That's right. In all the places Jesus is mentioned and he is speaking, he never condemned homosexuality at all. He condemned everything he thought was sin, such as lying, murder, hypocrisy, adultery, and so forth, but not homosexuality. So, does this mean he is okay with gay people/relationships? Let me hear your opinions on this.
-
.23% Voted for by cosmosis, ohsweetie2788, Left Radical, pozo, Locke. (9 total)
i think it pretty much shows that jesus was ok with gay relationships. don't you find it a little odd that the man who claimed to be god didn't condemn something that so many of you think is "the worst sin being commited on planet earth". also, jesus lived during a time period where it was socially acceptable to be openly gay. the greeks and romans were perfectly ok with gay people and gay male couples were held to higher esteem then straight couples and jesus STILL never condemned it. to me, that is pretty convincing that homosexuality is not a sin in christianity.
-
Exactly13% Voted for by kage069, cosmosis, ohsweetie2788, Left Radical, aria94.
Even the parts of the Bible that supposedly condemn gays are a little sketchy on the translation. Also, I find it interesting that historically, christians have done all the stuff he DID condemn. He was probably ok with it. didnt seem to bother him.
-
Read your Bible!10% Voted for by Fester, goin2hvn, keyman7, Makessenseright.
I don't say that to be funny! I say that so you will understand why Jesus did not condemn gays! He didn't condemn anybody.Condemn as it pertains to Jesus in the bible means to judge. If you read John 3:17 it says: For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. It also says in John 12:47 that If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world but to save the world. Jesus stands for what God stands for therefore he does not stand for the homosexual lifestyle.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
Really cool Very true.
My friend of my grandmothers was homosexual and he thought he was born this way. My grandmother still loved him as one of her best friends and he drew pictures of Jesus for her being as he was. Then demons came at him with a force and said this is your fate because these were his influences and God showed him what would happen and he got married to a beautiful church singer and had 3 very good kids and thanks God every day. God gives us things not because we d3eserve them but because he wants us to have them so kidda out of the blue but you have to meet him half way with love. -
i know jesus never condemned people. what i meant was that jesus never condemned homosexuality ie-the attraction and the sexual act. and can you prove that homosexuality is a sin? show me any passage in the bible that you think condemns homosexuality and i can prove you wrong.
-
first of all open your mind so you can be receptive to what you want to know. I think to much time gets spent on tryin to argue the bible. But getting back to the point God very clearly calls homosexuality an abomination! Read Leviticus 18:22 it clearly says: Though shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. There are others but that one is real obvious
-
wow.....
hey check out how leviticus calls eating shellfish: "lev. 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an ABOMINATION unto you:" so SHELLFISH is ALSO AN ABOMINATION. so...homosexuality = eating shellfish. hhhmmmmmmm. have you ever eaten shellfish? what about all the other levitical prohibitions that state you can't mix 2 fabrics together, or that you can't mix meat with dairy (OH NO! NO MORE CHEESEBURGERS!!, i've bet you've eaten a cheeseburger or 2 in your life) or having sex with your wife or sharing a bed during her menstrual period (i think that is pretty much every married couple out there). how can you take that one verse out of context and try to apply it to christians and then ignore all the rest? you can't, and if you do you are a hypocrite. -
the word abomination....
was originally "toevah" in ancient hebrew. this word was used throughout the old testament to describe things that were ceremonially wrong, like eating shellfish, etc and jesus said that christians are no longer under these CEREMONIAL LAWS. you would notice that the word "abomination" isn't used for anything that is morally wrong such as murder, or thievery, or adultery. that is because the word toevah didn't describe morally wrong things, but things that had to do with ceremonial/idolatrous things which is why it was used to describe eating shellfish. and if you put that verse back into context, you would see that it is clearly a prohibition to make sure that the hebrews stayed different from other cultures and their religious practices. "You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD.You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. lev 18: 21-22." as you can see, the verse was in reference to idolatry. it was an idolatrous prohibition also known as a ceremonial prohibition that ONLY THE HEBREWS HAD TO FOLLOW. JESUS SAID THAT CHRISTIANS DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THESE LAWS. THAT CHRISTIANS WEREN'T BOUND BY THE LAW OF MOSES. so get your facts straight before you go babbling off at how bad you think homosexuality is since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. -
(COPY OF A RESPONSE TO ANOTHER DEBATE )>>>27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which is due.<<< And you’re right. The Bible never condemns gays. It only condemns men who leave the natural use of the woman. So it’s all good. (that was sarcasm if you didn’t catch on) Also, lust cannot be “committed”. You don’t commit lust; lust is a sexual desire. It’s a state of being. You can only COMMIT a sin. And in this case, men with men COMMITTING what is shameful. Gay sex. Whether people choose their sexuality is still up in the air, you can’t base decisions and other logical arguments on something that has not yet been proven. Also, cosmosis, v25 & v26: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto VILE AFFECTIONS:.... the verses regarding homosexuality follow. While this chapter does discuss idolatry, here Paul is discussing what those “vile affections” are and in no way in v27 is he discussing anything close to worshipping other gods. And as for the argument that all gays don’t have all these qualities and therefore he can’t be talking about gays: In verse 28 (And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate (highly immoral) mind, to do those things which are not convenient; list of bad qualities follow) The “they” he is talking about in verse 28 is the same “them” that he’s talking about in verse 26, NOT gays. -First of all, sin was brought about by temptation, (the apple, Satan, being like God) and was brought about by human choice. Sin is not unnatural. Sin is in our nature. You really need to brush up on your Bible reading. Ever hear of our ?sin nature?? It is possible to commit ACTS of lust, but we CANNOT COMMIT LUST ITSELF, which was my point. Lust can be expressed THROUGH OTHER ACTIONS. BUT YOU CANNOT COMMIT LUST IN AND OF ITSELF. I never said Romans didn?t mention the worship of other gods. The whole chapter isn?t talking about gays; besides, I never even said that. You are focusing on the wrong part of the chapter. Save whether it?s wrong to worship other gods besides Christ for some other time. >>>27 Likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, MEN WITH MEN COMMITTING that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which is due. <<< That verse isn?t talking about individual men leaving women for men, it?s talking about a man ignoring what is natural and turning to something that is unnatural. Men leaving the natural use of the woman for one another, which is unnatural. Let me clear this up so maybe, just maybe, even you can understand this. Verse 26 >>>For this cause God gave THEM up unto vile affections: for even THEIR women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: Verse 28 >>>And even as THEY did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave THEM over to a reprobate (highly immoral) mind, to do those things which are not convenient; [list of bad qualities follow]<<< The ?they? and the ?them? he is talking about in verse 28 is the same ?them? that he?s talking about in verse 26. The Bible?s talking about how people in general had turned away from God and these were some of the things that they were doing. And one of them happened to be being gay. Those verses are in no way ascribing all of those individual traits to every person who is gay.
-
the bible thinks that sin is unnatural and that it is brought upon humans by satan. therefore, according to the bible, lust is unnatural because lust is considered a sin. it is possible to commit ACTS OF LUST. for example if someone is promiscuous and sleeps with about 10 people in a week wouldnt you call that lustful? if a person spends 4 hours a day watching porn dont you think that is lustful? lust can be expressed through actions. also, jesus said that you can commit lust in your heart (i don't remember the exact passage but if i find it i will show it to u)so even if you don't act on your lust, you are still commiting it in your heart. so in a sense, yes, you can commit lust whether u actively act on your lustful feelings or if they are just feelings. romans does mention the worship of other gods, right from the beginning. For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. so right from the start, you realize that the people, all the people that paul is addressing in these passages are idolatrous people. people who gave up worshipping gods. and as i said before, there are many gay people who are devout christians and have strong faith in christianity. so right from the start, this passage isnt talking about gays. now comes the part where they talk about LUST. and remember how above i explained how lust can be shown physically? these same acts would have still been sin even if it was between men and women. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. THEY EXCHANGED THE TRUTH OF GOD FOR A LIE, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful LUSTS. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were INFLAMED WITH LUST for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (notice the first word, which is THEREFORE, that word shows that everying that happened in that paragraph was a result of the previous paragraph, a cause and effect relationship. so everything that happened in that passage happened because of IDOLATRY. so it is safe to assume that this passage is talking about temple prostitution sex, where priests/esses would have sex with eachother for fertility rituals, like the cult of aphrodite and her son eros, who's roman counterparts are venus and cupid) so it is talking about people who commit shameful acts of LUST. the bible is ALWAYS going to say that LUST is a vile affection. to the bible, LUST is a vile affection whether it is gay or straight. straight LUST affections are also vile affections to the bible. these same actions would have been "vile" even if they were straight. that is because it was out of lust. the bible always says lust sex is wrong. the passage wasn't condemning gays but lust. and when paul goes on to list all those nasty qualities, he is still talking about the same people. he is still talking about the people he was talking about from the beginning. the people who had these qualities were the same ones who gave up worshipping god and who had LUSTFUl sex. they are the same people. paul never made a transition and started talking about other people. you keep saying it does but it doesn't. from the beginning to the end of that pasage it is the same people he is refering to. so my point still stands. how can romans be talking about gay people, when most gay people do not have those qualities? since most gay people dont have those qualities, romans cant be talking about gays. romans also said that those people gave up women. so what about gay men who have never been with women? they arent giving anyone up. there are many gay men out there who have never dated women so romans cant be talking about them since it said that those people gave up women. also, how is homosexuality unnatural. the very definition of natural is what occurs in nature. if you don't believe me look it up. homosexuality occurs in nature and is therefore technically natural. even if homosexuality was wrong, that wouldn't stop it from being natural since it fits the very description of natural. also, even if homosexuality was unnatural, that wouldn't make it wrong. computers are unnatural so should we just never log back on because unnatural things are bad? what about phones, should phones be banned because they are unnatural? unnatural doesn't equal wrongness.
-
-
-1: The Bible does NOT say that sin is unnatural. -2: Phones are not unnatural. Neither are computers. -3: Romans says that being gay IS unnatural. -THEREFORE: Homosexuality IS a sin. -AND any christian who is gay is not a Christian. -AND IF I HAVE TO POST THE ENTIRE CHAPTER OF ROMANS ON HERE AND EXPLAIN EVERY LITTLE INSIGNIFICANT DETAIL OF CONTEXT TO YOU FORGET IT. I'M DONE ARGUING WITH SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A CHRISTIAN AND YET USES THE BIBLE TO ENFORCE THE BELIEF THAT HOMSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN.
-
-
what the hell are you talking about? "Phones are not unnatural. Neither are computers." how are phones and computers natural? they don't occur in nature. you don't see little phones growing out of trees or computeres falling out of a monkeys ass. seriously, how do you come up with "phones and computeres are not unnatural." please explain how they are indeed natural. and homosexuality IS natural BECAUSE if fits the description of natural. NATURAL is DEFINED as WHAT OCCURS IN NATURE! AND HOMOSEXUALITY OCCURS IN NATURE....THEREFORE HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL. how can you say that if a person is gay they can't be a christian? THAT IS BS. even IF being gay was a sin in christianity, and that is a big IF, what would make it any different from any other sin? since christians believe that no-one is sinless, why would the "sin" of homosexuality be any different than another sin? why would being gay stop someone from being a christian and yet an adulterer can still be a christian? from your point of view aren't they both sins? so why would one sin be different form another? really, that is the dumbest thing i ever heard. if you really believe that then you really can't be that smart. when did i ever say i wasn't christian? i don't remember saying that so please enlighten me. i do however remember you saying several times that you are not a christian. so i'm tired of all you non-christians trying to use the bible to justify your belief that homosexuality is a sin and i'm tired of arguing with people who can't even back up their own opinion.
-
-
Natural: existing in or caused by nature. Since we all evolved from little one-celled ameobas (lol) it is only part of a natural process that computers and phones have come into existance. The Bible says that homosexuality isn't natural. Who cares if any man-made definition contradicts that. It's not different than any other sin. I'm just saying that it is, in fact, a sin. And any "christian" who doesn't believe every Word of the Bible is no Christian. Therefore, no practicing gay can be a Christian.
-
-
wow...
you do realize that you contradict your opinions don't you? let me explain. you first say that sin is natural, then you say that homosexuality isn't natural and then you say that homosexuality is a sin. do you see the flaw? how can you say that homosexuality is a sin, when you think it is unnatural but at the same time you think sin is natural? thats contradictory. since you believe homosexuality to be a sin, then you must either conclude that both sin and homosexuality are natural, or that sin and homosexuality are unnatural. as you said "Natural: existing in or caused by nature." exactly my point. homosexuality exists in nature. it exists in all sexual species. you just validated my point. computers and phones however, do not occur in nature. they are artificial man-made things. therefore they are not natural. then you said "Therefore, no practicing gay can be a Christian." using that logic you could also say "no practicing adulterer can be a christian" or "no practicing lier can be a christian" or "no person who has pride can be a christian". as i stated before, why would the "sin" of homosexuality keep someone from being christian and yet other sins don't keep people from being christians. all sins are equal...so why would one sin keep someone from belonging to a religion and others would not. christians believe that no-one is sinless so by using your twisted logic no-one could be a christian. if homosexuality is a sin, it wouldn't be any different from pride, lying, adultery, etc, and a gay person would still be able to be a christian. -
-
We are born with a sin nature. That's why we sin and that's why it's natural. Homosexuality isn't natural because the Bible says that its not. Anyone who disagrees with the Bible is not a Christian. And since the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, someone who continues to be gay cannot be a Christian because they don't agree with the Bible; not because of their sin.
-
-
the Bible is full of loop holes. its from these empty spaces that Satanism was spawned. each religion plays off the others open ends and thats where such a massive diversity comes from. homosexuality is as natural as being born heterosexual. the Bible was not intended to be a strict code to live life by, rather a set of guidelines...
-
-
On the other hand, since the Bible says homosexuality is unnatural, maybe we should avoid the sin. DUH.
-
-
precisley. you avoid the "sin" with "your people" and leave "us people" alone and let us enjoy the happiness and freedoms everyone else in this country has. "you people" interpret your ways of the Bible and let "us people" live and love how we want. stop trying to convince everyone that there's only one way to go since this world and this society is built on diversity. DUH.
-
-
This world and society was built on conflict. DUH. And since "you people" are affecting "us people"'s children, it's our business. (Plus free speech, 1st ammendment, ya know, all that good stuff)
-
-
-
-
-
-
whether or not the bible is against homosexuality is up to interpretation. just look at how you and i have radically different views about how to interpret romans, sodom, etc. one of us is probably right but you can't say its a FACT that homosexuality is wrong in christianity because different christians interpret things differently. that is why methodists and presbytirians are pro-gay, but most catholics aren't. you still didn't explain how one could be natural and another cannot. if we are born with a sin nature, then anything that we do that is sin should be considered natural as well. so if homosexuality is a sin, it can't be unnatural. that would be contradictory and would show that the bible has contradictions.
-
-
All unnatural acts are sins but not all sins are unanural acts. I never said they were. It is possible for us to naturally sin by committing unnatural acts. As for the difference in translation, I believe in erring on the side of caution. Suppose for just a second that I am interpreting it right. And we Christians all go out and say "Yeah! It's ok to be gay! The Bible says so!" We would be responsible for many many people going to hell. Like I said, I prefer to err on the side of caution. I'd rather it not be a sin and me say it is than it be a sin and say it's not. Add to the fact that you pick and choose what verses to interpret and don't look at the context of the chapter as a whole, and you've got trouble.
-
-
first you said "All unnatural acts are sins but not all sins are unanural acts." so if all unnatural acts are sins then i guess driving a car is unnatural. i guess wearing glasses and getting braces is also a sin because cars and braces aren't natural. those things are NOT natural because they do not occur in nature. if something is unnatural, that doesn't automatically make it a sin. you also said in a previous comment that "sin is natural". you did not say "some sins are natural" or "not all sins are natural." so it is IMPLIED that you think all sin is natural. i on the other hand would like to "err" on the side of logic. logically, there is no good reason to say homosexuality is wrong. lets suppose for a second that i am enterpreting it right, but all the christians go out and say "homosexuality is wrong!" you are denying millions of people happiness and that is not right. homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, it is just as harmless as heterosexuality. when have i not put passages in context? if anyone here picks and chooses sections of the bible it is the people that take 3 SENTENCES out of romans, show it to people and try to use it to condemn gays, or the people who take leviticus out of context and try to apply it to christians, but ignore the passages that say you can't eat shellfish....so it are homophobic people who normally take passages out of context.
-
-
driving a car is unnatural? Then it's unnatural for us to use our muscles to manipulate objects? The drive to sin comes to us naturally. But the actual sin doesn't necessarily have to be natural. So be it. I am denying millions of people happiness on this earth but some may be saved from ETERNAL damnation. In my mind eternity matters far more than our human lifespan. You have repeatedly taken verses out of the Bible and taken them out of context. That verse in Mattews for example that I keep correcting you on. And your interpretation of Romans doesn't take into account who Paul is talking to and what he's talking about.
-
-
driving cars is unnatural because cars are unnatural...cars do not occur naturally. they are unnatural. this is somewhat irrelevant what i'm about to say but w/e. i remember reading about a book that was supposed to go into the bible but didn't called "the revelation of peter" it was a book about hell, and it talked about jesus' descent into hell. it also stated that hell was temporary, a place like limbo where you get "cleansed"....don't ask me to cite this information 'cause i don't remember...this might also explain why muslims don't believe hell is eternal and jews don't even believe in hell...but now i'm rambling. i am not interpreting things out of context. "your interpretation of Romans doesn’t take into account who Paul is talking to and what he’s talking about."-and yours does? you haven't made mention of who he was refering to at all. i know who paul was talking to and what he is talking about...i mentioned that a lot.....he is writing a letter to the romans (duh)about people who have gave up worshipping gods and worshipped idols....it even bluntly states that...if anyone takes verses out of context its you because you always keep starting your romans argument using )>>>27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which is due.<<< but completely ignoring the verses ahead of it that lead up to that event and the parts that come after...if that isn't taking things out of context then i don't know what is.
-
-
The act of driving a car is seperate from the car. Driving a car is a natural use of our abilities to manipulate objects with our appendages. That "revelation of peter" thing is probably where Catholics got the idea of that place (i can't remember the name) where people go to do penance for their sins and then get into heaven. But there's no Biblical proof of such a place and if God wanted that book in the Bible it would have been in there. I so do not. If you read the whole chapter instead of focusing in on LUST and IDOLATRY, you migt just be able to see what I'm saying. I HAVE read the whole chapter. Paul is talking to the Romans about how people have turned away from God and (yes) started worshipping other gods. Then he goes on to describe what those people are doing exactly. He lists some of the things they're doing wrong and one if them happens to be homosexuality.
-
-
the place i think you are talking about is limbo, and i think it was abandoned as a belief by catholics not that long ago. i have also read the whole chapter. and the fact that the description of what is probably gay sex (or pederasstic sex, which is very different from homosexuality)was mentioned in regards to lust and idolatry show that the sex that was going on was lustful and was in relationship with idolatry. that would also be bad even if it was straight. if a man and woman had sex out of nothing but lust and did it due to idolatrous reasons that wouldn't be a good thing...what is being described in that passage is nothing like a normal relationship.
-
-
Lust is natural! How else would we procreate? It's natural to feel an attraction to someone else. (Save same/opposite sex thing for another debate; I don't feel like bringing it up now) Lust/love it doesn't matter! The Bible says homosexuality (man with man) is unnatural! How's that a normal relationship?
-
-
having attractions towards someone doesn't mean your having attractions of lust. and it is possible to have sex and procreate out of love, not lust. and lust/love does matter! the bible is against lust and calls lust a sin, therefore anything that is done solely out of lust (like what is being described in this passage) is going to be considered wrong with the bible. romans bluntly states that whatever kind of sex it was (pederasstic/homosexual/temple prostitution)it was solely done out of lustful feelings, love wasn't present at all. that is why what was being described there was wrong, not because it happened to be 2 men. it never says anything about 2 men who are in love with eachother having sex is wrong. according to the bible, things that are solely out of lust are going to be a sin, (gay/straight)and this event was 100% lust. and even if and that is a big IF you are correct about this interpretation, would u really want paul to be our lawgiver? he also commanded women to be silent in public and told slaves to obey their masters....so does that mean that just because paul said so that feminists and slaves who run away fromt their owners are sinners for doing that? no.
-
-
Yes, it is possible to procreate and have sex out of love and not lust. But there's always a factor of lust involved. It's enjoyable. Makes people want it more. Where did Paul command women to be silent in public and told slaves to obey their masters? And since every Word of the Bible was inspired by God, that's not really Paul talking. If God didn't want that passage in there, it wouldn't be. And you still haven't addressed my argument that homosexuality is unnatural in the Bible. How can an unnatural relationship be normal and sinless? And on top of that, lust and the act are entirely seperated. It says they were "consumed with lust". Lust DROVE them to commit ANOTHER SIN. Men with men. Even in secular dictionaries, lust is defined as a desire. Not an act. The desire drove them to COMMIT the ACT. The desire wasn't the act itself. The act was "men with men, committing that which is unseemly".
-
-
yes, lust is going to be present most of the time during sex, but having only lust present during sex isn't good. here are verses condoning women being silent and slavery: "34: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35: And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor. 14). Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." 1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;" where-ever slavery is mentioned, it is never condemned. even if homosexuality was unnatural, that wouldn't make it wrong. as i said before-computers and phones and cars are unnatural but they are not wrong...unnatural doesn't equal wrongness. god was recorded as acting unnatural in romans 11:24 (look it up online cause if i post it here it wouldn't make sense out of context and if i put the whole verse it would take up 2 much space). unnatural doesn't mean wrong. acts of lust are also sinfull with the bible. think about it. take straight people for an example. if a man and woman loved eachother and had sex out of their love that wouldn't be wrong, but if a guy and a girl have a one night stand where they had sex out of their lustful feelings, that would be wrong. the same applies here as well, since it was out of lust, it is wrong. also, just because it is "men with men" that doesn't necissarily mean homosexuality. i know that sounds weird, but here is my explanation. back then it was extremely common in the roman empire for men to have sex with teenage boys, this is known as pederassty. there is a BIG probability that what is going on is pederassty since it was something that took place all the time and was socially acceptable. pederassty is very VERY different from homosexuality. another thing this passage is likely to be talking about is temple prostitution sex. back then in temples dedicated to fertility/love gods such as aphrodite/venus and eros/cupid, priests/esses would engage in intercourse with eachother. (straight and gay intercourse) and since this whole chapter is related to idolatry, that is a likely possibility.
-
-
And like I said before, driving a car or using a computer IS natural. Unless you view using our hands and feet to utilize objects unnatural. As for Romans 11:24, the context of that is describing how God is sorta like a gardener; plucking out the weeds and trimming the branches. According to the Bible, if ANYONE has sex out of marriage it's wrong; lust or love. For the last time, the whole chapter is not related to idolatry, he is describing the things that people who have turned away from God are doing. He says that they worship other things AND ON TOP OF THAT, here's some of the other things they're doing. If the Bible says men, it means men. Not boys. Men with men. God says what he means. If He was referring to pederassty or temple prostitution sex, He would have made that clear. The verse concerning women not speaking in church refers not to them speaking entirely, but to them speaking as a leader. They cannot lead a congregation unless it's all women. And there is a huge difference between the word slave (a person who is the legal property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience) and servant (a person who has undertaken to carry out the orders of an individual or corporate emploter). There is nothing wrong with telling a servant to obey their master. Any job you do requires to to report to a higher authority. Those verses are just saying to obey that authority. They do not refer to slaves or to slavery. And for the last time, you cannot commit lust. Lust can cause you to commit a sexual sin such as fornication or adultery, but not lust itself. Lust is a desire. You can't commit a desire.
-
-
cars and computers are not natural. they are not natural occurances, therefore the existence of cars and phones, etc are not natural and if being unnatural meant something was wrong, then that would mean cars are wrong. i know how the passage was describing god but it also said he was acting "unnatural" in the process by allowing gentiles to worship him. unnatural doesn't equal wrong. "According to the Bible, if ANYONE has sex out of marriage its wrong"-funny thing really, there is no specific bible passage that specifically states that premarital sex is a sin...back then if you had sex with someone, you pay their father some money and your off the hook or you just married them since polygamy was allowed. the bible isn't always clear on topics, some things (like romans) are vague, if everything was so specific then there wouldn't be so many different interpretations of the bible. also back then boys (around 14 and up)were considered to be mature adults. girls even married when they were that age. so "men with men" could have meant "man with boy" since back then boys were considered to be men" so if a women can't lead a congregation unless its all women means that all those female pastors who preach in front of men are all going to hell (sarcasm)so i guess all the churches should force all women clergy to retire or be sent to hell (also sarcasm) and if someone is your "master" that means that person owns you. and if that person owns you, that means you are his slave. if your just a servant, then your "boss" isn't your master. and you can commit acts of lust, if you do something out of lust it is bad, while it could be considered ok if it is out of love.
-
-
An unsentient thing cannot be inherently wrong because doesn't have the capapbility to sin. Can cars and computers sin? No. Even a dildo isn't wrong in and of itself. Once used (lol) it's STILL not wrong. The act may be wrong, but the dildo itself isn't wrong. Where does it say that he was acting unnatural in the process by allowing gentiles to worship him? Exact verse please. Also, master: (1) a person having control of persons or things ; (2) an employer, especially of a servant. And for your "back then" aguments, who cares? The Bible isn't a reflection of "back then". It's an instruction book with morals and it tells us how to get into heaven. And yes, you can commit and act of lust, but we're talking about sins. You cannot commit the sin of lust. Nice try. People commit sins all the time because of their desires. Lust doesn't just have a sexual connotation. As for the women should not lead a congregation, that't too bad for women. Did I say women clergy? I don't think I did. I said a women leader. As in a pastor or priest.
-
-
that is exactly my point, unnatural things do non equal bad...just because something is unnatural, that doens't make it wrong. in romans 11:24, when paul is describing how god metaphorically is working with an olive tree, he says he is doing things contrary to nature. so that shows that unnatural doesn't mean wrong. and if "master" meant "employer" then i guess your boss is your master (lol). and when reading the bible it essential to be sure of the time period when it was written and to know about the customs and beliefs of the time period, otherwise, it won't make sense. so my "back then" arguments are valid. you have to try to keep the verses in context with the civilization(s) in which it was written. as stated before, romans is vague and it could very likely be talking about pederasty or temple prostitution. it is not a fact that romans is talking about homosexuality. also stated before, there is no prohibition on pre-marital sex in the bible...(if you can find it, show it to me-that isn't a challenge, i'm just saying that if you can find it, correct me) and you can commit lust. if you couldn't commit lust, then it couldn't be a sin, but since it is a sin, you can commit lust. on the sermon on the mount, jesus said you can commit lust in your heart (i can't remember the exact passage but if i find it i will show it to you). and an act can be a sin if it is out of lust, but at the same time can be ok if it isn't out of lust. sex is a good example of that. if a man and woman just hook up and have random lustful sex, that would be a sin, but a man and woman loving eachother and having sex wouldn't be wrong. the lust is what changes the act from ok to not ok. the same goes with homosexual sex and in romans whatever kind of sex was being described was completely out of lust. and there are women pastors in our society, so are they going to hell just for being pastors and disobeying paul? i don't think so.
-
-
1st of all, you missed my whole point. A SIN IS AN ACTION! An UNSENTIENT OBJECT can't be sinful because it doesn't have the CAPABILITY to sin. We are sentient and do have that capability. And since we are discussing actions and desires here, my point stands: USING (see the action there?) a computer or a phone or any other OBJECT that is unnatural isn't a sin because the OBJECT CAN'T SIN. Actions, on the other hand, CAN be a sin. And unnatural actions are. HOW IS GOD DOING THINGS CONTRARY TO NATURE IN THAT VERSE? And yes, according to the human defintion of master, your boss is your master. Duh. He controls what you do for those 40+ hrs a week. And if you believed in the book that you're citing all the time in your anti-Christian arguments you'd know that it is a Book that is tied to no time period. It is just as relevant and comparable to this time-period as it was to theirs. As for the pre-marital sex verse, I know it's there, I just have to find it so I'll post it later. Lust doesn't make an act ok or not. Lust is a desire. It can cause an act, but it is totally seperate from the act itself. You can have lust and no act, and an act and no lust. Either way, the act is a sin. Show me where the Bible says lust is a sin. Because it isn't. Lust can CAUSE us to COMMIT sins but it's not a sin all by itself. And yes, all women pastors who teach people other than women obviously reject the true meaning of the Bible just because it disagrees with "today's morals" are going straight to hell for rejecting GOD'S Word; not Paul's. God doesn't need a reason to do anything or give any command. Who cares what we think of the orders? He's freakin God! ====Found the verses I was looking for: 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind>>>>Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.>>>>1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (Does it say every man have his own husband and every woman have her own wife? I don't think so.) >>>>1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. >>>> And just so you don't agrue what fornication is: FORNICATE: >Oxford American Dictionary>: (of people not married or not married to eachother) have sexual intercourse voluntarily >New World Dictionary>: voluntary sexual intercourse, generally forbidden by law, between an unmarried woman and a man, especially and unmarried man >American Heritage College Dictionary> sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to eachother >Dictionary.com> voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other >Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary> consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other==== Still think that the Bible doesn't condemn sex outside of marriage?
-
-
"but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed lust with her already in his heart."-mathew 5:28. so it is possible to commit lust. (i finally found the passage, lol, i've been looking for a while now :P ) so yes, lust technically is a sin. you don't have to actually physically go out and do something for it to be a sin, just thinking about it can be a sin as well. and doing something that is unnatural doesn't make it wrong. wearing braces is unnatural because by wearing them you are altering your physical structure and you are "basically telling god that he designed you wrong". what about wearing glasses? isn't that telling god that he made your eyes wrong? unnatural does not equal wrong. and according to the dictionary, homosexualitity is natural. natural "existing in or produced in nature.". homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is natural. your boss is not your master, you have the right to quit or do what the hell you want, but at the price of getting fired, you couldn't do that back then. the "master" had total control. so you were a slave. it is very important to realize when and where the bible was written because you have to figure out what it is talking about in regards to that culture at that time and try and apply it in our society. things change over time and area. and it says right there that he was "grafting the tree, contrary to nature". which meant it was unnatural... i was actually hoping you would bring up the corinthians passage, just so i can prove you wrong...lol. so it says "abusers of themselves with mankind" now, how do you know that means a homosexual? dont' prostitutes abuse themselves with mankind? and here are other versions of that verse that don't even mention homosexuals/ity at all: 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sissies, nor childmolesters..."-jerusalem bible (german) 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts....."- revised english bible 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor perverts..."-phillips bible. so as you can see, most versions of the bible don't even mention homosexuals in that verse. only very few bibles use the word "homosexual" and that is a mistranslation since the word "homosexual" wasn't even invented until the 1800's. and on the verses you gave me regarding fornication...these versions of the same exact verse don't even use that word...: 1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."-"sexual immorality" that is up for debate, notice how it doesn't say "fornication". 1 Corinthians 7:2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband."-once again the word fornication isn't even in there....and if every man should have a wife and every wife a husband then that would mean celebate people are sinners lol even though the bible favors celebate people. and marriage back then was polygamous and not about love. moses had many wives as well...even in the middle east today, polygamy is still aloud because abrahamic religions are ok with polygamy. the word "fornication" was an invention of the church to try and control the lives of the people...pre-marital sex isn't condemned if you look into the bible, the only people who ever condemned it was the church....and they were the same people to condemn interracial marriage.... ps-wow, how immature does a person have to be in order to call someone elses argument "unchristian". grow up. just because i disagree with you and are proving you wrong, don't go around trying to act superior and denounce other people. really, i thought only 5 year olds did that.
-
-
Try using the original unedited Bible. You'll find the verses much different and much more damning to us humans. That's because man has changed the Bible to make it mopre lenient. And I can't prove that "abusers of themselves with mankind" was specifically talking about gays so I didn't bring it up. My point stands. the Bible condemns fornication and fornacation is sex outside of marriage. I didn't call your argument unchristian. I called them anti-christian. There's a difference. Anyone who changes the Bible from the original version is changing what God meant to say and will be punished accordingly. That's not me tlaking, the Bible says itself that if anyone modifys the meaning of it they change the Word of God. I remind you again that Moses (and he did not have more than one wife show me the verse that says he did) was in the old temstament, whose rules were demolished with Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
-
-
how do you know which version of the bible is the "original unedited bible"? the truth is, all versions of the bible besides the very first one have been edited. sometimes it was by accident, other times it was on purpose, and some times it got changed due to linguistic reasons (ie: words get lost in translation, phrases need to be changed because they don't exist in another language, etc). but you did bring that corinthian passage up. that is why i countered it. you can't prove that the bible is against "fornication". most versions of the bible don't even have that word in it and you don't even know if it was in the original bible. the church (mostly catholics) have added many traditions and things into christianity such as mary worship, confession booths, etc and it was the catholics who came up with "fornication". so, sodom doesn't condemn gays, the levitical prohibition no longer applies, there is no evidence to show that corinthians condemns gays, romans is too vague to actually know 100% what it is talking about and has multiple interpretations, and there is no prohibition against pre-marital sex. homosexuality isn't a sin.
-
-
How do I know which Bible was the original unedited one? The first one; the King James. And I agree: all versions of the Bible besides that one have been edited. I brought that Corinthian passage up to support my defense that fornication is a sin. I never said that it had anything to do with homosexuality. And it was not the Catholics who came up with the word fornication. The King James version is the original version of the Bible. All you have to do is look it up. Romans is clear enough to be cautious. And I'd rather spend an eternity in heaven even though I added an extra prohibition than an eternity in hell just because I didn't want to believe it. And there is a prohibition against pre-marital sex because the KJV is the original version of the Bible and it does have the word fornication in it several times. And it condemns it. Homosexuality is a sin. You just twist the translation and over-emphasize the wrong parts enough to dilute the truth. The reason I follow the belief that the KJV is the true unedited form of the Bible is this: 1)it was the first version to be published 2)It's still around even though we have so many other versions now 3)At that point it was just pure translation; no one was trying to be PC, which is why I think it's more exact in it's accuracy 4)They were closer to the time period in which the Bible was written; they had a better understanding of the usage of the words used instead of the possible translations of the words But that's just what I think. It's the original, unedited version and if God had wanted a different version to be His unerring Word then the KJV wouldn't be around anymore. (You can at least agree with that, right?)
-
-
the kings james version was the first version of the bible to be translated into english. before that, there were other bibles that the church used. back then only the church and some noble men had access to the bible because 1)they couldn't print a bunch of copies, and 2)not everyone knew how to read. so basically the church could say anything they want and the public wouldn't know any better. even during the crusade, the church said that it was god's will that children fight in the east and 50,000 children were either killed or sold into slavery. the king james bible was written in the 1600's, that is over a thousand years after the original bible and well after the church had mentioned things like "fornication". so there are going to be translation errors in that version. an example is how the hebrew word "toevah" got translated. in the kjv of the bible, it was translated into "abomination" but theologans have found that the meaning of the word meant something along the lines of "ritually impure". that is just a small example and most likely there are others. so the king james version is not the first version of the bible so you do not know if the word "fornication" is really the true word or if it was translated wrong, just like "toevah" was. so there is no prohibition against pre-marital sex made in the bible (or at least, most versions and most likely the very first). homosexuality is not a sin. i am not twisting anything around, i gave valid explanations to back up my point but i never "twisted" any part of anything. when i intepret things, like the bible (among other things that i can't remember right now...)i use logic in my reasoning and logically there is no reason why homosexuality is wrong (and i also showed how the bible isn't against it). one thing that i have noticed about new testament sins is that each one somehow harms someone...for example...murder, that is obvious, adultery hurst your spouse emotionally, lying hurts the person you are lying to, etc. but homosexuality doesn't harm anybody any more than heterosexuality. and all the versions of the bible are still around and you don't know which one is closest to the truth....
-
there is a story of gay love in the bible, in the old testament. and this is the story of david and jonathan. i know you are probably going to reply saying "well, their love was purely platonic and not sexual" but i have evidence/proof otherwise: 1)"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 1 samuel 18:1"-now in genesis, a soul was described as being a combo of both a person's spirit and body ("god breathed life into him and he became a living soul...") so since it said that they loved eachother's souls that means they loved eachother both spiritually AND physically. also, it says their souls were knit as one. in the bible, this only occured during romantic love, for example when a man and woman got married the bible says their souls merge together and they become one flesh...that just happened with david and jonathan. in the bible, souls don't become "one" with eachother if it is just a friendship based love. 2)"And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. 1 samuel 18:4". in ancient times, people didn't wear undergarments. under their robes they were naked, so if jonathan took of his robe in front of david, that means that he was naked in front of david, and a man being naked in front of another man wasn't something one would do if you were just friends. 3) And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. 42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city. 1 Samuel 20: 41-42 the kiss doesn't prove anything because it was common for people to kiss eachother goodbye and it is still common today in europe. what is noticable is that it said "david exceeded"...that is refering to david getting an erection....unless you can come up with another meaning of that. also saying that the lord would be between my seed and your seed....seed=sperm....hhhmmmm.....kind of an odd thing to say if you are just "friends" 4)How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. 26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. 2 Samuel 1:26 back then, men didn't generally have a platonic relationship with women. women were seen as inferior and from the perspective of the men they were just there to be housewives...men didn't interract socially with women...so the only love of women david could have meant was sexual love and it wouldn't make sense for david to compare platonic love for men with sexual love for women...those are 2 COMPLETELY different things...it only makes sense if you come to the conclusion that david was talking about sexual love for jonathan. so if you consider all of that, it is extremely hard to imagine that their feelings for eachother were purely platonic...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
put in twice (lol) ugh
-
-
lol :P
-
-
-
-
-
double post...
my computer hates me..... -
-
I swear there's a double for almost every one you put up lol
-
-
-
-
-
-
AAAHHH! how many times are my posts going to be put in twice?! :O lol
-
-
-
David and Jonathan were not gay. And to sully their names with that accusation is disgusting. And their love was the DEFINITION of platonic. 1)1 Samuel 18:1 is describing how Jonathan and David loved each other as much as they loved their own soul. And it says no where in Genesis that the soul is a mixture of a person's body and spirit; in fact, that goes totally against Christian teaching. The soul is totally separate from the body. It is the part of us that lives on after our mortal bodies die. Having two souls "knitted" together is different than the merging that occurs during sex. Being "knitted" meant that what happened to one affected the other deeply. It just expands on describing how close they were. They were like brothers. 2) When Jonathan gave David his clothes and weapons, he was giving him his heritage. It was symbolism of how David would become the next king. 3) Exceeded as defined by the Hebrew word that exceeded was translated from: grow up, lift up, magnify, boast. As for “seed”, seed didn’t mean sperm. Seed meant children. C’mon, I didn’t even have to look that one up its common knowledge. He was saying that God would forever be between their children. 4) 2 Samuel 1:26> You can’t base an argument that David couldn’t have a platonic relationship with a woman based on an unproven generalization. And it makes MORE sense to think that he was saying that Jonathan’s brotherly platonic love for David meant more to him that any sexual love from a woman because it was purer and better than a sexual love. He was like a brother to David. And back then, family meant more than it does today; it meant everything. PROVE that toevah was translated wrong. And the KJV was the first version of the Bible that everyone could get. That’s why it’s the only one that matters. And since it’s still around, it matters even more. And there is a prohibition against pre-marital sex in the Bible you just seem to want to justify your belief that it’s ok to have sex outside of marriage for some reason even though you’re not a Christian. Even those versions of the Bible in which some of the verses are different have other verses that still condemn s
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
February 5, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 6, 2006
Edit | Reply
cosmosis
February 6, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 7, 2006
Edit | Reply
cosmosis
February 8, 2006
Edit | Reply
February 8, 2006
Edit | Reply
March 18, 2006
Edit | Reply
wait...
(this is a reply to Joao Camilo"s comment) i'm not positive, but didn't jesus say that slaves should submit to their masters?March 22, 2006
Edit | Reply
October 5, 2006
Edit | Reply
Well...
The arguement here is that JESUS never condemned homosexuality. And he didn't. The only place in the Bible where homosexuality is BLUNTLY DENOUCED is Leviticus, where it is called an "abdomnation," just as eating shellfish, clipping beards, and sowing two kinds of seeds in a field is an "abdomnation." The other references can be translated in many ways according to context...but more on that later. In the end, it's true: Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. But he did say a lot about loving your neighbor as yourself, and "your neighbor" is most likely everyone around you.February 7, 2007
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free