What's the beef with homosexuality?

Iowaguy:
OK, let me be sure I get this straight. You believe some people are born gay (which, from a Christian standpoint means God condones them being born that way). But you think they should never have sex with someone of their same gender, even though they were born gay? You're fine with them being gay as long as they never have sex?

If they do have sex should they also be subject to the "put to death" standard of the bible? Or just not inherit the Kingdom of God?

Are you proposing that all people "born gay" be celibate? Or that they "grin and bear it" and get married, have kids, etc.

I think asking all gay people to be celibate is quite a stretch... What about letting gay people get married, then they wouldn't be "fornicators"?

I know you're big on compassion and love; do you not think homosexual partners can truly love one another? Why the discrimination?
Click to expand...

Hi Iowaguy

I don't think it is a stretch to ask gays to be celibate. It's what Jesus says is best for straight people too. The discrimination I guess is about marriage. I believe that man was made for woman, and as such, there is that clause from Jesus about how if one can't be single, then they should get married. I personally think that God probably looks more favorably on gays who have had a faithful loving marriage, than on straight people who sleep around with many partners. I really don't know how God judges things, so I can't pass judgment. I do think however, that there will be gays in heaven, and even gays who still had sex. Just as it says that covetous people will not inherit heaven, I believe that there will be people in heaven who struggled (as do I) with being greedy. I do think homosexuals can love each other.

I do believe that God has a right to set standards. It's up to each of us to find his will in our lives. One of my best friends is gay, who I have been lucky enough to have had Christian fellowship with for the last 8 years. He has been celibate for the last 12 years. He believes God has a right to set standards. I would say that if a gay person can't be single for God, then perhaps it IS better for them to be married and stay faithful to a partner. It certainly would show a lot more love/faithfulness/patience etc, to do so. Again, I don't know how God ultimately judges, he looks at the heart, and as such, I'll leave final authority over to him, for I know very little of his ways.
 
bob x said:
You have Paul confused with Jesus. Do you believe that Paul is God?
Click to expand...

Sorry, your right. Paul said, if one cannot be single then it is better to marry than to burn with lust. However, he was basically echoing what Jesus said. Which is why I just left my sentence how I had it. Jesus said that man cannot remarry. His disciples said, ''if that be the case with man, then it is better to not marry'', to which he replied, ''not all men can hear this saying, some men were born eunches, some eunches are made by man, and some make themselves eunches for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake...if you can hear this then it's better''.

Both are saying being single (celibate) is the preferred option, if one can handle it, and it doesn't lead one to 'burn with passion'.

Sorry for the confusion, but I think you can see that both are teaching the same thing.

No, I don't think Paul was God, though he certainly had God in him, but of course he was a fallible human too.
 
Thw whole bottom line to this is if one takes texts as "absolute truth" the Love and Goodness of the Divine get lost. Having any intermediary (textual or personal, like a guru) limits one's ability (I believe) to dance with that Divine, to participate in either Revelation or Redemption (in the sense that the exitentail theologians use it).

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
 
ciel_perdy said:
Sorry for the confusion, but I think you can see that both are teaching the same thing.
Click to expand...
No, I really don't see it that way. I was never raised as a Bible believer, so I don't approach the texts with the presupposition that all the authors can be shoehorned into the same opinions. Jesus is talking about whether a man can unilaterally ditch a wife just because he's tired of her, and trade her in on a new one; the OT condoned this, as long as it was made a matter of public record to relieve any man who wanted to take in the abandoned woman from any charge of "adultery". Jesus said that old teaching was hard-hearted and wrong; he was very much opposed to the idea of basing morality simply on obedience to old texts, rather than looking at what the real effects on the people around us are. He was saying that it was better to go without sexuality than to abuse others to satisfy it; this is not the same as Paul's neurotic suspicion of sexuality as a whole, which has done a lot of damage to Christianity. And it is ironic that Jesus asking people to rethink the old texts has itself now become an old text which "Christians" are loath to re-examine. He was saying that we should not fossilize Bronze Age social mores; neither should we fossilize Roman-era mores.
 
bob x said:
No, I really don't see it that way. I was never raised as a Bible believer, so I don't approach the texts with the presupposition that all the authors can be shoehorned into the same opinions. Jesus is talking about whether a man can unilaterally ditch a wife just because he's tired of her, and trade her in on a new one; the OT condoned this, as long as it was made a matter of public record to relieve any man who wanted to take in the abandoned woman from any charge of "adultery". Jesus said that old teaching was hard-hearted and wrong; he was very much opposed to the idea of basing morality simply on obedience to old texts, rather than looking at what the real effects on the people around us are. He was saying that it was better to go without sexuality than to abuse others to satisfy it; this is not the same as Paul's neurotic suspicion of sexuality as a whole, which has done a lot of damage to Christianity. And it is ironic that Jesus asking people to rethink the old texts has itself now become an old text which "Christians" are loath to re-examine. He was saying that we should not fossilize Bronze Age social mores; neither should we fossilize Roman-era mores.
Click to expand...

I wasn't raised a bible believer either, and I don't think all bible writers can be 'shoehorned' into one opinion. I agree that one reason why Jesus taught that it is better to be celibate, was because it is very easy to abuse others (and ourselves) by giving into basially free sex. I see Paul teaching that it's better to be single (what Jesus said), BUT to avoid burning with lust (and I think the act of fornication is implied, not just internal lust), then it's better to be married. Basically, to avoid hurting yourself, and hurting others, get married. Again, I don't really see much of a difference between what Paul said and what Jesus taught. Both said, IF you can handle it, be single, if not get married.

You said:
He was saying that it was better to go without sexuality than to abuse others to satisfy it;
Click to expand...

There may be truth to this, as I have shared, but there are many other reasons why people leave their partners, and why it would be better to NOT marry. For example, Jesus taught his disciples to forsake their families,
''whoever has not forsake brother, sister, mother, father, children, wife..''. As a Christian, Jesus teaches us to stop working for money, to forsake all our possessions, our family, and to preach the gospel to the whole world. Try telling your family that you're going to actually do that, and you'll soon find out why Jesus teaches it's better to be celibate!

I think the MAIN reason Jesus taught celibacy, and the MAIN reason Paul taught it, is because we are more usuable for God, more free to up and go, and to follow his spirit without having to deal with all the problems that can come from an undevoted partner. In short, our times, our lives, our energy, is taken up with the demands and needs of the partner, and not with what God wants us to be doing.

Some may say it's selfish, but actually it free us up to love everyone equally. Jesus challenged our attachment to family, family titles and family ties. How many of us though really want to let go of all these things? Still, this is what Jesus taught.
 
ciel_perdy said:
Both said, IF you can handle it, be single, if not get married.
Click to expand...

No, I think Jesus was saying, IF you can handle being faithful, then get married; don't if you can't. Paul is the only saying being single is actually better: that I consider Paul's own peculiar psychological problem.
 
bob x said:
No, I think Jesus was saying, IF you can handle being faithful, then get married; don't if you can't. Paul is the only saying being single is actually better: that I consider Paul's own peculiar psychological problem.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.
 
Hi Pghp--

You state that the science has proven wrong the claim that homosexuality is unnatural. Perhaps. But, science has been wrong in the past and we have seen change in theories.

I believe that the condemnation of homosexuality in monotheistic religions has more to do with religion than science, though. Monotheistic faiths teach procreation and emphasize improtance of traditional family (man and woman). Homosexuality is unable to support procreation, and therefore supporting such would not support the growth of one's community.

Also, in the ancient times, homosexual people tended to engage in promiscuous behaviors that were far too radically liberal for those times. But even in our age, the sexual behaviors perceived by non-homosexuals is too strange. Since there is no bond to maintain ties between homosexual partners their sexual freedoms are more prominent.

On the other hand, the monotheistic religions have certain religious laws that are just there and are not questioned not because people are being ignorant, but simply because the majority is having faith in what their religion tells them the Truth is. For example: "why cannot you believe that there are multiple gods?" Monotheists simply do not. And that is that. Anyone going outside and seekign different, ceases to be part of monotheistic communities.

Being a homosexual does not disqualify one from being a believer. It might just be that he/she is a rebellious believer to some degree.
 
Amica said:
You state that the science has proven wrong the claim that homosexuality is unnatural. Perhaps. But, science has been wrong in the past and we have seen change in theories.
Click to expand...
We are not talking here about theories but about factual observations; what has been seen cannot become unseen.
 
bob x said:
No, I think Jesus was saying, IF you can handle being faithful, then get married; don't if you can't. Paul is the only saying being single is actually better: that I consider Paul's own peculiar psychological problem.
Click to expand...

A sexless kingdom of heaven is a false kingdom. There is gender and two the the same sex simply do not go together as one complete entity. The concept of no sex in the kingdom is the biggest misconception that exists. Sex keeps the relationship one.
 
ciel_perdy said:
Iowaguy:


Hi Iowaguy

I don't think it is a stretch to ask gays to be celibate. It's what Jesus says is best for straight people too. The discrimination I guess is about marriage. I believe that man was made for woman, and as such, there is that clause from Jesus about how if one can't be single, then they should get married. I personally think that God probably looks more favorably on gays who have had a faithful loving marriage, than on straight people who sleep around with many partners. I really don't know how God judges things, so I can't pass judgment. I do think however, that there will be gays in heaven, and even gays who still had sex. Just as it says that covetous people will not inherit heaven, I believe that there will be people in heaven who struggled (as do I) with being greedy. I do think homosexuals can love each other.

I do believe that God has a right to set standards. It's up to each of us to find his will in our lives. One of my best friends is gay, who I have been lucky enough to have had Christian fellowship with for the last 8 years. He has been celibate for the last 12 years. He believes God has a right to set standards. I would say that if a gay person can't be single for God, then perhaps it IS better for them to be married and stay faithful to a partner. It certainly would show a lot more love/faithfulness/patience etc, to do so. Again, I don't know how God ultimately judges, he looks at the heart, and as such, I'll leave final authority over to him, for I know very little of his ways.
Click to expand...

A death in gods kingdom is of the sin NOt THE SINNER through knowledge as to why things dont work a certain way. Geesh what kind of god do you think he is. Its a language a divine language. he doesnt destroy the bodies of homosexualis and take life away from them . He educates through knowledge. And sometimes you have to experience sin to know why its wrong.
 
donnann said:
A sexless kingdom of heaven is a false kingdom. There is gender and two the the same sex simply do not go together as one complete entity. The concept of no sex in the kingdom is the biggest misconception that exists. Sex keeps the relationship one.
Click to expand...
I'd say requiring sex is just as extreme as prohibiting sex.
 
seattlegal said:
I'd say requiring sex is just as extreme as prohibiting sex.
Click to expand...

I prefer to use the word necessary not required. Required makes it sound forced. Its the one thing that keeps the two one , the bodies, soul and spirits are designed this way and the frequent union keeps it one. This is why there are texts on that subject. However its sacred. Not porno.
 
donnann said:
I prefer to use the word necessary not required. Required makes it sound forced. Its the one thing that keeps the two one , the bodies, soul and spirits are designed this way and the frequent union keeps it one. This is why there are texts on that subject. However its sacred. Not porno.
Click to expand...

What's the big deal about completeness? What's wrong with putting a puzzle together with many of the pieces missing? It allows you to think outside of the box.
 
seattlegal said:
What's the big deal about completeness? What's wrong with putting a puzzle together with many of the pieces missing? It allows you to think outside of the box.
Click to expand...

Because completeness is infinite life where you are a being that is love, your never lonely because your with your other half that make you whole. Isnt that what all of us are looking for? To me the puzzle is your other half.Its like the soul is multicolored light like half a puzzle and each other half fits like the other half of a puzzle. The spirit is the same. If you want to think outside the box you can look at this as a universal picture but that would be one big giant puzzle.
 
donnann said:
Because completeness is infinite life where you are a being that is love, your never lonely because your with your other half that make you whole. Isnt that what all of us are looking for?
Click to expand...
Although I can't speak for everyone, no.
To me the puzzle is your other half.Its like the soul is multicolored light like half a puzzle and each other half fits like the other half of a puzzle. The spirit is the same.
Click to expand...
If the spirit is the same, then why the need to "complete" the puzzle?
If you want to think outside the box you can look at this as a universal picture but that would be one big giant puzzle.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be condemning the whole universe into thinking inside the box?
 
donnann said:
A sexless kingdom of heaven is a false kingdom.
Click to expand...

what makes you think that ?

There is gender and two the the same sex simply do not go together as one complete entity. The concept of no sex in the kingdom is the biggest misconception that exists. Sex keeps the relationship one.
Click to expand...

emotional and spiritual union is just as possible with same sex couples as hetero IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top