|
Post by Gods design on Jul 6, 2006 20:44:17 GMT -5
In the beginning God made Adam and Eve.
God did not design man from man.
God did not design woman from woman.
God did not design same sex relationships the ability to propagate life. A man having sex with a man cannot produce a child. A woman having sex with a woman cannot produce a child. Same sex body parts are not designed for same sex relationships. It is Man and woman who are the designed creation God made to fit together for sexual relations and to produce life.
Come on.....
God does not propagate or encourage same-sex relationships. There is nowhere in the Bible that God says it is ok. There is no where that Jesus says it is ok. There is nowhere else in the Word of God that says homosexuality is ok.
Does God still loves those who practice it? You bet he does.
But - we are not to continue in sinful ways......all sin is sin before God and homosexuality is not part God design. Neither is lying, cheating, killing, stealing or the many, many other sins that God vehemently opposes.
Same sex relationships are not the original design of the original designer. It is an incorrect duplication.
Nature alone proves that.
I have many homosexual friends and I love them as equally as my straight friends, but I do not condone their lifestyle. Nor do I condone some of the stupid things I do. But, that is why God has offered his GRACE and FORGIVENESS and the opportunity to set things right with Him. Praise to God!
God does require us to seek His word and to know Him. If you spend time with God and ask for His approval and think you are receiving it in a homosexual relationship, you are allowing yourself to be deceived - which is right where the enemy wants you. Don't allow Satan to keep you there in that lie. It is by God's mighty power and spirit that that lifestyle can be overcome.
Believe the Creator and trust His design. He created man for woman and woman for man.
Any thing else is false.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 6, 2006 21:12:59 GMT -5
Well, if it's feedback you want, then feedback you shall get. I think Christians have always grappled with understanding and seeing scripture's relevance in terms of the society and the time period that they live in, and they have always had an agenda and an interpretation to go with it. For instance, if I take your first two paragraphs and pretend it's 1859, I could easily put your words from the first paragraph into the mouth of a Yankee emancipator, and the words from your second paragraph into the mouth of a southern cotton planter--after all, slavery isn't fair but was quite common in biblical times and literally there to read about in the Bible, and people on both sides of the issue used the Bible to defend their pro or con agenda. And in the ensuing 140-odd years, the majority of Christian Americans would now probably all agree that slavery is not and was not okay, that in fact it was evil and a national embarrassment. But at the beginning it probably seemed like a slippery slope, setting those black folks free...who knew where such a social experiment would end? Best to keep things as they are...everyone knows their place that way...change is scary...
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 6, 2006 21:16:08 GMT -5
Hi Gene,
I'm not going to enter the topic per se, but since you asked, I will attempt to answer your question.
I guess there are two lines of thought. One is based on the slippery slope idea. ie if we allow this, then what next? Such a line of argumentation can be valid in some circumstances. Whether or not it's valid in this instance is of course up for debate. Those employing this would need to justify its validity to this topic.
The other is that "God has said W, X, Y and Z are wrong. You accept W, X and Y as wrong. But you think Z is okay. Why do you accept W, X and Y as wrong but think Z is okay when God has said all of them are wrong? Further it seems suspect that you accept W, X and Y are wrong and you don't practice any of those but you do practice Z so your view that Z is okay is highly prejudiced."
Now, please bear in mind that I am not commenting on the issue itself. I'm just attempting to lay out some of the reasoning as it is used by those who disagree with you.
I will now bow out. ;D
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 6, 2006 21:24:46 GMT -5
Same sex behavior and pairings have been observed in many animal species, particularly the higher primates and in dolphins (i.e., the animals closest in intelligence to humans). I'm not arguing that we should behave like animals, but merely pointing out that your above statement is false. Nature is not the friend you thought it was.
|
|
|
Post by no slaves on Jul 6, 2006 21:41:45 GMT -5
Slavery was not in God's design, either. Sin brought that on.
That is why God sent Christ to FREE us. We have FREEDOM in Christ and in Christ we are no longer a SLAVE to sin.
|
|
humans arent dolphins
Guest
|
Post by humans arent dolphins on Jul 6, 2006 21:43:34 GMT -5
MRLEO,
Same sex relationships in the human species cannot propagate life, period.
Your argument is a moot point.
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 6, 2006 21:58:04 GMT -5
Same sex behavior and pairings have been observed in many animal species, particularly the higher primates and in dolphins (i.e., the animals closest in intelligence to humans). I'm not arguing that we should behave like animals, but merely pointing out that your above statement is false. Nature is not the friend you thought it was. Your statement is true-but the other side of that statement is that it is NOT common or normal behavior. I believe that the same sex behaviors are statistically almost non-existant(don't recall exact # from biology class,sorry)so for the most part,nature does bear out some support for us of the straight persuasion-nature is a buddy after all
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 6, 2006 22:39:45 GMT -5
You're absolutely right...and it's not common or (I would use the word) "normative" to be a gay human. My point is that if you claim that "It's God's design that all animals & insects do such-and-such," the burden is then also upon you to account for the small percentage of those who don't do such-and-such, whether animal or human. If everything is part of the design then EVERYTHING is part of the design, or the designed theory falls apart.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 6, 2006 22:44:43 GMT -5
I never argued otherwise. But you appealed to Nature to support your argument that homosexuality is not natural, and that is simply not the case.
|
|
|
Post by no no mrleo on Jul 6, 2006 23:00:40 GMT -5
Homosexuality is not normal, no matter how you try to twist and juxtapose that it is.
A girl part does not have a "natural" part to go into another woman.
A boy part was not made for the other boy part that it is used to go into.
Sorry to be so blunt.
There is no way to support your logic.
I'm sorry, but God's word superceeds your thoughts and will for eternity.
You are the creation - not the creator.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 6, 2006 23:08:51 GMT -5
If procreation is the sole and only purpose of the sexual organs for which all of creation was designed, then how do you account for animal behavior that does not support that purpose?
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 6, 2006 23:21:37 GMT -5
If homosexual behavior occurs in nature amongst the "lower" animals (and it does), and if God designed those animals only to procreate, then why do some of them engage in homosexual behavior, both sexual and social--behavior that can never result in procreation? Are these animals sinning?
|
|
|
Post by Careful on Jul 7, 2006 0:17:17 GMT -5
MRLEO, Same sex relationships in the human species cannot propagate life, period. This is an unstable place to stand. What will you say when the propagation of life does not require either sex?
|
|
|
Post by Time Out on Jul 7, 2006 0:29:43 GMT -5
you are a very confused person. just trying to muddle the water. you are like the person who asked jesus who his neighbor was. you can try and try.. but truth will always be truth. adultry, fornication, and homosexuality will always be wrong. Before we go way, way down the road could you clear up some language please. All of the activities you mention are defined as A having sex with B. When you say having sex what does that mean to you? v a g i n a l intercourse? That is a tough one with the homosexual crowd. Is it adultery if there is no intercourse? Would oral sex be fornication if the couple was not married? Would it be homosexual sex if the couples were both female? You throw these terms out but have you thought them through? Were Lot's daughters guilty of fornication? Adultery? Or just incest?
|
|
|
Post by the law and Christ on Jul 7, 2006 0:33:00 GMT -5
I thought that Christ dieing on the cross ended the old test. laws. If you are living by any one of the O.T. laws then one needs to live by all of them. If your living after Christ, then one must live by the N.T. teachings. Which is it for people?
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 7, 2006 3:16:35 GMT -5
I posted something above about the bible's attitude towards homosexuality, I then veered off onto slippery slopes. Yes, I should have stuck to the subject - but, regardless of whether accepting homosexuality is a slippery slope or not, the real issue is that the bible condemmed it.
We don't vilify homosexuality - it is never discussed, any more than most other things which we find offensive are discussed.
Regarding complications - you don't expose yourself to temptation if you can help it. I am reminded of the boy who told his father that he was standing in the pantry to overcome his temptation about food. His father replied that the pantry was the last place he should be standing.
Bert
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 7, 2006 3:50:21 GMT -5
I am mildly curious: what proof-texts do supporters of homosexuality quote? Bert
|
|
|
Post by mrleo unplugged on Jul 7, 2006 7:34:37 GMT -5
Do you mean scriptural proof-texts or any proof texts? As far as defending homosexuality from a scriptural stance, I think all you can do is start with some of the thoughts in the first post in this thread because the only biblical references to what most people think of as homosexuality refer only to behavior and not to sexual orientation, which is a relatively new concept. It is actually much easier to defend polygamy or slavery from a scriptural stance, because our understanding/definition of those things has not changed over time.
|
|
|
Post by Q on Jul 7, 2006 9:36:13 GMT -5
on slippery slopes - that portion of text about the men of Sodom surrounding the house of Lot and demanding to "know" his visitors. Do you think the world will ever get to that point? If so, by when? (It talks about end-times when the iniquity of the world, and the falling away, is complete.)
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 7, 2006 12:51:02 GMT -5
Hi Gene, I'm not going to enter the topic per se, but since you asked, I will attempt to answer your question. I guess there are two lines of thought. One is based on the slippery slope idea. ie if we allow this, then what next? Such a line of argumentation can be valid in some circumstances. Whether or not it's valid in this instance is of course up for debate. Those employing this would need to justify its validity to this topic. The other is that "God has said W, X, Y and Z are wrong. You accept W, X and Y as wrong. But you think Z is okay. Why do you accept W, X and Y as wrong but think Z is okay when God has said all of them are wrong? Further it seems suspect that you accept W, X and Y are wrong and you don't practice any of those but you do practice Z so your view that Z is okay is highly prejudiced." Now, please bear in mind that I am not commenting on the issue itself. I'm just attempting to lay out some of the reasoning as it is used by those who disagree with you. I will now bow out. ;D Makes sense -- thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 7, 2006 17:40:09 GMT -5
But, bowhunter, how do you know God is clear in his word on these topics unless you also have interpreted what it says about them? Do you claim to have no agenda? Re-read my post without trying to find an agenda,please-I am merelyexpressing my opinion,just as you and others are. Yes, I like others,have interpreted Gods Word,using the best translation available to me and the H.S.'s guidance. It is clear to me and makes sense to me and I am comfortable with what I know and understand about the topic we are discussing. Yes I have no agenda:) Too bad others are so easily ruffled to the point of self defense,isn't it?My original post wasn't a response to you,mrleo, but to the originator! A forum is an interesting beast,is it not? Bowhunter, what is it about 'agendas' (or is it agendi?) that you (and many others, apparently), don't like? Maybe I should ask what your definition of 'agenda' is. I've heard of people finding fault with "hidden" agendas, and I agree that's not good because I dislike deception and dishonesty of any kind. But just an agenda? What's wrong with that? I most definitely have an agenda, if that means that I am passionate about a particular topic; I try by my life, my words, my actions to effect change in regards to that topic; my interpretation of scripture, the constitution, laws, classical literature, are all informed by my passion for that topic -- yes, in that sense I certainly do have an agenda. And it certainly is not hidden! So pray tell, what is your beef with people who have agendi?
|
|
definding the wrong things
Guest
|
Post by definding the wrong things on Jul 7, 2006 20:42:44 GMT -5
There is nowhere in scripture that God defines animals as sinners. Christ did not come to die and take away the sin of an animal. Christ died to save mankind - just as the Word says. To even go in the direction of referencing an animal is almost on the verge of blasphemy towards Christ and His mission He accomplished.
Christ died and rose again for mankind - not for animals.
We can say scientists have come along way, but they are still not the creator of the universe and did not create the ORIGINAL creation. Science can mix and twist so many things, create so many things....many things that are horrible (nuclear bombs) and wonderful (cross-bred flowers) But scientists are not God and never will be God.
We can never take away who God is and what He created. God created a woman from a man - together they were meant to be, to enjoy sexual pleasure, to propagate life and to worship the living God and OBEY Him.
Regardless of what they were guilty of - they were not in God's will or following His law. "Honor thy father" does not entail "sleeping with your father." That is simply disgusting.
Who is defending polygamy or slavery?
God did not intent those things. Those are the works of satan. God created man to be free and walk with Him - remember the garden of Eden? It is the enemy who has come and distorted.
God is perfect and His ways are perfect. We are given the gift of CHOICE to decide how to live. Just because you have that FREEDOM to choose does not mean your CHOICE is CORRECT.
Point: Homosexuality is wrong. God said it is and it is.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 7, 2006 21:10:17 GMT -5
Well, if animals can't sin, and if God designed them solely for the purpose of procreation and yet some of them engage in behavior that will not result in procreation, then one is left with a conundrum. Either God didn't design them exclusively for procreation and they are acting within the normal range of animal behavior, or God did design them only for procreation and some of them are somehow able to go against his design.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 7, 2006 21:17:03 GMT -5
What does that have to do with human beings?
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 7, 2006 21:20:32 GMT -5
Possibly nothing. Why do you ask?
|
|
|
Post by no point on Jul 7, 2006 21:45:25 GMT -5
Pointless argument. Animals bear no relation to the topic of homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 7, 2006 21:55:48 GMT -5
Animals engage in same-sex behavior, including sex, mating rituals, and pairing off. Sounds pretty homosexual to me...
|
|
|
Post by interesting to on Jul 7, 2006 23:25:17 GMT -5
read that if you know about w, x, y and z .... that if they do not do z, that they are going to the wrong side. The problems here are that that same person has been skipping r, s, t, but is doing right by w, x, y, and z..... but yet they are not looked down upon on them. How come? And it happens right on this medium as well as in the world. It appears that people once again have given priorities to certain things and others they just skip on by thinking that they are not important at all to them.... only to those who they think deserve the, what they would call the greater sin. Why is that? And how can these people be right as well?
|
|