Is living a gay/lesbian lifestyle a problem with God?

[Autodidact]

Using this argument, it is harmful for mixed race parents to have children. Basically, what is good for kids is good parenting, and that matters more than the color, sex or religion of their parents.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

ok im sorry the one thing that annoys me about this debate forum is this name calling response, he is offering his point of view, he is talking about a disadvantage that can occur in a situation, in this case phycological effects of children with homosexual parents.

now either you argue the claim is false or cliam that the disadvantages arnt extreme etc.

calling someone a bigot etc, only makes you look like your in dire straights for an arguement, or it victimises your opponent and makes your view out to be the oppressive one.

Opinion noted and discarded with utter contempt.

If the cap fits....which evidently it does.

So we dont like nasty labels eh?

Ahhhhh bless you...did you think I cared about his/her feelings or what people will think of me?

I dont...so dont waste your time (on me) with such pointless responses...who do you think you are?

PS I do wish to victimise my ''opponent''...he/she will be a ''victim'' (if all goes well) after all.

PPPS Sorry for the venom...time of the month and all that...I hate bigotry and sadly that hate leaks out.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Using this argument, it is harmful for mixed race parents to have children. Basically, what is good for kids is good parenting, and that matters more than the color, sex or religion of their parents.

Already said as much citing disabled (blind) people...
Your example is good though.

Doesnt the sheer idiocy of these arguments strike you as amusing yet at the same time truly horrifying Auto?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Can anyone actually show that the NT condemns homosexuality in a clear way?

 

[kylixguru]

Can anyone actually show that the NT condemns homosexuality in a clear way?

Sure, no problem. Carefully examine Romans chapter 1 starting at about verse 18 or so where Paul talks about how things went for people about 6 thousand years ago when the foundation for the cycle of creation we are now in was being laid. He described something that took approximately 200 years to fully play out. We are full circle and right in the middle of this same thing playing out yet again as a new Creation was attempted but is currently in a fallen state. Thus, by speaking of what was, Paul was prophesying of what would be.

Here's my take on the passage:
God the Father came among mankind endeavoring to bring in the new Creation by establishing His Kingdom. Though what He taught was for the good, prosperity and blessing of the people, they considered it to be unrighteousness and foolishness. So, they rejected Him and His bid to bring them the Kingdom and He only got as far as laying the foundation. His Bride didn't help much because she bought into what the people wanted and ultimately convinced Her Husband to transgress with Her. As a consequence Paradise was lost for all mankind since they decided they could define good and evil for themselves better than God the Father would have done.

Paul goes on to describe all of the various societal developments that began to take shape after the people had rejected God the Father's efforts to establish His Kingdom. The people were given over to many things, among them are listed how men would burn in their lust one for another and leave the natural use of the woman to do things between themselves which were unseemingly.

As I read it I think you are going to have a very difficult time proving that this isn't a description of homosexuality or that it isn't being portrayed as something that God is suffering people to be taken into as a negative consequence of rejecting His Kingdom.

Homosexuality actually began on the spirit/word plane before it manifested on the flesh/physical plane.

The early American society had distinct roles that segregated women and men in terms of who would cast their voice in authority and governance. Men were looked to for holding and acting in official positions of governance and women were looked to as their companions and helpers from a behind the scenes position in a submissive posture to their husbands/fathers. The trend to liberate women and give them a place to act authoritatively independent of men in matters of governance was a redefinition of gender roles moving women into the domain of men. Woman's sufferage was a major shift in that direction. Thus, this was an early form of gender confusion. Ironically, many Christians were major supporters of woman's sufferage. Thus, I find it rather hypocritical that any Christians should be disgusted in any way with those who wish to make similar redefinitions to gender roles where physical things are concerned and not also at the same time seek to reverse things like women's sufferage, etc.

These redefinitions of gender roles do indeed appear to be delicious to the taste and very desirable but the unfortunate reality is they put the societal body into confusion and distress to the extent that it is unable to continue to function well. Coupled with other ailments that Paul also mentions, the health of the societal body degrades to such an extent that it eventually becomes terminal. Thus, the wrath that God says the people receive for rejecting Him and His Law isn't an overtly applied retribution but rather a loving Father who weeps as He watches the unavoidable natural consequences of very unwise decisions. Fortunately, when all the dust settles from the calamity that surely comes, the Father is redeemed and His Bride is cleansed and forgiven and redeemed with Him and They do have success to establish His Kingdom in victory.

I realize I have injected some things without direct support to claim we are currently in the process of experiencing a repeat of the very things Paul was speaking about and how things 6 thousand years ago were on a parallel. I am working on a publication to develop this material that will be ready when it is ready.

Have a nice day!

 

[Maury83]

I am just going to base my response on the OP.
What does the Bible have to do with God? Well, the Bible is the word of God, so it has a lot to do with Him.

What does the Bible say about Homosexuality?
the Bible makes it clear that God designated sex to be engaged in only between a male and a female and only within the arrangement of marriage. (Genesis 1:27, 28; Leviticus 18:22; Proverbs 5:18, 19) When the Bible condemns fornication, it is referring to both homosexuals and heterosexual conduct. [The Greek word Porneia translated in the Bible as "fornication" refers not only to intercourse but also to acts such as masturbating another person or engaging in oral sex or anal sex].

Christians should not hate homosexuals but should not approve their conduct. Christians should respect all people regardless of their sexual orientation because the Bible says in 1 Peter 2:17: "Honor men of all sorts". Therefore Christians are not Homophobic and should apply the words at Matthew 7:12 to all whom they deal with.

Didn't Jesus preach tolerance? If so, shouldn't Christians take a permissive viwe of homosexuality?
Jesus didn't encourage his followers to accept any and all lifestyles. Rather, he taught that the way to salvation is open to "everyone excercising faith in him." (John 3:16) Excercising faith in Jesus includes conforming to God's moral code, which forbids certain types of conduct - including homosexuality. (Romans 1:26;27)
The Bible doesn't comment on the biology of homosexuals (ie. born gay belief), although it acknowledges that some traits are deeply ingrained. (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) Even if soem are orientated toward the same sex, the Bible tells Christians to shun homosexual "acts".

You might say that the above sound cruel, but such notion is based on the flawed notion that humans "must" act on their sexual impulses. The Bible dignifies humans by assuring them that they "can" choose not to act on their improper sexual urges if they truly want to. (Colossians 3:5).

The Bible and therefore God is not unreasonable nor does it promote prejudice. It simply directs those with same -sex urges to do the same thing that is required of those with an opposite-sex attraction - to "flee from fornication" - (1 Corinthians 6:18).
The fact is, millions of heterosexuals who wish to conform to the Bible's standards employ self-control despite any temptations they might face. Their numbers include many who are single with little prospect of marriage and many who are married to a disabled partner who is unable to function sexually. They are able to live happily without fulfilling their sexual urges. Those with with homosexual inclinations can do the same if they truly want to please God. (Deuteronomy 30:19).

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Romans 1 is about Paul's belief that homosexuality is caused by Paganism.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben I don't reject the Bible as the literal word of God only because of homosexuality. I reject it as such because it was written 2-4000 years ago by primitives in the desert. Anyone who would take such a book literally lives in a cave. Secondly, homosexuality is not spoken against in any clear way in the NT. Romans 1 is about idolotry, and the fact that Paul believed idolotry was the root cause of homosexuality. He in his primitive mind never reckoned that a Christian could have homosexual tendencies.

In that case, you are telling us that he equated homosexuals with primitive pagans of the desert.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

In that case, you are telling us that he equated homosexuals with primitive pagans of the desert.

That's one way of putting it. He believed Pagan beliefs caused homosexuality. To quote Paul: "They changed the glory of the incorruptable God into the image of a corruptable man, and four footed beasts, and creeping things, and served the creature rather then the creator, who is blessed forever, amen. Therefore, their foolish minds were darkened and God turned them over in the unclean desires of the hearts to dishonor their bodies.

 

[kylixguru]

Romans 1 is about Paul's belief that homosexuality is caused by Paganism.

Would you please expand on this for me? There are some things in Paul's words that you seem to pick up on better than I can to make this association with Paganism. I would like to understand your basis. Also, do you agree Christianity has become massively influenced by Paganism or are you referring to something totally distinct from an altered version of Christianity?

Have a nice day!

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Would you please expand on this for me? There are some things in Paul's words that you seem to pick up on better than I can to make this association with Paganism. I would like to understand your basis. Also, do you agree Christianity has become massively influenced by Paganism or are you referring to something totally distinct from an altered version of Christianity?

Have a nice day!

Read my above statement to Ben. Also, what I mean by Paganism, is those other indegenous religions, such as Kemetic, that Jews called "Pagan". I don't mean types of Christianity. There are lots of gay Christians too.

 

[kylixguru]

That's one way of putting it. He believed Pagan beliefs caused homosexuality. To quote Paul: "They changed the glory of the incorruptable God into the image of a corruptable man, and four footed beasts, and creeping things, and served the creature rather then the creator, who is blessed forever, amen. Therefore, their foolish minds were darkened and God turned them over in the unclean desires of the hearts to dishonor their bodies.

I have a unique take on Paul's choice of words here. You very likely were able to infer I was talking about Adam and Eve in one of my previous posts in this thread. The words you quoted here make this association considerably more explicit in support of this.

Paul is tapping into the symbol set of the creation account. Verse 20 reads: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, ..."

He mentions Man (Adam) who was created in the divine image and likeness of God to bring the glory of the incorruptable God to earth that we all might enjoy paradise. He was given dominion over all of the creation and all creation was supposed to bow in reverence to Him. However, what happened instead is the people rejected the glory God ordained Adam to possess and they instead considered Him a corruptible man instead of a divine Man to whom they should give reverence.

Take notice of the context just prior to what you quoted where in verse 21 Paul says: "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

What Paul is referring to is the advent of Messiah as Adam prior to His fall. He was literally among the people as a Man in the flesh ordained to function as the God and Father of all Creation. People knew Him personally but did not perceive His divinity. From other connected passages it can be inferred that He was among them as if He were a thief in the night. He came to bear first-hand eyewitness of the Eternal Father and the Son, the senior members of the Trinity/Godhead of which He was the 3rd part, and to teach the truth of all things in their fulness to mankind. But, instead of being received by them, He ended up sorely rejected, persecuted, buffeted and ultimately fallen in transgression and He died. Thus, He became the Holy Ghost.

Paul also mentioned the other creation account symbols whose creation immediately preceded Man being formed. These were the "four footed beasts, and creeping things" that became reverenced instead of Adam. This doesn't mean actual animals were worshipped but that what the animals were a metaphor of in the Creation account were revered and honored instead.

As I understand the creation account all of its elements in some manner pertain to people. So, the point Paul appears to be making is the people rejected God's incorruptible image and glory vested in Adam and instead gave reverence to those functioning at a somewhat lesser level of glory that was insufficient to bring them to Paradise.

I view the "four footed beasts and creeping things" as the more enlightened Prostetant reformations as an evolutionary step up from the Catholic "fishes" that were created in the Day just prior by the "fishers of men".

Have a nice day!

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well that's certainly an interesting outlook jbug.

 

[Ben Masada]

That's one way of putting it. He believed Pagan beliefs caused homosexuality. To quote Paul: "They changed the glory of the incorruptable God into the image of a corruptable man, and four footed beasts, and creeping things, and served the creature rather then the creator, who is blessed forever, amen. Therefore, their foolish minds were darkened and God turned them over in the unclean desires of the hearts to dishonor their bodies.

If Paul considered homosexuals as people of darkened minds, whom God has turned them over into unclean desires of the hearts to dishonor their bodies, do you still have any doubt if Paul was positively against homosexuality or not? Never mind if he was referring to pagans or not. Pagans or not, we are all human beings. Less shame for them who didn't know any better within the spiritual realm of understanding.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

If Paul considered homosexuals as people of darkened minds, whom God has turned them over into unclean desires of the hearts to dishonor their bodies, do you still have any doubt if Paul was positively against homosexuality or not? Never mind if he was referring to pagans or not. Pagans or not, we are all human beings. Less shame for them who didn't know any better within the spiritual realm of understanding.

I know Paul was against it, but he was wrong about it, meaning he could be wrong about homosexuals period. Is Paul the mouthpiece of God? Did he believe he was?

 

[Ben Masada]

I know Paul was against it, but he was wrong about it, meaning he could be wrong about homosexuals period. Is Paul the mouthpiece of God? Did he believe he was?

I, for one, do not believe that Paul was a mouthpiece of God, although he did believe he was. But don't forget what Jesus said in John 17:17, that the Word of God is the Truth. When he said that, the NT did not exist. Therefore, he referred to the Hebrew Scriptures. And I am sure you are aware of what the Scriptures says about Homosexuality.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I, for one, do not believe that Paul was a mouthpiece of God, although he did believe he was. But don't forget what Jesus said in John 17:17, that the Word of God is the Truth. When he said that, the NT did not exist. Therefore, he referred to the Hebrew Scriptures. And I am sure you are aware of what the Scriptures says about Homosexuality.

Christians don't follow the Hebrew scriptures though, as stated in the OP, so this is irrelevant to the convo.

 

[kylixguru]

If Paul considered homosexuals as people of darkened minds, whom God has turned them over into unclean desires of the hearts to dishonor their bodies, do you still have any doubt if Paul was positively against homosexuality or not? Never mind if he was referring to pagans or not. Pagans or not, we are all human beings. Less shame for them who didn't know any better within the spiritual realm of understanding.

I simply view the outbreak and polarization of our society surrounding this issue as one form of the manifestation of God's wrath upon the people for rejecting Him and His Kingdom.

I think I said this before, but it bears repeating: Homosexuality on the physical plane is a natural consequence of what can be carefully traced back to the departure from God's Law giving rise to this as a trend of significance. It is not an isolated thing.

Homosexuality is not something they shall be punished for doing as much as it is the punishment itself in being given this place in a society which has departed from God and His Law. There is a tremendous amount of pain and suffering and anquish in the lives of many people on all sides of this argument. That in itself is truly a lamentable development that certainly exhibits the wrath of God.

Also, I believe some individuals are born gay. I even predict the time will come when the Mormons who backed Prop 8 in California will eventually solemnize gay marriages in their temples. I can think of no better way to address this pressure the world will bring to bear on them than to go ahead and relent and seal souls of the same gender to one another for time and eternity. They will spend an entire eternity to come (which I consider a single creation cycle) dealing with what they laid the foundation for. Certainly no Mormon will force anyone into their temples to do this against their own will. They will be requesting the powers that operate there to seal their desires upon them for their future resurrection yet inherant in this is to also come forth at a time when the knowledge of God's Law fully opposing this is totally saturated into society. Guaranteed eternal misery. Oh how the adversary of our souls laughs with glee when he sees all the misery he has instigated....

 

[kylixguru]

I, for one, do not believe that Paul was a mouthpiece of God, although he did believe he was. But don't forget what Jesus said in John 17:17, that the Word of God is the Truth. When he said that, the NT did not exist. Therefore, he referred to the Hebrew Scriptures. And I am sure you are aware of what the Scriptures says about Homosexuality.

You are presuming some kind of exclucivity here that puts a gag order on God to speak no more of His Word through His Servants. I for one find Paul to be a master of the Law and the Torah.

 

[Big_TJ]

So as I said to the last person who spouted that argument: Clearly you think the majority of 'heterosexual' people in western society oppose same sex relationships..that is not based in fact.

Only a minority of society takes issue with homosexuality...as statistical data shows...thus your argument is based on a false assumption.

Can you reference a source for this?

Secondly children get bullied for many reasons...should we outlaw blind people having blind children because they will be teased for being blind?

but, if we COULD prevent a child from being bullied, wouldnt we do everything in our power to prevent it? So, if the parent's lifestyle will most likely result in a child being bullied, why would you want to put the child through this? Would you want your child to live with a crackhead or coke addict?

Illogical nonsense...it is our duty to educate people..especially if they are behaving in a bigoted manner and are actively persecuting someone...and if we find children bullying the children of same sex parents, well then, we correct them...we dont attack the victims.

this is what i called forcing trying to force society to accept a lifestyle; the same thing that homosexual is accusing hetrosexuals of doing (and frowning up on it!) If society sees something as wrong, there is no need for society to adjust its viewpoint simply to accomodate a few.

As we correct any other type of criminal...as bullying for whatever reason is criminal.

well, we correct the crime, but we also try to PREVENT it! we tell persons not to walk at dark areas alone at nights, not to display wealth unneccessarily, etc, etc. So, we can fight bullying by removing the things that children are bullied about (for example, the parent's lifestyle!)