Why is homosexuality wrong?
We all know what gays are and what they do. All of God’s laws are responses to a victim of some sort.
The one lied to is deceived.
The one who is killed is deprived of life.
The one stolen from looses his goods.
In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant.
Why then does God discriminate against homosexuals?
It appears to go against His usual justice.
Regards
DL
Why is homosexuality wrong?
Moderator: Moderators
- Greatest I Am
- Banned
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:04 am
Re: Judge not
Post #51Doesn't help you. The moral laws were never abolished. Murder is still murder; adultery still adultery; and gay sex still a sin (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10, etc.).micatala wrote:This ignores that Jesus explicitly contravenes OT law more than once. Moses said an eye for an eye. Jesus said turn the other cheek. Moses said divorce and remarriage were OK. Jesus said not unless adultery was involved.Easyrider wrote:Jesus is God (many scriptures). As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sex to begin with; and he's the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sex in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.Flail wrote:Where does Jesus condemn homosexuality specifically?
Not for salvation. But Paul said he upholds the law (as a guide to godly living).micatala wrote:In addition, the Apostles later decide nearly all of the OT law does not need to be followed by Christians.
Nope. But he did tell her (the adulteress) to GO AND SIN NO MORE.
It's obvious what it meant - no more adultery. And if she continues to interpret that to mean more adultery is fine, then she gets to pay the price at the Judgment.micatala wrote: And he left it up to her to decide whether to do this and what this meant.
Nope. There's plenty of ex-gays around. Check the web for "ex-gay(s)."micatala wrote: Besides, adultery is not comprable to homosexuality. Asking a homosexual to 'repent' is like asking a heterosexual to repent of being heterosexual.
If you or anyone else winds up in hell it will be for rejecting Christ as your Lord and Savior for the remission of your sins. It won't be for anyone else condemning you.
Listen, defending illicit carnality is not a virtue. Someone has to counter the politically-correct pundits who spread the lies that gay sex isn't to be repented of and that patting gay sex sinners on their backs on their way down to perdition, without trying to help them back to righteousness, is a good thing.micatala wrote:
Then why don't Christians leave it up to God to decide, rather than verablly bashing gays, telling untruths about gays and homosexuality, and passing laws that discriminate against them?
Post #52
Can you tell me explicitly in the bible where God says that it's okay for a man to be married to two or more women?goat wrote:Having a threesome won't be wrong if the two women are both your wives. While the prevaling laws in the West restrict marriage between one man and one woman, that is not restricted by the Bible.jgh7 wrote:“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4)Vladd44 wrote:Do you have ANY biblical support for this opinion? Or is it one of those additional add on packages?jgh7 wrote:yes and yesVladd44 wrote:Would you also say that oral or anal is lustful and wrong for a married heterosexual couple?jgh7 wrote:It seems to me that homosexuals can have sex either anally or orally. I view those two forms of sex to be lustfull forms.
And are those positions morally wrong for a christian married couple to "perform"?jgh7 wrote:But I think certain positions are done mainly for gaining pleasure rather than for loving another person.
I have to concede to you, I can't find any biblical support that goes into any further depth about what married couples should and should not do in sexual relations. Obviously the bible has stated many times that adultery is wrong. Thinking lustfully of another women instead of your wife is wrong. Therefore, having a threesome is a form of adultery.
All I can judge from the previous quote I gave is that the marriage bed should be kept pure. There should not be sexual immorality. The bible has pointed out major sexual immoralities like raping, having sex with animals, or just having sex with anything strictly for the pleasure of it and with disregard to any of the consequences that follow. It has not gone to say whether a married heterosexual couple having anal or oral sex is wrong or a form of lust. I guess I just feel that it is after I read all the bible has to say about being pure and avoiding lust.
With this in mind, I suppose that many homosexuals are no more sinners than heterosexuals. We all have urges of lust. I don't hold myself up on a pedestal, I'm just as guilty as anyone else. That's why although I view homosexuality as a sin, I don't view it as that much worse of a sin than the sexually immoral acts many heterosexuals perform. I think homosexuals can range in their levels of sexual immorality just like heterosexuals. Their gay pride parade seems to show that a lot of them embrace sexual lust and immorality. However, heterosexuals embrace that stuff too. For these reasons, I don't judge homosexuality as fervently as many religious people do, but I still view it as sinful. Despite all I this, I still can't deny that the thougth of two people of the same sex being attracted to one another seems wrong to me.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Judge not
Post #53Let see in the Bible where is tells what laws are moral laws, ritualistic, or legalistic.Easyrider wrote:Doesn't help you. The moral laws were never abolished. Murder is still murder; adultery still adultery; and gay sex still a sin (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10, etc.).micatala wrote:This ignores that Jesus explicitly contravenes OT law more than once. Moses said an eye for an eye. Jesus said turn the other cheek. Moses said divorce and remarriage were OK. Jesus said not unless adultery was involved.Easyrider wrote:Jesus is God (many scriptures). As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sex to begin with; and he's the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sex in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.Flail wrote:Where does Jesus condemn homosexuality specifically?
Not for salvation. But Paul said he upholds the law (as a guide to godly living).micatala wrote:In addition, the Apostles later decide nearly all of the OT law does not need to be followed by Christians.
Nope. But he did tell her (the adulteress) to GO AND SIN NO MORE.It's obvious what it meant - no more adultery. And if she continues to interpret that to mean more adultery is fine, then she gets to pay the price at the Judgment.micatala wrote: And he left it up to her to decide whether to do this and what this meant.
Nope. There's plenty of ex-gays around. Check the web for "ex-gay(s)."micatala wrote: Besides, adultery is not comprable to homosexuality. Asking a homosexual to 'repent' is like asking a heterosexual to repent of being heterosexual.
If you or anyone else winds up in hell it will be for rejecting Christ as your Lord and Savior for the remission of your sins. It won't be for anyone else condemning you.Listen, defending illicit carnality is not a virtue. Someone has to counter the politically-correct pundits who spread the lies that gay sex isn't to be repented of and that patting gay sex sinners on their backs on their way down to perdition, without trying to help them back to righteousness, is a good thing.micatala wrote:
Then why don't Christians leave it up to God to decide, rather than verablly bashing gays, telling untruths about gays and homosexuality, and passing laws that discriminate against them?
Lets see where it says only the moral laws are valid.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #54
Well, there are so many examples of the patriachs having multiple wives.jgh7 wrote:Can you tell me explicitly in the bible where God says that it's okay for a man to be married to two or more women?goat wrote:Having a threesome won't be wrong if the two women are both your wives. While the prevaling laws in the West restrict marriage between one man and one woman, that is not restricted by the Bible.jgh7 wrote:“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4)Vladd44 wrote:Do you have ANY biblical support for this opinion? Or is it one of those additional add on packages?jgh7 wrote:yes and yesVladd44 wrote:Would you also say that oral or anal is lustful and wrong for a married heterosexual couple?jgh7 wrote:It seems to me that homosexuals can have sex either anally or orally. I view those two forms of sex to be lustfull forms.
And are those positions morally wrong for a christian married couple to "perform"?jgh7 wrote:But I think certain positions are done mainly for gaining pleasure rather than for loving another person.
I have to concede to you, I can't find any biblical support that goes into any further depth about what married couples should and should not do in sexual relations. Obviously the bible has stated many times that adultery is wrong. Thinking lustfully of another women instead of your wife is wrong. Therefore, having a threesome is a form of adultery.
All I can judge from the previous quote I gave is that the marriage bed should be kept pure. There should not be sexual immorality. The bible has pointed out major sexual immoralities like raping, having sex with animals, or just having sex with anything strictly for the pleasure of it and with disregard to any of the consequences that follow. It has not gone to say whether a married heterosexual couple having anal or oral sex is wrong or a form of lust. I guess I just feel that it is after I read all the bible has to say about being pure and avoiding lust.
With this in mind, I suppose that many homosexuals are no more sinners than heterosexuals. We all have urges of lust. I don't hold myself up on a pedestal, I'm just as guilty as anyone else. That's why although I view homosexuality as a sin, I don't view it as that much worse of a sin than the sexually immoral acts many heterosexuals perform. I think homosexuals can range in their levels of sexual immorality just like heterosexuals. Their gay pride parade seems to show that a lot of them embrace sexual lust and immorality. However, heterosexuals embrace that stuff too. For these reasons, I don't judge homosexuality as fervently as many religious people do, but I still view it as sinful. Despite all I this, I still can't deny that the thougth of two people of the same sex being attracted to one another seems wrong to me.
Genesis 4:19 had Lamerch having two wives.
Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon has multiple wives. God didn't say anything against it.
So, multiple wives are permitted via example.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
Re: Judge not
Post #55More from the pen of the hysteric Paul. A hater of all things to do with the body.Easyrider wrote:.... and gay sex still a sin (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10, etc.).
Motes and beams.Easyrider wrote: Listen, defending illicit carnality is not a virtue. Someone has to counter the politically-correct pundits who spread the lies that gay sex isn't to be repented of and that patting gay sex sinners on their backs on their way down to perdition, without trying to help them back to righteousness, is a good thing.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
Paul
Post #56Bernie
Paul did circumcise his friend Timothy...hmmm..
Easyrider,
Jesus came to give the world an alternative to the self righteousness and judgment and religiousity of the OT...so quoting Hebrews and other OT text or the rantings of Paul whose writings were included into the Bible for Constantine's church building purposes, are irrelevant to the teachings and examples of your supposed saviour, Jesus.
Interesting that Christians rarely talk about the life and teachings and examples and parables of Jesus but rather focus on the blather and rituals of the Church.
Jesus would burn down the Churches.
Paul did circumcise his friend Timothy...hmmm..
Easyrider,
Jesus came to give the world an alternative to the self righteousness and judgment and religiousity of the OT...so quoting Hebrews and other OT text or the rantings of Paul whose writings were included into the Bible for Constantine's church building purposes, are irrelevant to the teachings and examples of your supposed saviour, Jesus.
Interesting that Christians rarely talk about the life and teachings and examples and parables of Jesus but rather focus on the blather and rituals of the Church.
Jesus would burn down the Churches.
-
- Student
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:23 am
- Location: New Haven, CT, U.S.A.
- Contact:
Re: Why is homosexuality wrong?
Post #57My friend,goat wrote:McCulloch wrote:"I have never really understood why homosexuals, feminists or democrats would want to be associated with Biblical Christianity."
Considering the 'biblical' Christianity, as practiced by many, condemns and rejects
those people who are gay and lesbian, and have, through it's ignorance, cause much pain and suffering to many of them, I have to agree with McCulloch. I would narrow it down to the 'conservative' Christianity.
Not all Denominations are like that, but many are. Look at the way that Biker and Easyrider react to homosexuality. They will proclaim their attitude is the biblical Christianity.
If you were gay, would you want to face that continually?
"Narrowing it down to the 'conservative' Christianity" makes all the difference in the world, Hell I would agree with McCulloch if he made that qualification!
Actually, I don't know McCulloch very well and I was offended because I took him to be a Christian who was spouting the thesis currently being promoted by Ann Coulter in her best selling book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism:".
Now if McCulloch is a non-believer who identifies with homosexuals, feminists or democrats, then I fully understand why - coming from that viewpoint - he might not understand why such people might identify with biblical Christianity, although I would appreciate his trying to understand by talking with democrats and feminists like me (and Liberal Christian homosexuals and African Americans who suffered plenty at the hands of "biblical Christianity").
Prayer List
Post #58Easyrider,
As a Christian I assume that those of us who disagree with you are on your prayer list?
As a Christian I assume that those of us who disagree with you are on your prayer list?
Post #59
Were David and Solomon sinless? Does God point out every single one of our sins to us? Just because the very forefathers of Judaism and Christianity had multiple wives, that doesn't make it acceptable. The bible doesn't tell you to follow in the ways of Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon, it tells you to follow in the ways of God. Having multiple wives is a form of adultery. If you are married to one, but you are attracted to another, it is adultery. Jesus makes this all very clear.goat wrote:Well, there are so many examples of the patriachs having multiple wives.jgh7 wrote:Can you tell me explicitly in the bible where God says that it's okay for a man to be married to two or more women?goat wrote:Having a threesome won't be wrong if the two women are both your wives. While the prevaling laws in the West restrict marriage between one man and one woman, that is not restricted by the Bible.jgh7 wrote:“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4)Vladd44 wrote:jgh7 wrote:yes and yesVladd44 wrote:Would you also say that oral or anal is lustful and wrong for a married heterosexual couple?jgh7 wrote:It seems to me that homosexuals can have sex either anally or orally. I view those two forms of sex to be lustfull forms.
And are those positions morally wrong for a christian married couple to "perform"?jgh7 wrote:But I think certain positions are done mainly for gaining pleasure rather than for loving another person.
Do you have ANY biblical support for this opinion? Or is it one of those additional add on packages?
I have to concede to you, I can't find any biblical support that goes into any further depth about what married couples should and should not do in sexual relations. Obviously the bible has stated many times that adultery is wrong. Thinking lustfully of another women instead of your wife is wrong. Therefore, having a threesome is a form of adultery.
All I can judge from the previous quote I gave is that the marriage bed should be kept pure. There should not be sexual immorality. The bible has pointed out major sexual immoralities like raping, having sex with animals, or just having sex with anything strictly for the pleasure of it and with disregard to any of the consequences that follow. It has not gone to say whether a married heterosexual couple having anal or oral sex is wrong or a form of lust. I guess I just feel that it is after I read all the bible has to say about being pure and avoiding lust.
With this in mind, I suppose that many homosexuals are no more sinners than heterosexuals. We all have urges of lust. I don't hold myself up on a pedestal, I'm just as guilty as anyone else. That's why although I view homosexuality as a sin, I don't view it as that much worse of a sin than the sexually immoral acts many heterosexuals perform. I think homosexuals can range in their levels of sexual immorality just like heterosexuals. Their gay pride parade seems to show that a lot of them embrace sexual lust and immorality. However, heterosexuals embrace that stuff too. For these reasons, I don't judge homosexuality as fervently as many religious people do, but I still view it as sinful. Despite all I this, I still can't deny that the thougth of two people of the same sex being attracted to one another seems wrong to me.
Genesis 4:19 had Lamerch having two wives.
Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon has multiple wives. God didn't say anything against it.
So, multiple wives are permitted via example.
-
- Student
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:23 am
- Location: New Haven, CT, U.S.A.
- Contact:
Re: Paul
Post #60Flail, When you say that, please specify "Conservative" Christians "rarely talk about the life and teachings and examples and parables of Jesus" and notice that they talk much more about the teaching of Paul of Tarsus rather than that of Jesus Christ.Flail wrote:"Interesting that Christians rarely talk about the life and teachings and examples and parables of Jesus but rather focus on the blather and rituals of the Church.
Jesus would burn down the Churches.
As for your assertion "Jesus would burn down the Churches." did you know that only ONE of the four Gospels even mention the word "church"? The word only appears a few times in Matthew's long gospel in two chapters. If just one page of that gospel had gotten lost somehow, the Roman Catholic church would hardly have a word to stand on. (the word "Roman" is in the gospels
