Gay tendencies

Why is it considered unloving to point out that God, who is love, has said I don't want you to engage in homosexual acts and why is it considered loving to say to people go ahead and do what is displeasing to God, He won't mind. If God didn't mind he wouldn't have said not to do it.

 

I would like the exact scripture of where God has said "no engaging in homosexual acts", as you put it; for I am not able to find this exact thing.
You tend to put words into people's mouths if they don't agree with you and your interprepretation of the scripture, in my opinion.
I would much like to see this scripture cited - no bla blaing and goobeldygoop, just the scripture where God is saying what you say He is saying.

 

If you'll notice there were no quotation marks and thus not a direct quotation but here are some of the scriptures that show what God thinks of it. Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7; Leviticus 18:22.

Now no "bla blaing and goobeldygoop", why do you think God thinks homosexual acts are a good thing? Just the scriptures where God is saying homosexual acts are a good thing.

 

Gracious, Older Brother, tell me why you pick and choose between things the Bible says not to do, and the things you do? Does your wife wear a hat in church? Do you follow the other commands in Liviticus 18? Do you believe God who tells Elisha to 'breathe' life into the bones and flesh, as God did in Gen 2:7, thus making it clear that until the breath of life enters a child, it is not a living thing? Do you believe, brother, Do You Believe? Until you do, you are not guiltless, and you may not throw stones - Jesus, our Lord said so! And how many babies have you killed by bashing their heads against stone? None? The Bible told you to!

 

I don't think these scriptures show what God thinks of homosexuality. They show what various authors of scriptures thought about practices that included a homosexual compontent, but were far different from commited loving relationships among same sex partners. Leviticus 18:22 follows a passage condemning the sacrifice of children to the pagan god Moloch. It may be applicable to the practice of fertility rites to Moloch and Astereth. Are you suggesting we follow Leviticus as the inerrant word of God, and actually put homosexuals to death? Should we follow the prohibitions about trimming beards, wearing clothes of two different kinds of thread, eating pork or shellfish, abstaining from sex during a woman's menstruation, etc.? If not, why not? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 uses the Greek terms "malakoi" (soft; loose) and arsenokoitai (man bedder). John Wesley thought the first term referred to indolent. The latter may refer to a male prostitute or both terms may refer to males in a relationship of pederasty involving a "kept" young man and his sugar daddy. The point is that these are not necessarily typical loving relations, an may have involved temple prostitution. Jude 7 refers specifically to the sin of Sodom, which was attempted homosexual gang rape of strangers who were guests of a townsperson--again, not your typical homosexual act. Romans 1:24-27 describes promiscuity and lust, not committed loving relationship. So what is God saying about "homosexuality"? If He is saying anything, why doesn't he use the word? The concept of generic homosexuality wasn't recognized back then, only the particular acts described in the scriptures.

 

So, let me get this right-

God, who is LOVE, who is the creator of all things and in all things, the beginning and the end, all knowing, all powerful and all seeing, gets upset when a man loves another man?

No.

No.

 

In Roman 9:20-24 it says that God creates people for the sole purpose of throwing them into hell. That can't be right. Is it?

 

Monkey Boy, hi!
You were joking with that post, right? cause, seriously, if you read the entire chapter of Romans 9 - there is a LOT of stuff covered (imho) and if you look at the last verse of Romans 9, verse 33, I think that sort of sums it up:
"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion on a stumblingstone and rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed".
Of course, I'm thinking they are referring to Christ when they are saying "him", but I hope you re-read that bit.
Beyond that, the "author" of Romans - Paul. Again, in my opinion the fact that Paul was and always will be such a "main character" proved/proves that God does indeed choose flawed material to work with. Paul is often considered to twist stuff to suit what he wants at the time...
but surely even he didn't even want that interpretation to be taken.

 

It's very straight forward. Some are chosen and some aren't. I've never noticed this before and it disturbs me.

 

I probably realllly shouldn't bring up this scripture then; but go for Romans 8: 28-30... it's all about predestination...
but Monkey Boy, where you have bolded out "destined for destruction", my bible has "fitted to destruction." small diff, I know but still I just don't really get the same interpretation from that particular scripture.
To me the "being chosen" or being "predestined" has to do with a balance - of course this is just my opinion - but we are to know from the get go that everybody is not going to wind up in the same place. Just like there are people that choose to perform atrocities to others.
I know I damn sure hope there is a separate place for people who opt for harm and evil when there is another choice. (granted my definition for harm and evil is much more lenient that others. )

 

"fitted to destruction" can also mean "prepared for destruction". I'll read Romans 8 again. Thanx.

 

I do not pick and choose.

As for my wife wearing a hat in church, no she doesn’t, mainly because I’m not married.

No I do not follow the commands in Leviticus 19, since, first, I am not a Jew in faith or family and the Mosaic Law was only binding on the Jews (Ps. 147:19, 20; Ex. 31:12, 13) and second, Christ bought an end to the law (Rom. 10:4) but that does not mean that we can’t still learn from the Law by studying its principles.

 

I like donning a Mitre when I go to church.. makes me feel so papal

 

You can think anything you want but if you believe that the Bible is the word of God, then please find me one place in the Bible where homosexuality is shown in a good light.

Once again before talking about obeying Leviticus, please read the Bible.

No I do not follow the commands in Leviticus, since, first, I am not a Jew in faith or family and the Mosaic Law was only binding on the Jews (Ps. 147:19, 20; Ex. 31:12, 13) and second, Christ bought an end to the law (Rom. 10:4; Matthew 5:17; Romans 7:6; Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14) but that does not mean that we can’t still learn from the Law by studying its principles.

As for Leviticus 18:22 following a passage condemning the sacrifice of children to the pagan god Moloch and it being applicable to the practice of fertility rites to Moloch and Astereth, almost all of Leviticus 18 is talking about sexual practices that should be avoided and homosexuality is just one of them and is even called an abomination.

 

Actually, No!

There is no prohibition on LOVE in anyway toward anyone!

But there are prohibitions against who you can have sex with.

 

u r silly

 

First of all, I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. I believe it's the words of men trying to make sense of their experience with God. Second, if Mosaic law is binding only on Jews, and I agree it is, citing Leviticus as evidence of how God feels about homosexuality makes as much sense as citing it as evidence about how God feels about trimmed beards and shellfish. What part of the law of Noah can you cite against homosexuality? Third, if you want me to show you a passage where the Bible says anything good about homosexuality, first show me one in which it says anything bad about slavery. Fourth, as I read it, the Bible says nothing about "homosexuality" at all. It has things to say about certain sexual practices between people (mostly male) of the same sex, which also involve promiscuity, prostitution, pederasty, or gang rape. I would definitely agree that those practices are an abomination. I would disagree that they are descriptive of the orientation and behaviors of all homosexuals.

 

If you don’t believe the Bible is the word of God, why do you care what it says at all?

As for the Mosaic Law, Christians are not under that law but are to live by the principles found in the in the Bible which would include the Mosaic Law. Thus if God said that homosexual acts were an abomination to him in the Mosaic Law, then that would mean he still feels that way and they would be something to avoid if you would want to be pleasing to God.

As for trimmed beards and shellfish I don’t believe that the Bible ever says that God finds them to be an abomination but I could be wrong.

As for slavery, perhaps you would like to start another thread about it and we can discuss it but in this thread the subject is Gay tendencies not slavery and so my question is valid, whereas yours is off topic.

As you read it, the Bible says nothing about "homosexuality" at all?
I know that reading and reading comprehension are not being taught in school much any more but I didn’t know it had gotten that bad!

 

did you cover the part where dudes shorty dies and he wears her clothes and get all drunk and laments ?
I think Ozzy did that too.. but thats ways off topic.. :hat:
anyhooo..

Of relevance to tv/cd peopl of eunuchs. references Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus describes three types of eunuchs—those “which were so born from their mothers’ womb,” those “which were made eunuchs of men,” and those “which made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid45681.asp
Roughgarden interprets the first category as describing intersex individuals and the latter transsexual individuals. She notes that Jesus’ descriptions line up with those of ancient Roman writers who described those we would today call cross-dressers as well as those who transitioned genders without physical alteration.

She points out that some eunuchs held powerful positions and that “eunuchs were common enough that writers referred to them with such phrases as ‘armies of eunuchs.’” And she asserts that the apostle Philip's baptism of the eunuch in Acts 9:27–38 serves as an “explicit instruction to include eunuchs within the church.”

And what about crossdressing police officers, Like do they like it.... Is it really about catching the bad guys and bat swingers?

 

Because fundamentalists like you take it so seriously and frighten others with it. And because it represents such an impressive effort of humans to try to express their thoughts and insights about God.

Eating shrimp and lobster is translated as "abomination" in English but the Hebrew word used in Leviticus 11 is "shequets". The word translated as "abomination" in Leviticus 18 and 20 is "toevah" (ritual abomination) associated with idolatry. This I take to reinforce my point that the homosexual acts condemned may have had ritual idolatrous significance.

The point about slavery is that it is treated with approval or accepted as a fact of life without condemnation throughout the Bible, Old Testament and New, including the words of Jesus and Paul. A very plausible case could be made, and was made during the civil war, that slavery couldn't be immoral, because the Bible doesn't disapprove of it. It's relevant to homosexuality because you were making the argument that if the Bible seems to have nothing good to say about a subject, it muist be bad. I was trying to make the point that it does not follow that just because the Bible has nothing but good or acceptance to say about a practice it must be good. Unless you think there's really nothing wrong with slavery.

Apparently it was already that bad when you went to school. The word "homosexuality" does not appear in the accurate translations of the Bible. Hetereosexual rape and incest appear in the Bible. Would you conclude then that the Bible is condemning "heterosexuality". My point was that homosexuality in the generic sense is not mentioned in the Bible--only specific manifestations of homosexual conduct in the context of promoscuity, prostitution, pederasty and rape. Or can you find a passage where generic "homosexuality" is condemned?