Not always but what you see here on this board is who I am in real life. I don;t see the point of being a poser. Its too hard and truth is so much more simple.Gosh, you're a really nice person
-
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!
The bible and gays
- Thread starter Leo613
- Start date
InfiniteZero
New Member
Thanks for the concern.
If God is jealous for His people then that means there must be something as powerful or nearly as powerful as God capable of threatening him. Is sin and darkness a greater force than God? Jealousy is still a lower emotion because it is still based in a negative mental state. In the case of God, a fear that something will win us away from him (which would indicate a low self esteem - God fears that he is not good enough).
chessplayer
Member
Greetings Zero
Good point , and yes there is something God does not want control over and that is the will of man . That is sacrosanct in most senses and put there by God for us to freely love Him and freely follow Him by faith , or of course reject Him. However there is a judgement day when all will be exposed before Him. Although His primary motive for His creation is love , He cannot embrace sin .
chessplayer
Member
I envisage God as the best Father , very soft towards His ( adopted by faith )children and with his outstretched arms towards his estranged children, whom he loves but cannot help because of the gap between the two.
Jesus came to bridge that gap on the cross between a broken , sinful , sick ,dying world and God the Father.
Jesus came to bridge that gap on the cross between a broken , sinful , sick ,dying world and God the Father.
chessplayer
Member
I also see Him as a Shepherd who leads his flock in safe paths and to good pasture.
In a similar way we can let Him lead us or we can ignore him even hate him , but we are then out of his protection and guidance .
In a similar way we can let Him lead us or we can ignore him even hate him , but we are then out of his protection and guidance .
InfiniteZero
New Member
Interesting perspective. I see God more as a father who hides at the center of an enormous maze in the dead of winter, forcing his kids to find him and only accepting the ones who make it through the maze, leaving the rest to freeze to death in the darkness. With forty thousand different brands of Christianity alone, life is a roulette wheel where you throw down your number and hope for the best. To bring it back on point, is God against homosexuality or have we understood that teaching incorrectly this whole time, for example? There is no real evidence so it comes down to the war of interpretation and philosophy. The Cartesian model versus the Aristotelian model, etc. Rob Bell versus Gagnon. Catholicism versus Episcopalian.
chessplayer
Member
Yes it dose have a variety of interpretations of a small number of scriptures regarding homosexuality.
The one that is very clear is the teaching against promiscuity. The Bible is very clear on that , but whether by making same sex marriage possible in a legal sense , makes it good in God`s sight , I`m quite sure it doesn`t.
All the time many Christians are often swayed by the feeling or hope that God will accept everybody anyway except just a few really bad ones . That unfortunately is not Biblical , and we have to keep focused on what the bible say not what we feel should be.
That`s why Rob Bell foundered.
Our feelings are not a good guide.
chessplayer
Member
Hi Infinite , not my favourite subject , but for what it`s worth these are my thoughts.
Someone here posted that he felt that if a sexual act was unnatural then it couldn`t be God`s will. I agreed with that in as much as it seemed clear to me that a active homosexual lifestyle almost inevitably involves really unusual activities which are very unhealthy . Unless you were health checked after every encounter then you were very liable to be infected with any one ,or more, of a number of diseases .
Regarding the gay gene or DNA inclination , modern research seems to exclude that possibility and puts it down to choice.
EG in the LGBT community what do bi-sexuals have in their DNA ?
Just the same as people choose to be celibate if they are not married, presumably they just don`t keep thinking about something they don`t have, and get on with their life, enjoying what they do have .
Someone here posted that he felt that if a sexual act was unnatural then it couldn`t be God`s will. I agreed with that in as much as it seemed clear to me that a active homosexual lifestyle almost inevitably involves really unusual activities which are very unhealthy . Unless you were health checked after every encounter then you were very liable to be infected with any one ,or more, of a number of diseases .
Regarding the gay gene or DNA inclination , modern research seems to exclude that possibility and puts it down to choice.
EG in the LGBT community what do bi-sexuals have in their DNA ?
Just the same as people choose to be celibate if they are not married, presumably they just don`t keep thinking about something they don`t have, and get on with their life, enjoying what they do have .
First off anyone having sex whether gay or straight is recommended to seek routine medical checks. Having gay sex does not magically create a disease out of ****ing nowhere.
Secondly research routinely points to DNA as a factor for sexual orientation. If you think otherwise choose to be gay then. Right now. Go on.
If you can't you have no right to say homosexuality or bisexuality is a choice for others. Thirdly people who are celibate do so for two reasons. Religious, where they abstain from sex as a holy vow. This kind of already set determination combined with a sense of righteousness would explain why many celibate people wouldn't "worry about what they're missing." The other is when someone is asexual meaning they literally have no desire to have sex with anyone. Again explaining why they wouldn't worry about what they're missing. Homosexual people might sometimes fall into the first category but not always. Expecting them to just live a sexless life and get over it is akin to treating black people like slaves and expecting that they just live their life because they don't know what they're missing.
Last edited:
You have an erroneous view of the lifestyle of most gays. Many are monogamous. Many are not sleeping with partner after partner, as you intimate. What evidence do you have that being lesbian is unhealthy? Do you even know what a gay lifestyle is? Do you think we all walk around panty-waisted with our hands held in the cliche gay fashion, wearing gaudy clothing and looking for parades to march in? If so, you are stereotyping and its insulting in the extreme. I have never had an STD in my life and at this point, I am rather up there is years. And as for genetic evidence, it is still in the infancy stage but I will refer you to this:
Iemmola, F., & Ciani, A. C. (2009). New evidence of genetic factors influencing sexual orientation in men: Female fecundity increase in the maternal line.Archives of sexual behavior, 38(3), 393-399.
chessplayer
Member
Promiscuity is unbiblical therefore spiritually unhealthy , that`s all I`m saying with reference to lesbianism .
My previous post was referring to the " unnatural " results of male gay lifestyle, Whether legalising same sex marriage means it`s acceptable to our Creator , I can`t see it being the case but it`s not my call to judge , I`m just debating on the forum topic.
chessplayer
Member
If there was a " gay gene " then with evolutionary change within the species , it would have eliminated itself, n`est pas ?
You are erroneously assuming that all gays are promiscuous. Such is not the case. Some are, but no more or less than heterosexuals are promiscuous. Both are unhealthy really. I have had no relationships since the death of my late partner. She was my soul mate and that is that, at least for me. What 'unnatural' results btw? What does this mean exactly? That sex is somewhat different? If so, what about heterosexuals with strange bedroom habits? S&M, fetishism, etc. Or you simply basing this on your aversion to something you don't understand at all?
Why would it have been eliminated? If its a natural occurring mutation, why would it have been eliminated? Your position seems very biased based on your own aversion to something you clearly don't understand.
No it wouldn't since being gay in and of itself has no affect whatsoever on the overall survival rate of the individual, much less that of the species. And it's most likely a bunch of genes, not a single gene.
Do you think sexual orientation is a choice?
If yes, when did you choose to be heterosexual?
Ciao
- viole
I suppose thinking that God is a delusion is unbiblical too. Which leads me to a question: would you support a law that prohibits the marriage of Christians and atheists? Or the marriage of two (heterosexual) atheists? If not, why not?
Everything that happens in nature is, by definition, natural. Or do you think that male gays lifestyle is supernatural?
I am afraid, the Creator will have to swallow that. I do not see how He can avoid that without flooding us to death,again.
And I suspect people, in general, stopped caring what the Creator might think about these things. For obvious reasons.
Ciao
- viole
chessplayer
Member
This is what I mean by " unnatural " and unhealthy. Anything sexual activity involving excrement is unhealthy.
Link from CDC , Centre for disease control and prevention
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been increasing among gay and bisexual men. Recent increases in syphilis cases have been documented across the country. In 2008, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States.
This is from 4 % of the population
Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who are uninfected to develop anal cancer. See Primary and Secondary Syphilis—Reported Cases, 2008, by Sexual Orientation.
BTW Jo Stories I purposely avoid getting personal with you even though you almost insist I do , this is not about you , it`s about the forum , Gays and the Bible, all I am doing is putting across what I understand to be the Biblical guidance on this subject.
You need to brush up on your sexual activity knowledge, mate.
Scat is the sexual fetish involving excrement. That is not anal sex (which btw not all gay men engage in and some heterosexual men do.) When having anal it is considered proper etiquette to first "cleanse" one's self. I'm sure I don't have to go into more detail than that. Geez, how can you be this naive about sex and still be using the internetz?
First of all, well done Sherlock. Sexually transmitted diseases will spread more rapidly among a smaller population size, given the (by default) smaller sexual partner restrictions. All this proves is more education is needed.
Also ever notice how the anti gay side ONLY uses the statistic of Men who have sex with Men? The STI statistics involving women who have sex with women (which show they are far less likely than their purely heterosexual counterparts to become infected) are never brought up. It's almost like the anti gay side has some sort of agenda and prefers to release half truths in order to further their viewpoint or something.
And Men who have sex with Men is not codified language for gay or bisexual men. It's literally men who have sex with other men, even if they're married or unmarried heterosexuals. They could be prostitutes, they could have visited a prostitute purely for fantasy reasons, they could have been raped, they could be a junkie screwing anything that walks past for some cash for their fix. These are the factors that you very conveniently overlook when quoting stats like this. All you've found is a correlation, this is not the same as causation.