Is being gay anti-god

[juber3]

My friend is saved and a born again christian. But one bad thing, hes gay. We started talking and the subject 'is it anti-god' came out. I totally blanked out on the question. whats your view

PS Otseng should this be moved to christianity debate?

[adherent]

Corvus:
As I have stated before; not every Christian believes the bible is the accurate, inerrant word of God.

Well... part of being a christian is believing that the bible is 100% true. This is almost as rediculous as being a Christian Atheist. How come today's society looks down on homosexuality? And when first, did society start to view homosexuality as wrong? Was it during Abraham's time? Well as you have stated, abraham's time didn't view homosexuality as wrong as you have showed me the uncorrupt version does not say homosexual in it.

[Corvus]

Then you are accusing fellow Christians of being ridiculous.

Well... part of being a christian is believing that the bible is 100% true

There are 4 different accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Does that make them all wrong, if the bible is perfect? No. In the words of otseng;

On any witness stand when there are several witnesses, they will each give their own perspective on what happened. Each will have their own interpretation of events. So, each will have differing accounts. The role of the jury is to piece together the accounts to try to get an accurate picture of what happened. It is expected that accounts will be different. Actually, when accounts given by different witnesses are completely identical, then the testimonies are suspect of collusion. Just like if four people in a classroom writes a report on a topic that is completely the same, then they are suspected of collusion or plagerism. So, if all four gospel writers wrote identical things, then their testimonies would suspect.

I hope you do not believe everything you are told. Even evangelical sects acknowledge the disparity of the resurrection accounts. Taking this into consideration, one has to approach the bible with a critical eye. They may well have been inspired by the holy spirit, but their works and human senses are still capable of error. Christian means following Christ and his words, which sometimes have to be sorted from the chaff.

[otseng]

OK, I think I might have to actually close this thread. I'd rather not, but let's try to remain on topic (and respectful).

Lot's of interesting side issues has been raised. Please start another thread to discuss those.
Is the KJV Bible the only uncorrupted version?
Can the Bible be trusted?
Is it logical to be an Atheist Christian?
<strike>Is Alabama a dismal state</strike>?

Personally, I think we're straying far from the original intent of this thread. So, I'm getting mighty close to closing this.

[adherent]

Woah, we have strayed off, I looked back at the topic and was like: dude...

Being a Christian does mean believing in the Bible, like the basic cornerstone beliefs. Whether the land of Canaan was really flowing with milk and honey can be personally interpreted.

If a homosexual christian would pray this prayer:
"Dear Heavenly Father, I acknowledge that you are my savior and I have accepted you into my heart. I also know that your word is true. I however have found no law in your holy word that homosexuality is wrong. I am firm in my faith that I will enter heaven on that glorious day. Amen"
then I would take my hat off to them.

[Quarkhead]

Being a Christian does mean believing in the Bible, like the basic cornerstone beliefs. Whether the land of Canaan was really flowing with milk and honey can be personally interpreted.

But that's the very question I was raising - there is simply no way, given the scant reference to homosexuality in the Bible (and most importantly, that it was never mentioned once by Jesus Christ) to say that anti-homosexuality is a "cornerstone" of the Bible.

If a homosexual christian would pray this prayer:
"Dear Heavenly Father, I acknowledge that you are my savior and I have accepted you into my heart. I also know that your word is true. I however have found no law in your holy word that homosexuality is wrong. I am firm in my faith that I will enter heaven on that glorious day. Amen"
then I would take my hat off to them.

This also goes back to my last post. Do you follow the Mosaic law? Do you know anyone who does? I know a few orthodox Jews who try; it's near impossible. Do you eat pork? The proscription about pork is much more clearly stated than anything about homosexuality. And, even if one were to grant the edict against homosexual acts, one could just as easily chalk it up to a social more of the times, just the way many people dismiss most of the Mosaic law.

I'm sorry, but there's just no way to use the Bible as a basis for the conclusion that being gay is "anti-God" - unless you decide that a whole lot of other things most of us do every day are also "anti-God."

[Crixus]

But that's the very question I was raising - there is simply no way, given the scant reference to homosexuality in the Bible (and most importantly, that it was never mentioned once by Jesus Christ) to say that anti-homosexuality is a "cornerstone" of the Bible.

Well, I wouldn't say anti-homosexuality is a cornerstone of the bible, nor in fact would I consider it one of the greatest sins, however it is mentioned enough that most biblical scholars agree it is a sin.

This also goes back to my last post. Do you follow the Mosaic law? Do you know anyone who does? I know a few orthodox Jews who try; it's near impossible. Do you eat pork? The proscription about pork is much more clearly stated than anything about homosexuality. And, even if one were to grant the edict against homosexual acts, one could just as easily chalk it up to a social more of the times, just the way many people dismiss most of the Mosaic law.

Actually Christians are excused of most Levitical laws due to Peter’s vision in Acts 10, in which it is revealed to him that God has made these things clean. Being that this is Peter seeing these things Christians can be certain of their validity as Christ said to Him, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:19

I'm sorry, but there's just no way to use the Bible as a basis for the conclusion that being gay is "anti-God" - unless you decide that a whole lot of other things most of us do every day are also "anti-God."

Well, lots of things we do are anti-god, but such is the nature of man I think. Not to excuse any of the crimes man commits, but certainly we all have flaws that drive us to commit acts that are anti-god.

[otseng]

I'm sorry, but there's just no way to use the Bible as a basis for the conclusion that being gay is "anti-God" - unless you decide that a whole lot of other things most of us do every day are also "anti-God."

I would say that everyone does at least one thing per day that is "anti-God". Heck, it's more on the order of every minute that the majority of us does something that is "anti-God".

[Quarkhead]

Upon looking at the various passages referencing homosexual behaviour in the Bible, taking into account the original Hebrew and Greek words used (as opposed to oft mistranslations of those words, such as 'qadesh' which refers specifically to a male prostitute who engages in sex at a pagan temple), one will find that what is condemned in the Bible are only specific homosexual acts, such as: homosexual rape, prostitution in the pagan temple, the molestation of boys, et cetera. There are no condemnations of homosexuality itself. Similarly, the Bible condemns various specific heterosexual acts such as rape, molestation, adultery, the taking of sex slaves. Only our own prejudices, or those of the church, can turn these specific condemnations into general proscription. We do not condemn heterosexuality on the same basis, though there are many more specific aspects or acts of heterosexual sex which are condemned in the Bible.

Romans 1:26-27: "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: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Here is a very good analysis from religioustolerance:

Dr. R.S. Truluck, "Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on.  Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand.  A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate.  Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation.  We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said."

It is important to understand the precise meaning of certain key words in Verses 26 & 27, as expressed in the original Greek:

About the words "vile affections:" The Greek phrase translated as "vile affections" in the King James Version of the Bible is also translated as:

"vile affections and degrading passions" (Amplified Bible)

"dishonorable passions" (English Standard Version)

"degrading passions" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, & New Revised Standard Version)

"shameful lusts" (New International Version)

"shameful desires" (New Living Translation)

"evil things" (Living Bible)

"shameful affections" (Rheims New Testament)


In the original Greek, the phrase probably does not mean "passions" or "lust" as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living -- the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It seems to refer to the "frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music." 2 It seems to describe the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul seems to be referring here to Pagan "fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome" at the time. 4 Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions. The Wiccan "Great Rite" is one example. However, in modern times, such rituals are restricted to committed couples in private.

About the words "exchanged," "leaving," "change," and "abandoned:" These words are important, because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking. From the text, he is obviously writing about women with a heterosexual orientation, who had previously engaged in only heterosexual sex, who had "exchanged" their normal/inborn behaviors for same-sex activities.  That is, they deviated from their heterosexual orientation and engaged in sexual behavior with other women. Similarly, he describes men with a heterosexual orientation who had "abandoned" their normal/inborn behaviors and engaged in same-sex activities. In both cases, he is describing individuals with a heterosexual orientation, who were engaging in same-sex behavior -- in violation of their natural desires. In normal life, these are very unusual activities, because heterosexuals typically have a strong aversion to engaging in same-sex behavior. However, with the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time, they appear to have abandoned their normal feelings of abhorrence and tried same-sex behavior.

About the word "natural:" "The operative term in Paul’s original Greek is "phooskos", meaning "inborn", "produced by nature" , "agreeable to nature". 1 This term, and the corresponding phrase "para physin" described below, are open to interpretation:

To many religious liberals, gays, lesbians, mental health therapists, and human sexuality researchers,  homosexual and bisexual orientations are normal, natural, and inborn for a small percentage of human adults. For gays, lesbians and bisexuals with these orientations, opposite-sex behavior would be abnormal and unnatural.

To most religious conservatives, and perhaps to Paul himself, all same-sex behavior is abnormal and unnatural, no matter by whom it is done.


About the word "against nature," "unnatural," etc: The Greek phrase "para physin" is commonly translated into the English as:

"unnatural and abnormal" (Amplified Bible)

"contrary to nature" (English Standard Version)

"against nature" (King James Version, Rheims New Testament)

"sin with each other" (Living Bible)

"unnatural" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)


This does not seem to be an accurate translation. It may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. "Unnatural" implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned. M. Nissinen defines "para physin" as "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." 3 The word "unconventional" would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase "Para physin" appears elsewhere in the Bible:

In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the phrase to refer to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary.

In Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God's positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together.


About the phrase "just reward:" Romans 1:27 refers to the idolaters receiving a recompense or penalty for "their error which was due." (NKJ, ASV, etc). This appears to be a reference to the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) which was epidemic among such Pagan fertility cults at the time.

[adherent]

Leviticus 18:22 is still pertinent. How it does not clearly state is beyong me. And I still think Christian homosexuals should pray that prayer. I mean they are talking to God himself, and who to know better about this than God himself. Crixus has already stated that we are excused from lots of Old Testament regulations.

[Chancellor]

Leviticus 18:22 is still pertinent. How it does not clearly state is beyong me. And I still think Christian homosexuals should pray that prayer. I mean they are talking to God himself, and who to know better about this than God himself. Crixus has already stated that we are excused from lots of Old Testament regulations.

You can't go around selectively applying the Law of Moses whenever it suits you. Acts 15:1-29 makes it abundantly clear that the Gentile Christians were not required to keep the Law of Moses (which, Peter acknowledged, neither he nor the Jews were able to keep and, so, we know that this isn't referring to what some mistakenly believe is the "ceremonial law" -- GOD made no such distinction between ceremonial and moral: it was all moral). The elders in the Jerusalem church did set forth some things that the Gentiles would have to keep. But, this post isn't meant to be about the Law of Moses in the Gentile Church so let me get to my point: if you're going to say Gentile Christians have to keep the law about not engaging in homosexual behavior then you also have to say that Gentile Christians are required to stone to death their rebellious children.

There is enough in the New Testament to make it clear that homosexual behavior (embracing and acting on one's same-sex attraction) is sin. Further, it is clear that those who go on embracing and acting on that attraction will not inherit the kingdom of God. Someone in an earlier post asked about when homosexuality first became a sin. The answer to that is, I believe, found in Romans 1 where there is a whole list of sins (starting with homosexual activity in Romans 1:26-27) that appear to have come to exist as a direct result of humanity's first forays into idolatry (there seems to be a direct connection between idolatry and sexual sin throughout scripture). God's created design for male and female is opposite-sex marriage and homosexual relationships (as well as any sexual/romantic activity outside of opposite-sex marriage) is contrary to that created design. So, while the Bible doesn't specifically identify the first instance of homosexual sin, the Bible is clear in identifying homosexual behavior as sin.

The question that is the subject of this thread, "Is being gay anti-God?" suggests that the person who started it doesn't really understand the nature of homosexuality and falsely presumes that the attraction and the behavior are one and the same. When heterosexuals can prove that they chose their heterosexual attraction they'll be able to prove that homosexuals chose their same-sex attraction. There are two separate issues here: homosexual attraction (which is caused during childhood) and homosexual sin (the choice of embracing and acting on the attraction) -- and these must be treated differently. You don't go around telling homosexuals they're going to burn for all of eternity in the lake of fire for having an attraction they didn't choose and that was caused during their childhood (most of them claim they were born with the attraction but no one, heterosexual or homosexual, is born sexually/romantically attracted to another) any more that you would tell someone he or she is going to burn in the lake of fire for having cancer. So, separate the unchosen attraction from the sin. As for the sin, the scripture is clear: homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

It's time for the Church to stop treating homosexuality as an issue to be kept at arm's length. It's time for the Church to stop kicking teens who find themselves with same-sex attraction through no fault of their own and entirely against their will, out of the Church instead of helping them to obtain the healing of that attraction and helping them to gain and maintain victory over the temptation to commit homosexual sin. It's time to stop kicking adults with homosexual attraction out of the Church and to start helping them obtain the healing of their same-sex attraction. If any have committed homosexual sin (even if it is only through lustful thoughts), it's time for the Church to be showing them how to gain and maintain victory over homosexual sin instead of casting them out of the Church and into the arms of the gay community and the heresy of gay theology.

There shouldn't be a need for ex-gay ministries. Every pastor and elder in every church should be able to help homosexuals to overcome their homosexuality. If homosexuals in Corinth could come out of homosexuality without the help of ex-gay ministries or reparative therapy or other psychological methodologies or the 14 steps of Homosexuals Anonymous, then so can homosexuals today. It is the Church's job to help them join the ranks of those of whom Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:11, "Such were some of you..." (emphasis mine).