|
|
Post by faune on Mar 27, 2014 16:45:14 GMT -5
i think faune answered it best with the catagory of sexual sin being condemed by Jesus in the afore mentioned matt 19 and mark 7 do with that what you will...
You still haven't answered any verse where JESUS stated anything about homosexuality!
I challenge anyone to say where Jesus ever even mentioned homosexuality
Every verse that anyone has stated is only an assumption on the part of the one doing the posting!
~ I answered that question of yours for myself earlier by agreeing with your statement that you don't find it mentioned by Jesus anywhere in the Gospels. When he talked about sexual immorality as a reason for divorce in Matthew 19:1-12, he was discussing marriage and most likely unfaithfulness by committing adultery? In another passage, sexual immorality was used in discussing the things that come forth from inside our heart that makes them unclean, as found in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. However, there is no direct reference to homosexuality in any of Jesus' recorded words in the Gospel. However, it's definitely spelled out in Pauls' letters to the Romans and I Corinthians, which were written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit imparted by Jesus. So, if you accept the Holy Spirit inspiration in the apostles letters, imparted after Jesus left this mortal scene, then you could say Jesus revealed this later through his servants, the apostles, then it would be proven through additional revelation through the apostles. However, if you don't accept the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then it would exclude the writings of the different apostles, including Paul, who was one of the main spokesmen on this subject matter. JMT. |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 27, 2014 16:48:07 GMT -5
i think faune answered it best with the catagory of sexual sin being condemed by Jesus in the afore mentioned matt 19 and mark 7 do with that what you will...
All other verses and Paul's verses just do not count! In all of them someone is just interpreting them as fits their own ideas.
~ I believe Christians would differ with you according to your second statement, since they feel Paul was an inspired apostle of Jesus Christ and was delivering these opinions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, imparted by Jesus Himself. They weren't just off the top of his head or his own personal views, although that could be a possibility considering his strict Pharisee background and understanding of Jewish O.T. law.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 17:04:59 GMT -5
2Co_12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. that thorn could mean anything... this verse leads me to believe he was even married... 1Co_9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Wally ~ LOL ~ are you saying that the "thorn in the flesh" might have been his wife?  Actually, it's a common fact that men ruled the roost in the Jewish faith and women were considered nothing more than personal possessions that they could use as they wish and dispose of when they got tired of them and wanted a change. A woman could have even been divorced for burning the evening meal back in those days!  That's why the "writ of divorce" was created in the first place to help these women hold on to a little bit of their self respect and dignity in such a situation and avoid become temple prostitutes to survive as a result. Jesus, on the other hand, gave women the respect they deserved and treated them as equals within a marriage, where one partner compliments the other and shows equal respect.
However, Jesus addressed this matter in Matthew 19:1-12 regarding his opinion about marriage and that it was God's intention that only for sexual immorality (adultery) a divorce should be granted. Also, in I Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul actually came across as a male chauvinist in his attitude towards women in the church.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019%3A1-12%3B%20I%20Corinthians%2014%3A34-35&version=ESV;NIV
no i'm saying that the "thorn" could have been anything...pride, arrogance...etc..etc.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 17:08:57 GMT -5
i think faune answered it best with the catagory of sexual sin being condemed by Jesus in the afore mentioned matt 19 and mark 7 do with that what you will...
All other verses and Paul's verses just do not count! In all of them someone is just interpreting them as fits their own ideas.
ummm... per leviticus 18 and 20 it WAS a sin that was established law before Christ arrived...i don't think that one has to make that far a leap to know sexual immorality covers a number of things from the OT... |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 27, 2014 17:19:16 GMT -5
faune, as far as I'm concerned Paul's words are just that, words. He had no authority whatsoever, he just thought he did. It has been speculated he was homosexual and that was the 'thorn' he spoke of, so maybe that's why he spoke against it? Personally I don't think he was or that was the reason, but I suppose it's always a possibility. Too bad he didn't just accept who he was if that was the case instead of bad mouthing those who choose same sex partners. Snow ~ I have read about that possibility within secular writings relating to Paul's thorn in the flesh, because of his strong language against homosexuality. I guess some would relate the same to the strong speech we saw with Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggert in past years relating to anti-gay rhetoric. Both of these men spoke out a lot about "sexual immorality" and homosexuality, because both of these preachers had their own guilty conscience over their own sexuality and perverted lifestyles with prostitutes, respectively.  However, they weren't the only well known evangelists who were considered "closeted gays" or had a secret perverted lifestyle with prostitutes kept hidden from the world. Jim and Tammy Baker were another televangelist couple who come to mind who were exposed for a number of improprieties. In addition, there were others who made the news in recent years, including Paul Crouch, the founder of Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) who died last November 2013. He was also involved in the anti-gay agenda that's been around since the 1980's in this country due to Jerry Falwell and other notable religious celebrities. However, before his death, it was revealed he was a "closeted gay" himself by a former employee of TBN who was paid "hush money" to keep his affair with Paul Crouch a secret.  Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black in the religious world of televangelists teaching Christian prosperity doctrine and making mega-bucks from their version of the gospel.
www.frontiersla.com/frontiers-blog/2013/12/02/anti-gay-closeted-televangelist-paul-crouch-dies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda
downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/04/if-gay-marriage-were-legal-in-1998.html |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 27, 2014 19:16:59 GMT -5
First of all, wally, one has to "assume" that homosexuality IS a "sexual sin!" Then one has to "assume" Jesus said anything about it!
All other verses and Paul's verses just do not count! In all of them someone is just interpreting them as fits their own ideas.
~ I believe Christians would differ with you according to your second statement, since they feel Paul was an inspired apostle of Jesus Christ and was delivering these opinions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, imparted by Jesus Himself. They weren't just off the top of his head or his own personal views, although that could be a possibility considering strict Pharisee background and understanding of Jewish O.T. law.
If they ALL did agree with Paul considering homosexuality there wouldn't be the multitude of Christians who don't agree that homosexuality is a "sin"!
Again, you are talking about what Paul said! -not Jesus!
If a ALL Christians "feel Paul was an inspired apostle of Jesus Christ and was delivering these opinions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, imparted by Jesus Himself," what do you as a Christian and ALL other Christians believe about the edits passed by Paul?
1) Women being subservient to their husbands?
2) women being quiet in the church?
3) Women not wearing jewels?
4) Women having long hair?
just these four amongst many others.
If one truly believes that Paul was an "inspired apostle of Jesus Christ and was delivering these opinions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, imparted by Jesus Himself," how do you accept one and not the others of Paul's opinions?
|
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 27, 2014 20:05:06 GMT -5
I have the feeling that anything I write will sound offensive to some. When I write, “May God bless you”, I mean it for anyone reading what I’ve written. Yes, May God bless you, and May God bless me, too!
Gee, an atheist’s view of God isn’t going to stop me from praying that God will bless (and writing so). Atheists may not believe in God - that is their right - but I do, and that is my human right as well. I won’t apologize for wishing blessings, and I won’t stop. If my faith is found to be offensive to some, so be it. If anyone’s lack of faith offends me, so be that, too. This is what it means to live in a society among different perspectives.
Minor “arguments” aside, the main counter-argument, as far as I can gauge, is that Jesus never formed the words, “homosexuality” with his lips. Of course, we know that this term was not even in use in his (incarnate) century. It was first coined in the 19th century (1892), and came from the Greek word, “homo” which means “same” + “sexuality”. (In Latin, though, “homo” means “man.”) The modern term, “homosexuality” simply means: sex with one’s same sex.
The words God gave to Moses, recorded in Leviticus 18:22 (“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”) literally forbid same-sex-sex, as well as incest, bestiality, child sacrifice, necrophilia…
I included a link to a site, but because its points were ignored, I tend to think it wasn’t opened, so I’ll paraphrase some of them:
1. To argue from silence is not a logical refutation. Basically, Jesus is not known to have opened his lips and talked about “child abuse” or “wife beating”, and yet…no one familiar with his teachings would say he therefore supports those. Likewise, knowing Jesus’ stance on the Law, knowing the apostles’ (who were taught by Jesus), and knowing what Jesus said in Revelation 21:7-8 (“The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But as for the…..sexually immoral….their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death,” we can KNOW that Jesus did not change the law about sexual sin (including, but not limited to) male-male or female-female sex.
2. In Christianity, all of the words of Scripture are essentially Jesus’ words, as they are inspired by Jesus. Jesus is the Word of God, the communicator between God and man, the only mediator.
3. Jesus upheld the law. He didn’t need to reiterate something in his lifetime that was already well-understood. This actually carried the death penalty. People were going to pay close attention to anything which carried that sentence. (See: Leviticus 20:13). There are many modern words Jesus didn’t say and ancient concepts he didn’t need to address again because they were already written-down and well-understood to be solid components of the Law of Moses. “Sexual immorality” or “sexual sin” includes ALL of the known sexual sins, and no contemporaries of Jesus had any doubt as to what those were. His apostles carried certain aspects of the Mosaic Covenant into the New, as I’ve already covered, and sexual sin was among their priorities. (See Acts 15:19-21)
It has been argued here that Jesus didn’t come to judge. Yes, Jesus while on earth, did not “come to judge” (YET), but to “save the lost,” yes! His message was “repent” and “sin no more.” He is still knocking on the door of hearts and offering the gifts of forgiveness and mercy. And he has already ascended to the Father. On the Last Day, he will most certainly be judging us all:
2nd Corinthians 5:10, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”
2nd Timothy 4:1-2… “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.…
1 Peter 4:4-5.. “In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you; but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.”
Matthew 10:28, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Yes, Jesus is really telling us to “be afraid”. But we have nothing to fear if we heed his words. To build our house on anything else but the solid Rock is sinking sand. How can we water-down his words for fear of offending the world?
We should listen to his call on our hearts and turn away from the wicked standards of the world, even if the world hates us for it. Better to be hated by the world, and even suffer martyrdom in it than face the true judge and be found guilty of loving the world more than the truths of God.
All of the text from gaychristian 101 (that was copied and pasted on this thread) seems to provide zero support for itself. We, the readers, are simply supposed to believe the claims in it. While it’s going to take some time for me to answer each one, I will make a start, at least, today.
They write,
“Moses and Ezekiel emphasize Sodom’s lack of hospitality, greed, idolatry, gluttony but never mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom.”
At its very core, this sentence is essentially saying that neither Moses nor Ezekiel use the word homosexuality (or even imply its meaning) and Sodom within the same sentence.
Moses’words (Jesus’words) do emphasis the forbidden nature of male-to-male sexual activity, as we already know, in Leviticus. Leviticus contains all the words that God told Moses to write. Furthermore, Moses wrote down what are first five books of the Bible, which of course, include the very first: Genesis, containing the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. When one reads that account, it’s obvious that its destruction had very much to do with sexual sin.
www.josh.org/resources/study-research/answers-to-skeptics-questions/did-moses-write-the-first-five-books/
As wally pointed out, sexual sin was not the ONLY sin (though it is given the most emphasis) for the destruction of Sodom. From Ezekiel, we hear of the sin of pride and lack of charity as well as the “abomination” mentioned in verse 50. Ezekiel is so often quoted only to the 49th verse, which is interesting, because the very next verse, the 50th, refers to an abomination for which God takes Sodom away:
“48As I live, declares the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.” (Ezekiel 16:48-50) Why is that last verse so often omitted?
In all the list of sexual sins mentioned in Leviticus 18, there is only one to which the word “abomination” is attached. One. A male lying with another male as with a female.
The entire chapter of Ezekiel 16 is about God’s relationship with Israel (the people, not the land per se), from their birth, through their harlotries and eventual divorce, and finally, their restoration (yet to come) following his atonement for them. (Interestingly, though many cities vie for the title, Tel Aviv, Israel, is often called the “gay capitol of the world” today.) The Day of Judgment is closer than ever, but hasn’t arrived yet. If God considered this an abomination in the day of Sodom’s destruction, has he really somehow changed his mind?
Do these standards still apply? Paul warns us in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 (“For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.”) It’s really important to the Christian to get a handle on what is sexual immorality.
I would ask anyone who hasn’t lately, read Genesis 18 – 19 again. And after you read it, please read the full quote in Ezekiel in which God talks about the “abomination” for which Sodom was destroyed. The connection is unmistakable.
But so desperate are some to find endorsement for the forbidden in the Bible, “happy theologists” (their chosen term, not mine) have actually added in words which aren’t in the original text, as their “Queen James Bible” reveals.
From Answers in Genesis author, Steve Golden:
“Homosexual advocates typically challenge…the Levitical code by reframing these sanctions against homosexual acts in the context of pagan idol worship. Indeed, the editors of the Queen James Bible have done just that, adding wording to these verses to fit their argument:
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22, QJB, emphasis added.)
“If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:13, QJB, emphasis added)
There is no textual support in the Hebrew manuscripts for the additional wording the editors of the Queen James Bible have introduced. But the added phrase “in the temple of Molech” suggests that, in the view of these particular editors, homosexual behavior would only have been prohibited when associated with pagan rituals. The editors reached this conclusion by arguing that the Hebrew word for abomination, tow’ebah, means “ritually unclean.” Uncleanness related to pagan idolatry is one of the definitions of tow’ebah; however, it is also used in Scripture to denote something that is morally (ethically) repugnant in God’s sight, such as homosexuality (see, for example, Proverbs 6:16) [Proverbs 6:16 reads: “These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren.”]
Furthermore, chapters 18 and 20 in Leviticus are lists of prohibited behaviors for the Israelites, including incest, bestiality, and child sacrifice. To be consistent, the editors of the Queen James Bible must apply their changes to the whole of these chapters. But the implications of this hermeneutic are severe—incest, bestiality, child sacrifice, and a number of other behaviors would all become acceptable except in the context of pagan idolatry. Surely pro-homosexual scholars do not intend to argue for the acceptability of all these practices. The clearest interpretation of these passages is that homosexual behavior is an abomination in the sight of God, whether or not it is in the context of ritual pagan idolatry.” [End quote: Steve Golden]
We must look at the whole of scripture.
But what if we truly “put words in Jesus’ mouth” and substituted them with a pro-gay-sex spin? What would that look like?
“….Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's husband for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and male, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his husband, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not the state separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send him away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your husbands, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his husband, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
If Jesus had said that (which of course, he did not) – this would be considered PROOF INCONTROVERTIBLE that Jesus supports homosexuality.
Yet the actual words are NOT proof enough??:
“…Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 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’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” – (Matthew 19:3-9)
I challenge anyone to find one instance in which Jesus actually blesses a homosexual (not heterosexual) union – or even alludes to such. He never did. The only marriage Jesus affirms is marriage between the opposite sex, for life (divorce permissible only for sexual immorality). Sexual immorality is a marriage-breaker, according to Jesus, not a foundation for it.
“ Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” - Jude 1:5-7
“Better is open rebuke than love that is concealed. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.”
- Proverbs 27:5-6
Be blessed!
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 27, 2014 20:34:34 GMT -5
hanging out, Your quote:
"Minor “arguments” aside, the main counter-argument, as far as I can gauge, is that Jesus never formed the words, “homosexuality” with his lips. Of course, we know that this term was not even in use in his (incarnate) century. It was first coined in the 19th century (1892), and came from the Greek word, “homo” which means “same” + “sexuality”. (In Latin, though, “homo” means “man.”) The modern term, “homosexuality” simply means: sex with one’s same sex."
No. I don't mean the just the word "homosexuality!”
I mean the whole idea "homosexuality!”
Your quote:
"Jesus said in Revelation 21:7-8"
Jesus said NOTHING in Revelation 21:7-8 or any other part of Revelations!"
That is what I am trying to tell everyone!
People keep saying Jesus "said this", Jesus "said that!"
Jesus didn't say any of those things and Jesus did not address the SUBJECT of homosexuality! PERIOD.
All the places & verses that people keep on bringing up as Jesus said is simply not true!
It is nothing more than their interpretation of those verses!
If I, as an atheisT, did that kind of interpretation of what Jesus said, people would have me on a spit roasting in hell quicker than anyone could say Ha!- got'cha!
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 27, 2014 20:40:35 GMT -5
Wally ~ LOL ~ are you saying that the "thorn in the flesh" might have been his wife? Actually, it's a common fact that men ruled the roost in the Jewish faith and women were considered nothing more than personal possessions that they could use as they wish and dispose of when they got tired of them and wanted a change. A woman could have even been divorced for burning the evening meal back in those days! That's why the "writ of divorce" was created in the first place to help these women hold on to a little bit of their self respect and dignity in such a situation and avoid become temple prostitutes to survive as a result. Jesus, on the other hand, gave women the respect they deserved and treated them as equals within a marriage, where one partner compliments the other and shows equal respect.
However, Jesus addressed this matter in Matthew 19:1-12 regarding his opinion about marriage and that it was God's intention that only for sexual immorality (adultery) a divorce should be granted. Also, in I Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul actually came across as a male chauvinist in his attitude towards women in the church.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019%3A1-12%3B%20I%20Corinthians%2014%3A34-35&version=ESV;NIV
no i'm saying that the "thorn" could have been anything...pride, arrogance...etc..etc.. Wally ~ Sorry, but I was just teasing you about the "thorn in the flesh" statement made by Paul, since you brought up the idea that he could have been married in the past? Perhaps he got hen-pecked in the past and felt women needed to keep silent afterwards?  |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 27, 2014 21:00:20 GMT -5
I challenge anyone to find one instance in which Jesus actually blesses a homosexual (not heterosexual) union – or even alludes to such. He never did. The only marriage Jesus affirms is marriage between the opposite sex, for life (divorce permissible only for sexual immorality). Sexual immorality is a marriage-breaker, according to Jesus, not a foundation for it.
"I challenge anyone to find one instance in which Jesus actually blesses a homosexual (not heterosexual) union – or even alludes to such. He never did."
Of course you won't "find one instance in which Jesus actually blesses a homosexual (not heterosexual) union – or even alludes to such!"
That is precisely what I have been telling you!
Jesus NEVER said anything about a homosexuality!
PERIOD!
He NEVER "even ALLUDES" to the subject!
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 27, 2014 21:14:40 GMT -5
Dmmichgood ~ I believe Christians would differ with you according to your second statement, since they feel Paul was an inspired apostle of Jesus Christ and was delivering these opinions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, imparted by Jesus Himself. They weren't just off the top of his head or his own personal views, although that could be a possibility considering strict Pharisee background and understanding of Jewish O.T. law.
If they ALL did agree with Paul considering homosexuality there wouldn't be the multitude of Christians who don't agree that homosexuality is a "sin"!
Again, you are talking about what Paul said! -not Jesus!
If a ALL Christians "feel Paul was an inspired apostle of Jesus Christ and was delivering these opinions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, imparted by Jesus Himself," what do you as a Christian and ALL other Christians believe about the edits passed by Paul?
1) Women being subservient to their husbands?
2) women being quiet in the church?
3) Women not wearing jewels?
4) Women having long hair?
just these four amongst many others.
If one truly believes that Paul was an "inspired apostle of Jesus Christ and was delivering these opinions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, imparted by Jesus Himself," how do you accept one and not the others of Paul's opinions?
Dmmichgood ~ You're putting me on the spot here, as I don't like a lot of things that Paul spoke in the past, especially concerning women. He comes across more like a chauvinist, to be honest with you. However, I was just stating what many Christians who consider the Bible to be completely inerrant do believe to be true. I'm not one of those Christians, as I realize there are a number of discrepancies and even contradictions to be found within the Bible, both in the N.T. and O.T. I personally feel that some things could have even been written in as coming from Paul or others in the Bible to convey a certain point of view during the assembly of the Bible, which causes me to question the reliability of some of these verses as being God inspired. Also, I'm more of a moderate/liberal in my personal views, which would also affect how I view Paul's verses regarding women and homosexuals. We live in a different day and age when people are more knowledgable about things due to scientific discoveries and need to use sound judgment in view of what they read ~ including the Bible. One example that comes to mind is the references to the "flat earth theory" found within different books in the O.T., which has been proven a false premise today. Need I say more? |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 27, 2014 21:28:31 GMT -5
I should probably just read up on it, because I'm sure there's a logical answer, but why read up on it when I can just ask the question here?
Why are fundamentalist Christians so interested in what the gays get up to in the bedroom?
I mean, there are FAR more adulterers in the congregation (and in the pulpit) than there are gays! Why not focus a proportional dose of that energy on the adulterers? Or do they? Or do they not, because the gays are "them" and the adulterers are "us"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 22:05:56 GMT -5
i don't think its interest i think its disgust IMO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 22:16:09 GMT -5
Haven't most knowledgeable people realize by now that no one "chooses to be gay?" Why would your cousin being raped by a priest cause him/her to be is gay? i'm sure some people struggle with whether or not thier gay after being raped also alot like a rape victim often thinks they are at fault for being raped he wasn't at fault - he was a little boy at boarding college. It didn't happen once it happens over a time he didn't chose to be gay. That's like saying if he had been a girl it would be rape but because he was a boy he must his fault he is gay. No that is so wrong. That is my cousin you are talking about. He was buggered up by the time he left school my uncle rang mum the other day to ask what to do about him. His partner died of Aids and my cousin was drinking himself to death. It's not all airy fairy nice. It's disgusting and sad and wrong. Gay Pedophiles can bugger up the sex of a child. And there are also plenty of people who swing from one sex to the other - that is a lifestyle choice. Also that is the waste disposal area - not meant for anything else. God didn't create that area to be used as anything else - very dirty and unhygienic . |
|
|
|
Post by gecko45 on Mar 27, 2014 22:25:37 GMT -5
It would seem that the people who are most vocally opposed to it are the ones who are deep down less than secure about their own sexuality. They are desperately afraid that if they see a muscular man in a pair of leather chaps on a multi-colored parade float during a gay pride parade they will no longer be able to resist their own inner desires and will fall headlong into a life of sin and debauchery. Just one glimpse of two men holding hands in public will cause them to abandon their wife, children and marriage; ask for the meeting to be taken out of their home; quit their promising career in an accounting firm; to sadly end their days mopping the floors of a Turkish bath house in the Castro District of San Francisco while their T-cell count drops to nil.
but
If you are confident about your life style then it really doesn't matter so much what someone else does.
I am to lazy to do the search but are there not several prominent pastors who preached a rabidly anti-gay message but on the side were having passionate, meth-amphetamine fueled liaisons with Cuban pool boys??
Any time I hear someone who "Doth protest to much" I suspect something is up.
|
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 28, 2014 9:18:17 GMT -5
I should probably just read up on it, because I'm sure there's a logical answer, but why read up on it when I can just ask the question here? Why are fundamentalist Christians so interested in what the gays get up to in the bedroom? I mean, there are FAR more adulterers in the congregation (and in the pulpit) than there are gays! Why not focus a proportional dose of that energy on the adulterers? Or do they? Or do they not, because the gays are "them" and the adulterers are "us"?  If it was, that's what the focus would be on. I'm pretty sure that sort of thread would die off quickly though, as everyone yawns, because there is general societal agreement (and no real controversy) that 'adultery is pretty much a bad thing.' Still, since workers aren't allowed to marry in the first place, would that be ex-workers who married and became adulterers, or the extremely rare case of one or two who married while in the work and played around? Either way, I don't think it would have much momentum to go on, unless it spun off in another direction. Of course, for the "polyamorists", that word "adultery" would be considered quaint and irrelevant. Adultery implies a commitment to one person. But people with multiple spouses or "significant others" is (at present) a very small trend. Yes, I do think that by the time the Day of Judgement arrives, there will be widespread lunacy over sex.
I do think that a "proportional dose" of energy could be spent on the whole gamut of sexual issues which plague the church. It's important to wonder why this one has more widespread focus nowadays, and there are really several reasons for that - some are theological and others are more down-to-earth. Albert Mohler expresses well how this issue is an internal issue for the Church:
www.albertmohler.com/2011/08/10/evangelicals-and-the-gay-moral-revolution/
I personally have never been that "interested" as you say, nor do I spend time "imagining" what gays "get up to in the bedroom". The whole gay argument has come to the fore in America more than ever because some - definitely not all - gays are trying to interfere with the rights of others to hold a different view. So there's some pushback there. It was one thing to be on board with the no-bullying position. One thing to be on board with basic civil rights. But when someone's rights tramples someone else's - well, that's a bridge too far.
I always say that if you want to understand an issue, you've got to look at all (not just both) sides. I see that people have a lot more common ground than not, but what I find so often is one-sidedness. My liberal friends "froth at the mouth" over what conservatives believe, but they never try to grasp their POV. They usually just denounce and ridicule it. I've seen President Obama get such a pass for enacting things that President Bush (& I am not a fan of either!) would have been roasted on a spit over. Fairness? Open-mindedness? Party loyalties and minds set in stone is what I'm seeing, Left or Right. My conservative friends are just as guilty of never really looking into what "liberals" think and how they arrive at their conclusions. Both sides are engaged in endless, meaningless (and snide!) bashing of each other. I have been on both sides of the spectrum myself, so I make it a point to examine both sides.
Of course, to make my point, I'm going to offer a perspective some will rush to denounce as mere "negative fundamentalism". But I ask you, where else can I find another view from the prevalent one, if not on a "conservative" website? I don't always agree with Townhall.com, by the way, but on this article, I have to say, "Good points!"
There's more to this issue than how it impacts businesses, of course, but it's a clue as to why this issue is getting more and more attention. It's not, as some have suggested, a matter of "insecurity" about our sexuality. Oh, I suppose to be fair, that might actually be the case here and there, but the way that gets suggested sooo often, it's become a stale joke. Can we really suppose the current controversy is just about 'repressed people not wanting to admit to having gay fantasies'? People's lives are being changed dramatically over expressing opinions - and holding to beliefs - their stories deserve more than a comedic brush-off (if one really believes in fairness.)
townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/03/01/5-reasons-christian-businesses-shouldnt-be-legally-forced-to-support-gay-weddings-n1802331/page/full
I do hope some will actually read this article (without frothing later.) I can hope, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 28, 2014 10:35:50 GMT -5
I should probably just read up on it, because I'm sure there's a logical answer, but why read up on it when I can just ask the question here? Why are fundamentalist Christians so interested in what the gays get up to in the bedroom? I mean, there are FAR more adulterers in the congregation (and in the pulpit) than there are gays! Why not focus a proportional dose of that energy on the adulterers? Or do they? Or do they not, because the gays are "them" and the adulterers are "us"?
I personally have never been that "interested" as you say, nor do I spend time "imagining" what gays "get up to in the bedroom". The whole gay argument has come to the fore in America more than ever because some - definitely not all - gays are trying to interfere with the rights of others to hold a different view. So there's some pushback there. It was one thing to be on board with the no-bullying position. One thing to be on board with basic civil rights. But when someone's rights tramples someone else's - that's a bridge too far.
I always say that if you want to understand an issue, you've got to look at all (not just both) sides. I see that people have a lot more common ground than not, but what I find so often is one-sidedness. My liberal friends "froth at the mouth" over what conservatives believe, but they never try to grasp their POV. They usually just denounce and ridicule it. I've seen President Obama get such a pass for enacting things that President Bush (& I am not a fan of either!) would have been roasted on a spit over. Fairness? Open-mindedness? Party loyalties and minds set in stone is what I'm seeing, Left or Right. My conservative friends are just as guilty of never really looking into what "liberals" think and how they arrive at their conclusions. Both sides are engaged in endless, meaningless (and snide!) bashing of each other. I have been on both sides of the spectrum myself, so I make it a point to examine both sides.
Of course, to make my point, I'm going to offer a perspective some will rush to denounce as mere "negative fundamentalism". But I ask you, where else can I find another view from the prevalent one, if not on a "conservative" website? I don't always agree with Townhall.com, by the way, but on this article, I have to say, "Good points!"
There's more to this issue than how it impacts businesses, of course, but it's a clue as to why this issue is getting more and more attention. It's not, as some have suggested, a matter of "insecurity" about our sexuality. Oh, I suppose to be fair, that might actually be the case here and there, but the way that gets suggested sooo often, it's become a stale joke. Can we really suppose the current controversy is just about 'repressed people not wanting to admit to having gay fantasies'? People's lives are being changed dramatically over expressing opinions - and holding to beliefs - their stories deserve more than a comedic brush-off (if one really believes in fairness.)
townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/03/01/5-reasons-christian-businesses-shouldnt-be-legally-forced-to-support-gay-weddings-n1802331/page/full
I do hope some will actually read this article (without frothing later.) I can hope, anyway.
Hangingout ~ I just finished reading this article you posted above and found it made a number of realistic arguments regarding Christian rights being infringed upon by new gay legislation being proposed and accepted in 17 states today ~ especially where people are sued for not complying over requests for their business services due to their own Christian convictions. Some of these arguments are pretty sound and should be considered by gay rights activitists as Christian rights due equal respect. Honestly, I can see how some Christians can visual these new laws as infringing on their civil rights, too, when they are demanded to do things that go against their personal conscience. Also, I wish to state that I admired you taking the challenge by Dmmichgood earlier and providing a well detailed response in return. I thought it was a well written argument and fair in its presentation to both parties involved. Thank you for clearly expressing your views in a manner that is not offensive to either side, but based upon logic and fairness to all concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 28, 2014 10:43:19 GMT -5
It would seem that the people who are most vocally opposed to it are the ones who are deep down less than secure about their own sexuality. They are desperately afraid that if they see a muscular man in a pair of leather chaps on a multi-colored parade float during a gay pride parade they will no longer be able to resist their own inner desires and will fall headlong into a life of sin and debauchery. Just one glimpse of two men holding hands in public will cause them to abandon their wife, children and marriage; ask for the meeting to be taken out of their home; quit their promising career in an accounting firm; to sadly end their days mopping the floors of a Turkish bath house in the Castro District of San Francisco while their T-cell count drops to nil. but If you are confident about your life style then it really doesn't matter so much what someone else does.
I am to lazy to do the search but are there not several prominent pastors who preached a rabidly anti-gay message but on the side were having passionate, meth-amphetamine fueled liaisons with Cuban pool boys?? Any time I hear someone who "Doth protest to much" I suspect something is up. Gecko45 ~ Usually televangelists on TV who come across as "protesting too much" do have something they're hiding in their closets. I'm reminded of such religious celebrities as Jim Baker, Paul Crouch, Jimmy Swaggert, and Ted Haggard ~ just to name a few! However, the list is much longer than these few names I presented here. However, the ones I presented above did make national headlines when they were caught with their "hands in the cookie jar," so to speak. Personally speaking, I agree with other statement that if people are confident about their lifestyle, it doesn't matter so much to them what someone else does. However, if it infringes in some way on their own civil rights within America, then I feel people need to speak up and address the matter. Hangingout presented an article earlier that brings out some points along these lines where people are being sued for their own personal convictions in providing services for gay weddings and marriage ceremonies, which I feel deserves to be taken into account in all fairness. townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/03/01/5-reasons-christian-businesses-shouldnt-be-legally-forced-to-support-gay-weddings-n1802331/page/full I'm also reminded of Phil Roberson who made on national TV headlines from his reality show, "Duck Dynasty," for his colorful remarks about gays which were pretty graphic in places and his remarks about Blacks. I personally felt that he came across as pretty bigoted in his remarks for somebody who's been a pastor and may still be one today? www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-gay_n_4465564.html |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 28, 2014 10:44:25 GMT -5
i don't think its interest i think its disgust IMO Well, at least you're honest. So I'll be honest too. I find this comment disgusting, intolerant and ignorant. |
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 28, 2014 11:00:31 GMT -5
Thank you faune. I edited my post a few seconds ago to include more material on the theological controversy. (I know from your posts that you and I - as Christians - are not in basic agreement here.)
I do appreciate that you actually read the things I post and think about them, instead of skimming the surface and firing out a reply. It makes a difference; it shows. I think that's a very fair-minded approach to disagreement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2014 11:01:03 GMT -5
Luk_6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
Joh_15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 28, 2014 11:11:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 28, 2014 12:07:29 GMT -5
It would seem that the people who are most vocally opposed to it are the ones who are deep down less than secure about their own sexuality. They are desperately afraid that if they see a muscular man in a pair of leather chaps on a multi-colored parade float during a gay pride parade they will no longer be able to resist their own inner desires and will fall headlong into a life of sin and debauchery. Just one glimpse of two men holding hands in public will cause them to abandon their wife, children and marriage; ask for the meeting to be taken out of their home; quit their promising career in an accounting firm; to sadly end their days mopping the floors of a Turkish bath house in the Castro District of San Francisco while their T-cell count drops to nil. but If you are confident about your life style then it really doesn't matter so much what someone else does.
I am to lazy to do the search but are there not several prominent pastors who preached a rabidly anti-gay message but on the side were having passionate, meth-amphetamine fueled liaisons with Cuban pool boys?? Any time I hear someone who "Doth protest to much" I suspect something is up. Gecko45 ~ Usually televangelists on TV who come across as "protesting too much" do have something they're hiding in their closets. I'm reminded of such religious celebrities as Jim Baker, Paul Crouch, Jimmy Swaggert, and Ted Haggard ~ just to name a few! However, the list is much longer than these few names I presented here. However, the ones I presented above did make national headlines when they were caught with their "hands in the cookie jar," so to speak. Personally speaking, I agree with other statement that if people are confident about their lifestyle, it doesn't matter so much to them what someone else does. However, if it infringes in some way on their own civil rights within America, then I feel people need to speak up and address the matter. Hangingout presented an article earlier that brings out some points along these lines where people are being sued for their own personal convictions in providing services for gay weddings and marriage ceremonies, which I feel deserves to be taken into account in all fairness. townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/03/01/5-reasons-christian-businesses-shouldnt-be-legally-forced-to-support-gay-weddings-n1802331/page/full I'm also reminded of Phil Robertson who made on national TV headlines from his reality show, "Duck Dynasty," for his colorful remarks about gays which were pretty graphic in places and his remarks about Blacks. I personally felt that he came across as pretty bigoted in his remarks for somebody who's been a pastor and may still be one today? www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-gay_n_4465564.html I forgot to post earlier Phil Robertson's remarks concerning Blacks which were actually worse than his anti-gay remarks. Here's his actual words so that all can see what this Duck Dynasty reality star believes to be true in his little world. www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0T211X-3m8 |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 28, 2014 12:13:25 GMT -5
As my husband says it wasn't Adam and Steve. I do feel genuinely sorry for people who are born with different x and Y chromosomes and are the wrong sex But to chose to be gay as a lifestyle is not right. My cousin was raped by a priest at a catholic college and is gay. I would do something bad to anyone touching my child.
That hasn't anything to do with homosexuality that I know of.
However, if it does, why would anyone blame the person for the way that they were born?
You said, "But to chose to be gay as a lifestyle is not right."
Suppose someone said to you "choosing the heterosexual life style is not right?"
A person can't really be "genuinely sorry" for someone but then dictate what is the "right" kind of lifestyle that person are suppose to live!
Lets look at it this way.
If someone is "gay" which kind of "sexual life style" should they lead?
1) live asexually not having sex with anyone. ( which would be against the natural way people are)
2) lead heterosexual "life style" which would be a lie and perhaps hurt their partner because of lack of commitment.
3) live the a homosexual "life style" to the truth of who they are and are commited to love & care for their partner.
Which of these so-called "life styles" are the honest, true & not based on a lie?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2014 12:22:43 GMT -5
number 1
i'm reminded of this verse which by any measure lead one to believe that one can live "asexually" for God...
Mat_19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 28, 2014 12:55:00 GMT -5
As my husband says it wasn't Adam and Steve. I do feel genuinely sorry for people who are born with different x and Y chromosomes and are the wrong sex But to chose to be gay as a lifestyle is not right. My cousin was raped by a priest at a catholic college and is gay. I would do something bad to anyone touching my child.
That hasn't anything to do with homosexuality that I know of.
However, if it does, why would anyone blame the person for the way that they were born?
You said, "But to chose to be gay as a lifestyle is not right."
Suppose someone said to you "choosing the heterosexual life style is not right?"
A person can't really be "genuinely sorry" for someone but then dictate what is the "right" kind of lifestyle that person are suppose to live!
Lets look at it this way.
If someone is "gay" which kind of "sexual life style" should they lead?
1) live asexually not having sex with anyone. ( which would be against the natural way people are)
2) lead heterosexual "life style" which would be a lie and perhaps hurt their partner because of lack of commitment.
3) live the a homosexual "life style" to the truth of who they are and are committed to love & care for their partner.
Which of these so-called "life styles" are the honest, true & not based on a lie?
Dmmichgood ~ I feel Dan Savage, the news columnist, would agree with you on many of the points you brought out above and add a few more for good measure.  www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X01i6hyvic |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 28, 2014 12:55:14 GMT -5
As my husband says it wasn't Adam and Steve. I do feel genuinely sorry for people who are born with different x and Y chromosomes and are the wrong sex But to chose to be gay as a lifestyle is not right. My cousin was raped by a priest at a catholic college and is gay. I would do something bad to anyone touching my child.
That hasn't anything to do with homosexuality that I know of.
However, if it does, why would anyone blame the person for the way that they were born?
You said, "But to chose to be gay as a lifestyle is not right."
Suppose someone said to you "choosing the heterosexual life style is not right?"
A person can't really be "genuinely sorry" for someone but then dictate what is the "right" kind of lifestyle that person are suppose to live!
Lets look at it this way.
If someone is "gay" which kind of "sexual life style" should they lead?
1) live asexually not having sex with anyone. ( which would be against the natural way people are)
2) lead heterosexual "life style" which would be a lie and perhaps hurt their partner because of lack of commitment.
3) live the a homosexual "life style" to the truth of who they are and are commited to love & care for their partner.
Which of these so-called "life styles" are the honest, true & not based on a lie?
Dmmichgood ~ I feel Dan Savage, the news columist would agree with you on many of the points you brought out above. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X01i6hyvic |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 28, 2014 13:13:15 GMT -5
number 1 i'm reminded of this verse which by any measure lead one to believe that one can live "asexually" for God... Mat_19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Wally ~ I believe Paul embraced this idea himself and perhaps that's why some have suggested that he might have been gay? I don't believe that to be the case myself. However, this article provides an unusual scenario with scriptural references to back up it up from I Corinthians 7:25-40. I actually was wondering if Paul was speaking about couples remaining in some kind of platonic relationship with their fiancee from the reference to I Corinthians 7:36-38 below instead of marriage in #4 below? What do you think? I also liked the concluding paragraph regarding how Paul clarified his comments on different controversial issues, which was brought up earlier in this discussion. bible.org/seriespage/single-minded-1-corinthians-725-40 |
|
Actually, it's a common fact that men ruled the roost in the Jewish faith and women were considered nothing more than personal possessions that they could use as they wish and dispose of when they got tired of them and wanted a change. A woman could have even been divorced for burning the evening meal back in those days! 
That's why the "writ of divorce" was created in the first place to help these women hold on to a little bit of their self respect and dignity in such a situation and avoid become temple prostitutes to survive as a result. Jesus, on the other hand, gave women the respect they deserved and treated them as equals within a marriage, where one partner compliments the other and shows equal respect. 
However, they weren't the only well known evangelists who were considered "closeted gays" or had a secret perverted lifestyle with prostitutes kept hidden from the world. Jim and Tammy Baker were another televangelist couple who come to mind who were exposed for a number of improprieties. In addition, there were others who made the news in recent years, including Paul Crouch, the founder of Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) who died last November 2013. He was also involved in the anti-gay agenda that's been around since the 1980's in this country due to Jerry Falwell and other notable religious celebrities. However, before his death, it was revealed he was a "closeted gay" himself by a former employee of TBN who was paid "hush money" to keep his affair with Paul Crouch a secret. 
Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black in the religious world of televangelists teaching Christian prosperity doctrine and making mega-bucks from their version of the gospel. 
If it was, that's what the focus would be on. I'm pretty sure that sort of thread would die off quickly though, as everyone yawns, because there is general societal agreement (and no real controversy) that 'adultery is pretty much a bad thing.' Still, since workers aren't allowed to marry in the first place, would that be ex-workers who married and became adulterers, or the extremely rare case of one or two who married while in the work and played around? Either way, I don't think it would have much momentum to go on, unless it spun off in another direction. Of course, for the "polyamorists", that word "adultery" would be considered quaint and irrelevant. Adultery implies a commitment to one person. But people with multiple spouses or "significant others" is (at present) a very small trend. Yes, I do think that by the time the Day of Judgement arrives, there will be widespread lunacy over sex. 