Azakel
Liebe ist für alle da
Then for what other reason do you spread ignorance and lies about Homosexuality?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin?
- Thread starter Jeremiah
- Start date
Then for what other reason do you spread ignorance and lies about Homosexuality?
You have utterly misunderstood my point.
slave2six
Substitious
Although slavery was nothing new in the nineteenth century, how we viewed it was and thus tens of thousands of people died in the struggle to end it.
Homosexuality is nothing new. This should give you a clue as well. If it is nothing new among biological animals like us then what makes you think that the biological impulses are evil or wrong? You may as well say that I am immoral because I don't find white chicks attractive.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Then, I guess it's a good thing sex isn't only about reproduction. It's a good thing it's also about pleasure, and so the point still stands.
I know this thread is about but this post begs the question, What makes the act of same-sex forbidden?
Again, begging the question, Where does it state, in the Bible, that sex is a God given gift to man and a woman who has been consecrated in marriage. Where in the Bible does it say what constitutes a marriage? When is a marriage consecrated?
The fact that it is in direct opposition to God's plan.
I personally cannot quote where in the bible it says that sex is a gift from God. It may or may not say that but either way it is easy to come to the conclusion that it is in fact a "gift".
In Genesis 2 we see the first ever so called "marriage".
The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
I think its safe to conclude from this account in Genesis that marriage is God's idea, designed and instituted by the Creator. In these verses we also discover that at the heart of God's design for marriage is companionship and intimacy. Sex is the ultimate form of intimacy between a husband and wife. Not to seem barbaric or anything but lets face it, sex feels good and not only that it allows for the miracle of life in the form of a new human being created by the father and the mother. If you can't call that a gift then I don't know what to call it.
Well, that is the question, isn't it? I can demonstrate that it is not in direct opposition to God's plan and there in lies the debate. So who has the truth? If you had to break down the Greek translation grammatically, I doubt that you would have any proof of being God's plan as you see it. What proof I have is through other's efforts to interpret the verses in question. I see this confusion from other legitimate sources and accept that as the new way of interpreting the verses in question. You would have to refute those differences I site and quite frankly, if you do not have the credentials, scholastic ability to read and interpret ancient Hebrew and Greek then you are no different than me. I can no more refute your interpretation any more than you can mine. Are you accepting that the Word of God is the literal reading of the Bible? Well, I don't. The Word of God is what the Bible says to me as I use the gift of the spirit to reason and interpret the Bible.
[SIZE=+1]WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS[/SIZE] Genesis 1:27-31. A Creation Story
They have two responsibilities; procreation and dominion as "male and female". It is in the totality of "male and female" that the responsibility for procreation exists. That totality does not necessarily imply that all, individual males and female must procreate. It is human relationality and not procreation that highlights the uniqueness of humankind in creation, as created in "the image of God". The divine command to procreate parallels the same command given to the fish of the sea and birds of the heavens, who are not designated male and female. The designation is biological, not sociological, thus the text gives freedom to interpret male and female as unique beings and masculine and feminine stereotypes are not imposed. This interpretation fully accommodates a post-modern understanding of sexuality as a psycho-social orientation that is diversely experienced across the spectrum of human existence. It allows for a full expression of male and female, without stereotypes, in which both heterosexual and homosexual relational experience make possible the imaging of God.
Considering the often cited biblical texts on homosexuality.
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:27-31. NRSV)
If all things exist through God's creative action, then, from our modern perspective, our sexuality derives from God, too. It is part of our given, personal being, and pronounced "good". This is what the church means when it declares sexuality to be "god's good gift" (Uniting Church in Australia, Assembly resolution 97.31.05). There is difference of opinion among believers whether or not this implies that sexual orientation is to be understood as a gift from God as distinct aspects of human sexuality. In the delimiting case, sexual orientation is argued to be a chosen state, originating with the Fall of humankind from original blessedness: heterosexuality only is seen as the given state. In some evangelical interpretations, sexual orientation is accepted (presumably as part of God's gift of sexuality or as a human condition after the Fall) but engaging in sexual acts is forbidden and held sinful. In this case, "love for the sinner" is preserved and "hate for the sin" is declared. Liberal or progressive Christian communities are both accepting and affirming, with some celebrating all sexual orientations. Thus Christian communities vary in the degree to which they accept homosexual persons or affirm same-sex practice. Much depends on how those communities understand Creation. It is clear that the ancient understanding in Genesis 1:27 is that human kind is created in the image of God as relational beings, male and female. Men and women are created as beings who are open to the future within the full context of the world (cosmos) and within the full context of their humanity or human potential. Their destiny is as relational beings and is not tied to an anatomical destiny that is bound and determined by procreation. Any primacy given to heterosexual relationships is a secondary association that is read into the text and is not implicit to it. This relational understanding is well developed by Phyllis Trible,(2) who uses Gen.1:1-2:4a as her beginning text in exploring a theology of sexuality. She shows that it is "male and female" (zakar uneqeba) or ‘humankind’(3) that is presented as being "created in the image of God," where male and female form a unit comprising two creatures that are distinct, harmonious equals. They have two responsibilities; procreation and dominion as "male and female". It is in the totality of "male and female" that the responsibility for procreation exists. That totality does not necessarily imply that all, individual males and female must procreate. It is human relationality and not procreation that highlights the uniqueness of humankind in creation, as created in "the image of God". The divine command to procreate parallels the same command given to the fish of the sea and birds of the heavens, who are not designated male and female. The designation is biological, not sociological, thus the text gives freedom to interpret male and female as unique beings and masculine and feminine stereotypes are not imposed. This interpretation fully accommodates a post-modern understanding of sexuality as a psycho-social orientation that is diversely experienced across the spectrum of human existence. It allows for a full expression of male and female, without stereotypes, in which both heterosexual and homosexual relational experience make possible the imaging of God.
Considering the often cited biblical texts on homosexuality.
In Genesis 1-2:4a, the notion of sexual identity as "male and female," is so tied rhetorically to the metaphor of "image of God", that it does not serve to differentiate sexual stereotypes but identifies the relational character of the human beings. As the "image of God" it is humankind that bears a unique relationship to God. This relationship stands on its own and is not dependent upon procreational activity. As single beings, their relationship to each other is implicit also. They are equals, regardless of role definition in terms of procreation or any other mark of distinction. While Trible's intent is to highlight improper differentiation between women and men, as a feminist critique of Scripture and its application, her criticism also highlights the inappropriateness of all stereotypical applications of the text. Thus the persistent claim, that God created people as heterosexual beings only, reflects an anachronistic, androcentric, patriarchal view that, while being an inherent part of the biblical canon and church history, does not stand up to post-modern criticism. Heterosexual union and procreation are not definitive factors of being human.
Considering the often cited biblical texts on homosexuality.
Considering the often cited biblical texts on homosexuality.
Genesis 2-3: the Creation of Sexuality In unfolding her interpretation of Gen. 2-3, Trible dispels arkhonic (4) notions regarding the explicit and implicit meanings of the text. She describes the narrative as the development of Eros (love of life), in four episodes of a love story, that began with the forming of the earth creature, ha-‘adam, and continued in the planting of a garden, the making of animals, and the creation of sexuality. The love story had gone awry however, when the fulfilment proclaimed when ’íš, 'man' and ’íššâ, 'woman', became one flesh, disintegrated through human disobedience. (5) However, the Bible does not leave the account there.
Considering the often cited biblical texts on homosexuality.
Considering the often cited biblical texts on homosexuality.
I'm sorry but I am not familiar with your interpretation of the bible. My interpretation is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I would like to know where in the bible it can be interpreted as something else.
The Song of Songs is seen to redeem this love story, restoring Eros and enhancing the creation of sexuality in Genesis 2, and emphasizing equality and mutuality between man and woman as lovers. The main voice of the Song is female. Thus Trible says, "Women, then, are the principal creators of the poetry of eroticism." (6) That is not to say that the poetry of eroticism stays with women. We are all able to express the joy of our sexual being, in the poetry of our own lives as well as in words. In this way we celebrate the joy of erotic relationships, as a response to the God-given gift of sexuality and erotic intimacy. While God's voice is absent from the Song, the divine voice is borne by the breath of the poet, the very respiration of lovers, that cries in the cosmos, to affirm their own being, confirming their own togetherness, their own becoming. Through our personal delight in love-making our body's song or poetry becomes a responsive voice that rises to God in joy and in gratitude. In this sense, love-making transcends sexual gratification, to become a hymn of thanks and praise to God, for the gift of our embodied selves. More than that, it celebrates the relationship between the lovers, in the simple joy of sexual encounter. That is why God's voice is absent in the Song, as it is in Genesis 2, where poetry of eroticism first appears and ha-‘adam says,
"This, finally, bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh.
This shall be called ’íssâ (Woman)
because from ’ís (Man)
was differentiated this." (Gen.2:23) Trible's interpretation is post-modern and inclusive. It is not only erotic, but traces God's initial blessing of harmony, pleasure and fulfilment in the creation of sexuality, as being prior to the actualization of procreational applications to sexuality. In the Song, the seeking of one's lover finds harmony of encounter and fulfilment in sexual embrace. Sexuality is thus celebrated in the longing, the pursuit and the embrace. The focus is delight and joy in relational connectedness. We can appropriate that spirit, for it is the spirit of mutuality and relational activity that not only celebrates life but also makes God present in the world, through love-making. It is relational connectedness that lifts human sexual relationships above those of the animals. The choice for gay and lesbian persons is not between heterosexuality and homosexuality but to be able to celebrate their sexuality, to form relationships and to seek relational intimacy in ways that are not cut off from their God-given nature.
Love-making possibilities re-envision our own sexuality as well as re-vision God, as an erotic God, full of life and passion. Sexual activity is a relational process of making erotic connections. It is God-given and blessed. The connection of sex and sexuality with The Fall has denigrated sexual activity, robbing it of its blessedness. Through mutual sex we experience personal communication, intimacy, the harnessing of desire and sexual truth. We touch our own erotic strength and liberate that of our partner. We share erotic power, transcending the self in the full inclusiveness of love-making. In this way it is also justice-doing, for it empowers the other. Carter Heyward expresses this dynamic empowerment as "godding", in which the verb, 'godding', points to the truth of God's erotic activity. She says:
Considering the often cited biblical texts on homosexuality.
"This, finally, bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh.
This shall be called ’íssâ (Woman)
because from ’ís (Man)
was differentiated this." (Gen.2:23) Trible's interpretation is post-modern and inclusive. It is not only erotic, but traces God's initial blessing of harmony, pleasure and fulfilment in the creation of sexuality, as being prior to the actualization of procreational applications to sexuality. In the Song, the seeking of one's lover finds harmony of encounter and fulfilment in sexual embrace. Sexuality is thus celebrated in the longing, the pursuit and the embrace. The focus is delight and joy in relational connectedness. We can appropriate that spirit, for it is the spirit of mutuality and relational activity that not only celebrates life but also makes God present in the world, through love-making. It is relational connectedness that lifts human sexual relationships above those of the animals. The choice for gay and lesbian persons is not between heterosexuality and homosexuality but to be able to celebrate their sexuality, to form relationships and to seek relational intimacy in ways that are not cut off from their God-given nature.
Love-making possibilities re-envision our own sexuality as well as re-vision God, as an erotic God, full of life and passion. Sexual activity is a relational process of making erotic connections. It is God-given and blessed. The connection of sex and sexuality with The Fall has denigrated sexual activity, robbing it of its blessedness. Through mutual sex we experience personal communication, intimacy, the harnessing of desire and sexual truth. We touch our own erotic strength and liberate that of our partner. We share erotic power, transcending the self in the full inclusiveness of love-making. In this way it is also justice-doing, for it empowers the other. Carter Heyward expresses this dynamic empowerment as "godding", in which the verb, 'godding', points to the truth of God's erotic activity. She says:
"Godding, we experience our personal lives as profoundly connected at the root of who we are, rather than as separate and disconnected from our professional lives and from one an other's places of deepest meaning. Godding, we share how we really feel about our body selves-in-relation, in our living and working, our living and dying. We share, we act, we are together." (7)
In this way, we find relational empowerment through creative energy that finds and releases God's image in the other. It is in this way that homosexual relationships can be God-centred through relational connectedness and we all can say, "this is my beloved and this is my friend." (Song of Songs 5:16c). In this, love is discovered in the subjective encounter of friendship and not in the objective, dualistic designation male and female. Considering the often cited biblical texts on homosexuality.
Follow my posts and you will have your answer. You have not shown me where you interpret marriage in the Bible.
Alceste
Vagabond
Right, whatever, but it's OK for people who are not Christians to be gay, right? Because to them your book is just a book, written by men, and your God is a figment of your imagination. Is this an area where you can just agree to disagree and do your personal best to avoid being a homosexual, or is it necessary to preach homophobic BS all over the internet? It's between you and God. If you think God thinks it's wrong to be a homosexual, just don't be one. Do you think God wants you poking your nose into other people's business, judging them, and speaking down to them as if you're his personal messenger boy? If I was God, I'd be really annoyed with people like you. Why would an omnipotent being need YOU to explain his wishes to other people? Especially after he has given you explicit instructions simply to love your neighbour, and not to judge him.
Thank you. What is mine is not necessarily yours. I do not wish to change what you believe to be truth. I continually get literalists to try and convert my ways to theirs. That simply condemns others if you don't believe as they do. I am simply stating that there is no absolute truth other than that there is a Creator, God is what I call my Creator. There are those that would deny the existence of a God. I can accept that is their truth. I have no need to convince them otherwise. But for the sake of discussion or debate, I present the facts as I know them. You can debate or condemn me.
What The Bible Says About Homosexuality I believe deals with the verses about homosexuality as the modern editions of the Bible eroneously translates by dealing with the misuse of the grammar that was used to justify using the issue of homosexuality. The site acknowledges both side of the issue of homosexuality. As I said, I don't read Hebrew and Greek and therefore must read opposing discussion and decide what has merit. If I am not well read I don't have the ability to decide somethings merit. The more I learn the more I can decide somethings merit. This is why I study the masters of theology. This is why the history of Christian thought is important to me. I learn of what may have been a great idea and later that it was just a stepping stone to a better idea of what Christianity is all about. And that means that I do understand the literalists truth.