clearly teaches about "eunuchs from birth".

Talmud Bavli, Tractate Yevumos (The Schottenstein Edition, Mesorah Publications Ltd., Brooklyn, NY, 1999), Chapter 8, 80b

This Talmud explains the Jewish view of the eunuch:  Signs of natural eunuchs are said to include lateness of pubic hair, urine that does not form an arch, absence of a beard, softness of hair, smoothness of skin, a high voice, and a body that does not steam when bathing in winter.

Inanna’s Descent into the Nether World, (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 4, # 4, 1950), page 200 mentions the reason duties to protect women were given to "natural born eunuchs" in Sumarian literature was because “do not satisfy the lap of women.” They were specifically created because "they can resist the wiles of women".

The book of Sirach, in the OT of the Catholic Bible, says that embracing a girl makes a eunuch sigh or groan. (Sirach 30:20)

The Kama Sutra (ancient text) Part II, Chapter 9 shows how eunuchs would try to seduce men.

Point of all of this is that in the ancient literature, "eunuchs" would include what we would consider homosexual men and Jesus said that some were born with that bent. And absent from the text is Jesus' preaching against their behaviors.

Why are you trying to change the definition of a "eunuch"? There is no capacity of an eunuch to receive any gratification from a sexual act. You're being entirely ridiculous with the comparison.

Jesus mentions 3 different kinds of eunuchs: one who was castrated by others, one who was self-castrated and one who was born a eunuch. Ancient literature from that area of time/culture confirms that homosexual men were also considered "eunuchs". I'm establishing definition, not redefining it.