Gay People Against Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Edrof
- Start date
- Status
So you do think that the New Commandment is only meant for those who fit into certain criteria, and not as I would assume, going by the exegesis of the Scriptures as I understand them, All Mankind.
Of course, except when they are homosexual's looking after Children...
Do you understand the nature of God?
I think you will find the reality is somewhat different....of all the homosexual people I know, most have had very normal upbringings, stable heterosexual homes and in at least one case had a heterosexual relationship which bore children, they all found that their orientation was what it is now through a lot of soul searching, confusion, denial and acceptance...they eventually became who they were born to be, not who you want them to be to suit your prejudices.
John15:
9 Even as the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you: abide ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy may be in you, and [that] your joy may be made full.
12 This is my commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14 Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I command you.
15 No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from my Father, I have made known unto you.
16 Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit, and [that] your fruit should abide: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
17 These things I command you, that ye may love one another.
18 If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before [it hated] you.
I must have missed the part where he continues..."except if you are a Homosexual and wish to raise Children"
Yet their Sin had nothing to do with their Children's actions, and you gave Adam and Eve as the proof of Gods Law regarding what a Family should be...how does that square out with the actual story itself and the moral implications therein?
It seems rather counter-productive to offer up a flawed example for an ideal. I do not hold the same view on Genesis that you do, I do not think that the Truth it holds is intended to be a literal truth, rather a spiritual one and that the allegory is about Mankind's relationship with the Universe and with God, rather than it setting out literal truths for us to follow.
And did not Christ say that we should love one another...what better way to love another than through the love given to a child. Where did Christ say anything about Homosexuality, let alone about the alleged Sins they have committed or that they should not love one another, or children given into their care?
Perhaps you should take you own advice as far as looking to Christ for your example.
I am simply replying to your examples as they are presented...I understand the concepts and the contexts well enough to know that the examples in scripture you are using to justify your prejudices are flawed by the very context that you say I am ignoring. You are using an allegory of Spiritual Truth and attempting to apply it to Temporal Literal Truth. The Bible is not Gods Word, it is a reflection on peoples encounters with God, it is divinely inspired...Genesis included. I understand the context in a different way than you, simply because I do not hold to a Literal Interpretation of the Bible or it's scriptures where such Literalism is not intended.
Last edited:
How do you know you can't - have you tried yet?
Until you do that I have nothing to do do I ...
Allegory?
I completely agree Scripture and the Bible is for all of Mankind, but God and Sin cannot dwell in the same place, which is why he asks us to deal with it in our lives, so a Gay person can become a christian, but in part of doing so,m I believe at some point they should be convicted (by God) of their actions and realise it is wrong, just the same as if you were a convicted serial killer and became a christian, you obviously have past issues to deal with, as have most Christians after they 'converted'.
It was yourself that pointed out it was a narrow deiufnitive, so I was just making a point that 98.5% is not narrow. I was not saying the bible / God does not apply to those 1.5%
Born to be??!?!?! Is a completely subjective term and I believe you have used wrongly.
We were born to be Human beings, we were not born gay, nor did we have sexual preferences when we were babies, nor did we have intentions to kill people as babies, nor did we have intentions to cheat on our future wives when we were babies - we grow up with all input from the world and its inhabitants and this will affect how we grow up and what choices we make, ultimately its up to us to guide our lives which way we want to go.
I will try not to use this out of context as I have accused you fo doing but here is a verse which in many translations mentions Homosexuality as being unacceptable. Now do you have a verse which also in many versions mentions that it is acceptable by Gods standards?
Where did I give it as proof of Gods Law - Either I have missed that bit or I think you may have misinterpreted what i meant?
Well some of the Bible is to be taken literally. Simple as really.
I agree we should love children and encourage them, on the right footing, with a stable family, putting a child in an out of the ordinary situation immediately can put an overbearing stress on that child which will grow as they get older - obviously it depends on the circumstances and how long that child has been with that couple. But when that child realises that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby - questions will be raised.
This is more of a statement than a question so not much to reply on other than I take the Bible as I believe is intended and also to mention:
So although you say it is not Gods word, it is, just because Jesus himself did not write it, it is still the word of God. If Jesus was to sit down and write it all himself, I'm sure there wouldn't have been time for him to perform the many signs, wonders and miracles he did and hence be not half as much to write about, it was not Gods plan for Jesus to write the Bible himself, God knew he could entrust that to many of his believers to enable Jesus to do his Good works, so to say it is not Gods word is a little odd, as Jesus physcially writing the Word himself would be counter productive to his sole purpose for being on earth
This is when my main man Carl Sagan steps up to the plate.
You can't prove your god exists, you only think he does. Why not save the step and ignore god or not god, if we cannot comprehend or have no way of knowing if he is there or not, hes not doing anything, and if he is, we can't tell.
Christian groups have put a lot of effort and millions and millions of dollars into trying to combat the science, but every credibly psychologist or sociologist agrees that the research is credible, hence it being peer reviewed and what not.
Thats why when people release non independent studies, like "The Christian Institute", they are not peer reviewed and completely uncredible.
You say ignore the hosting site, they are just sharing the information, but look where the information they are hosting comes from, so you are aware of their bias, but then you ignore the bias of the publishers of the research? That's just bizarre, or maybe you didn't notice it?
Why would a being that God created with eternal life need the ability to reproduce and are angels a "race" now?
Can't say Ive had that thought myself but for some its harder than others (no pun intended) and some will / do consciously make that choice in their lives because they choose to be straight rather than gay, whats so hard to understand about that?
So if you didn't consciously choose to be straight why do you think people chose to be gay?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 154
- Location
- The Grim North.
Awaits the 'heterosexuality is the "natural" state' line.
When in reality, the natural state is just to be human and be treated with respect and as much dignity as the next human, regardless of sexual orientation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,823
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Surely we should treat all with equal respect and dignity? Treating others with respect and dignity doesn't mean turning a blind eye when they do wrong.
When a parent corrects a child, surely they do so with respect and dignity?
I still need convincing that homosexuality is wrong.
Where does Christ state that Homosexuality is a sin?
Are you seriously equating Homosexuality with Murder?
It is a narrow definition if you are making specific judgements on who or what equates to Gods Nature as in that aspect in which we are made of his Image...What is Gods Image? How do you determine that?
It is not subjective I am afraid...There is plenty of research into the formation of sexual identities and genetics forms part of that research.
You are equating sexual orientation (as opposed to preference, which is something else) with killing and adultery..that is is disingenuous at best. Sexuality is an inherent part of our being, it is not something that is taught, it is something that we are indeed born with, that it doesn't manifest in a baby simply becasue the baby is not yet sexually mature is immaterial. We do not learn how to become sexually mature...we cannot choose to remain sexually immature.
The word used is Sodomites...not Homosexuals and if we look at the context of Paul's epistle it is in regard to Hellenistic practices at the time it would refer, in part to the common sexual practice of Pederasty rather than homosexuality in general, as Koine Greek doesn't have an expression for Homosexuality in that way. Various translations of the word arsenokoitai have made this mistake of equating the sin of Sodom specifically and only with homosexuality (in a broad, all encompassing context), modern Bible references (outside of the Millennial translations or the Direct literal equivalence translations such as the NLT) usually stick to Sodomites or equating such within the context of Sexual Perverts, Child Molesters or given to Unnatural Vice or abusive self gratification...(Translation References include Phillip, Jerusalem Bible, NRSV, Wesley, Young and Wyclif).
Also the term Sodomite in the correct context, the Greek reference with Sodom is fornication a sexually immoral nature, and whoredom, again not specifically homosexuality, it can refer to male and female sexual practices as well as Human Animal or even sexual intercourse outside of marriage, the aforementioned Pederasty and so on...It makes no judgement on any practice within a committed, monogamous relationship.
This is the problem with assuming the context of any given passage, or that the intent of the author is always supported by the translation.
Insofar as it was the creation of Man and Woman that defines the roles which each play. (I could mention that the word Adam is actually reference to mankind before the creation of Eve, and that God created Adam as both Male and Female..if we interpret it that way)
And some parts are not.
Questions are raised regardless of the family dynamic..trust me.
The passage simply means that the Scripture, all of it is given by the inspiration of God....it doesn't mean it is the literal Word of God, it means it is the Inspired word of God...written by Men inspired by the Holy Spirit. There is a difference between the two and it is nothing to do with the physical writing of the words themselves...it simply means that unlike the Quran for example, it is not the literal Word of God and it is not meant to be taken as such.
Last edited:
The old Testament "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" NKJ, Leviticus 20:13
Genesis 19:1-13 not nice things there. Also "The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder
sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, ect"
Wonder why they dropped the old testament
Christ is not in the Old Testament.
Please tell me as a christian you see the immense irony of that statement?
several from their descriptions.
Because it's not a choice?
if it's a choice right now choose to find yourself sexually and emotionally attracted to men.
Because I'm going to guess you can't.
Wonder why they dropped the old testament
I dunno but if man was made in gods image and reflects his nature, then from observing humans, it's probably because God has the ability to learn from his mistakes.
I always have beef with this every time it comes up. Yes it's a story and stories can bend truths and be fictitious for the sake of making a point, but a straight forward face value interpretation is the only one that makes sense in the context, unless you think the best way of explaining something is to be pointlessly convoluted.
People can think whatever they like, but it just seems like desperate shoe horning to me to say that 'Adam and Eve' were anything other than as described.
hahaha, you finally did it. You pulled out Corinthians. Even better, you did it to a linguist.
Your favoured translation misses out one of the groups in the original Greek text (malakoi) and just writes 'homosexuals' in as a translation for a word that nobody really knows the meaning of (arsenokoitai). Take a look at some bibles from ~100 years ago and you'll often find it translated as masturbators, because in essence people are using it as a blank space in which they can write whatever group of people they don't like and want their bible to condemn.
- Status