homosexuality
- Thread starter kenod
- Start date
FLOWERGIRL
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I believe homosexuality is a sin. However, I also believe we should love homosexuals no different than anyone else. We can love the person without loving the sin.
Dor
Bible Thumper
Agree Flowergirl. Love the people, hate the sin.
FLOWERGIRL
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
AbsolutelyDor said:
S
shadowman
Guest
Quahom1 said:
at one point, didint jesus say, regarding elibacy, that it was to be followed IF POSSIBLE?
anyway i think everyne is born bi more or less. i say more or less to stop the onslaught.
i think some people really are straight and others really are anly attracted to same sex.
but i also think that society influences a LOT
i think that gay men here have a biological attraction to women.
after all we gotta have kids and thats how nature made us
but dealing with matters of aTTRACTION DOESNT MATTER TO NATURE
MARRIAGE IS NOT NATURAL
IF WE WANTED TO REALLY SPREAD THE SPECIES LIKE NATUE WE WOULD BE POLYGAMOUS
oops my caps key is erratic
i think that i f you look at greek society, where biness is necouraged, all of a sudden you have men hanging out together in bath houses, doing you know what, then going home and having sex wit their wives, their wives had been diking it out all day with other wives too.
culture influences sexuality
if homosexuality was considered the norm in society, there would be way more homo, but they would still procreate to have kids.
S
shadowman
Guest
isnt hating bad as well?
shouldnt we only hate the hating of something? sin is the enemy and we love the enemy.
shouldnt we only hate the hating of something? sin is the enemy and we love the enemy.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
God hates all unrighteousness. Its the antithesis of what He is.. and that is HOLY. God also created marriage... Your idea is an offense to me.. Im not an animal that has no conscious control over my needs. You are taking the commandments of God with no regard. Thou shall not commit adultery.. ya know?
T
Terrence
Guest
Faithfulservant said:
Nice!
Shadowman,
Please show me where Jesus said to follow celibacy if possible. (it was Paul)
I think you confuse childhood curiousity with adult desire. I also think that "lust" of certain kinds is an unhealthy version of desire (an obsession). I also think that there is absolutely no explanation for a male to "naturally" go after another male. I can't speak for females because I am not one. I do know that male and female view intimacy in different ways, and society does not as a whole, condone males behaving in the same ways as females do, concerning relationships between same sex associations. Nor am I talking about sexual relations. I also understand that there are cultural differences that allow for more intimate behaviors between same sex (shy of sexual intimacy), however Jesus was quite clear on people not following the existing laws, and quietly pointed them out in several notable instances. Let those with half a brain take heed...
He also stated succinctly that He was not here to abolish the laws but to enforce them.
But because Jesus doesn't beat us over the head with the laws, we have those who assume they are to be ignored...I think that is a serious mistake, and the condition of the world today is a perfect example of that assumption that the original laws aren't required to be followed.
I can show you "noble animal" after "noble animal" (as man classifies them), that are literally monogomous by natural design. The eagle, the wolf, the crane, the beaver, the leopard, the elephant. It is difficult to consider that the most "noble animal" of all, is not naturally monogomous.
I suppose if man were just another animal, then marriage would be considered unnatural. However, man is not just another animal, indeed he is not an animal at all (according to God), but above them...
If we were to propogate the species of man via polygamous means, the gene pool would literally default into extinction of whole communities over time. This hase been proven over and over again.
Finally, what you are describing as an acceptable means of "letting off steam", in reality helped lead to the destruction of the nuclear family, and eventually the very civilizations, you eschew as being so great. And culture did not determine sexual practices, rather desire determined cultural practices.
If for example, Greek culture was so great, why is it not so great today? Why is there an alarm going throughout the United States today, about rampant behavior? Why are we seriously concerned about our children's behavior? I suspect it is because we know we screwed up, and we don't want them to follow suite.
Now I may be expressing my disagreement on this issue in idealogical terms, but I assure you I share FaithfulServant's disdain over the entire concept to begin with.
In short, it turns my stomach. If that was your intent, I suspect you succeeded, and that wasn't appropriate for this forum.
Please show me where Jesus said to follow celibacy if possible. (it was Paul)
I think you confuse childhood curiousity with adult desire. I also think that "lust" of certain kinds is an unhealthy version of desire (an obsession). I also think that there is absolutely no explanation for a male to "naturally" go after another male. I can't speak for females because I am not one. I do know that male and female view intimacy in different ways, and society does not as a whole, condone males behaving in the same ways as females do, concerning relationships between same sex associations. Nor am I talking about sexual relations. I also understand that there are cultural differences that allow for more intimate behaviors between same sex (shy of sexual intimacy), however Jesus was quite clear on people not following the existing laws, and quietly pointed them out in several notable instances. Let those with half a brain take heed...
He also stated succinctly that He was not here to abolish the laws but to enforce them.
But because Jesus doesn't beat us over the head with the laws, we have those who assume they are to be ignored...I think that is a serious mistake, and the condition of the world today is a perfect example of that assumption that the original laws aren't required to be followed.
I can show you "noble animal" after "noble animal" (as man classifies them), that are literally monogomous by natural design. The eagle, the wolf, the crane, the beaver, the leopard, the elephant. It is difficult to consider that the most "noble animal" of all, is not naturally monogomous.
I suppose if man were just another animal, then marriage would be considered unnatural. However, man is not just another animal, indeed he is not an animal at all (according to God), but above them...
If we were to propogate the species of man via polygamous means, the gene pool would literally default into extinction of whole communities over time. This hase been proven over and over again.
Finally, what you are describing as an acceptable means of "letting off steam", in reality helped lead to the destruction of the nuclear family, and eventually the very civilizations, you eschew as being so great. And culture did not determine sexual practices, rather desire determined cultural practices.
If for example, Greek culture was so great, why is it not so great today? Why is there an alarm going throughout the United States today, about rampant behavior? Why are we seriously concerned about our children's behavior? I suspect it is because we know we screwed up, and we don't want them to follow suite.
Now I may be expressing my disagreement on this issue in idealogical terms, but I assure you I share FaithfulServant's disdain over the entire concept to begin with.
In short, it turns my stomach. If that was your intent, I suspect you succeeded, and that wasn't appropriate for this forum.
S
shadowman
Guest
i was just playing with the idea that people throw out, that homosexuality is bad becuase it is "un natural"
are you saying that homosexual is an animal need?
i think its an emotional need of the brain just like the love people feel for loved ones, romantic love, and the love they feel for other things
are you saying that homosexual is an animal need?
i think its an emotional need of the brain just like the love people feel for loved ones, romantic love, and the love they feel for other things
shadowman said:
Lust is an animalistic base emotion. Need is not what I would say, since one will not die if the desire to "rut" is not fulfilled. We are talking about degrees of desire, and degrees of restraint from desire gone awry. Does that make sense?
S
shadowman
Guest
yeah. but what if its love. like love between man and man or woman and woman, just like the love between man and woman. romantic love.
lust is seperate from love right? but i suppose lust goes into te chemical attraction thing.
lust is seperate from love right? but i suppose lust goes into te chemical attraction thing.
S
shadowman
Guest
from another forum
He would also have to be omniscient. He must know all about the mechanisms at work in HIS creation.
While homosexuality is regarded as a sin in primitive superstitious cultures, modern science and common sense show that Homosexuality is a biological neurobehaviour defect. Since Jesus as a god would know neuroscience quite well and he would not consider a malfunction in the 4 module sexual reproduction network. There is no choice in the erroneous selection of same sex for this complex programme.
However, Jesus failed to understand Epilepsy, thinking that it was demon possession. As Omniscient, a creator god who micromanages biology would know that seizures are due to asynchronous neuronal depolarisation that spreads to millions of other normal neurons producing either partial or generalised convulsive seizures. He didn't know this. He tried to use sorcery to drive imaginary demons from epileptics.
So, It would seem unlikely that Jesus would understand that Homosexuality was not a choice because of knowledge of neuroscience. Jesus clearly did not understand neuroscience. So the only reason I can find that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality was that he was homosexual. He would know that it was a sin in the Jewish Cult. So he simply did not address the question. There are hints of Jesus and homosexuality in the Bible. He was found in the Garden with a young boy naked except for a loin cloth which he dropped when a crowd approached. The boy then ran away. That is certainly suspicious for forbidden behaviour.
In the secret gospel of mark (I think that is the one) Jesus stayed in a house with a young man who "loved" him. It describes Jesus sleeping with the boy and teaching him some mysteries of life. Was that homosexuality? We do not have conclusive proof but it is suspicious in the circumstances like the story in the garden.
but in a quotation of the Secret Gospel of Mark ... there is clear evidence for what the "young man who had been wrapped in a white sheet and ran away naked when Jesus was arrested" was doing before the Temple vice squad showed up. It all has to do with the double meaning of the verb "to know someone". In the offical version that detail is left unexplained.
This was in a letter from Clement of Alexandria to another church leader (circa 180 CE) ... the church leaders were discussing why they kept it secret ... and basically it came down to ... Christ would not have done this, but even if He had, there is no reason to share it with the public ;-) The clergy is never truth supporting. Gnostic forms of Christianity commonly had such hidden teachings (even the Gospel of Mark came in three forms according to Clement of Alexandria) ... and incarnate gods and orgiastic ritual is common in India, especially with the Jesus-like Krishna. In Sanskrit and modern Japanese, the euphemism for sex is play rather than know. The euphemism "to know" is first used in Genesis describing the play of Adam and Eve. Once again, Gospels are esoteric commentaries on Genesis.
He would also have to be omniscient. He must know all about the mechanisms at work in HIS creation.
While homosexuality is regarded as a sin in primitive superstitious cultures, modern science and common sense show that Homosexuality is a biological neurobehaviour defect. Since Jesus as a god would know neuroscience quite well and he would not consider a malfunction in the 4 module sexual reproduction network. There is no choice in the erroneous selection of same sex for this complex programme.
However, Jesus failed to understand Epilepsy, thinking that it was demon possession. As Omniscient, a creator god who micromanages biology would know that seizures are due to asynchronous neuronal depolarisation that spreads to millions of other normal neurons producing either partial or generalised convulsive seizures. He didn't know this. He tried to use sorcery to drive imaginary demons from epileptics.
So, It would seem unlikely that Jesus would understand that Homosexuality was not a choice because of knowledge of neuroscience. Jesus clearly did not understand neuroscience. So the only reason I can find that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality was that he was homosexual. He would know that it was a sin in the Jewish Cult. So he simply did not address the question. There are hints of Jesus and homosexuality in the Bible. He was found in the Garden with a young boy naked except for a loin cloth which he dropped when a crowd approached. The boy then ran away. That is certainly suspicious for forbidden behaviour.
In the secret gospel of mark (I think that is the one) Jesus stayed in a house with a young man who "loved" him. It describes Jesus sleeping with the boy and teaching him some mysteries of life. Was that homosexuality? We do not have conclusive proof but it is suspicious in the circumstances like the story in the garden.
but in a quotation of the Secret Gospel of Mark ... there is clear evidence for what the "young man who had been wrapped in a white sheet and ran away naked when Jesus was arrested" was doing before the Temple vice squad showed up. It all has to do with the double meaning of the verb "to know someone". In the offical version that detail is left unexplained.
This was in a letter from Clement of Alexandria to another church leader (circa 180 CE) ... the church leaders were discussing why they kept it secret ... and basically it came down to ... Christ would not have done this, but even if He had, there is no reason to share it with the public ;-) The clergy is never truth supporting. Gnostic forms of Christianity commonly had such hidden teachings (even the Gospel of Mark came in three forms according to Clement of Alexandria) ... and incarnate gods and orgiastic ritual is common in India, especially with the Jesus-like Krishna. In Sanskrit and modern Japanese, the euphemism for sex is play rather than know. The euphemism "to know" is first used in Genesis describing the play of Adam and Eve. Once again, Gospels are esoteric commentaries on Genesis.
shadowman said:
A defect can be healed.
Homosexuality is not determined by a biological defect in the brain ... otherwise all identical twins would be homosexual ... and the concordance rate is less than 50%. A large study done by an Australian university found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html Social and emotional factors need to be considered along with any biological predisposition.
It is known that a "predisposition" is not causative, and is no excuse for behaviour such as violence, for which there is also a "biological predisposition"
Suggestions that Jesus was homosexual, or permissive of homosexual practices, is not supported by his teachings which roundly condemned all sexual immorality ... unless of course Jesus was just a great big hypocrite!
The comment about the "naked" young man in the garden is ludicrous ... for a start "naked" meant he shed his outer garment, and fled in his underclothes (John 21:7). Besides, all the other disciples were present at the time of Jesus' arrest.
FLOWERGIRL
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Homosexuality is a great big lie from satan. No one is born gay as satan will tell people. God didn't create gay people as satan will have people believe.
I had a very close friend who one day claimed she was gay. She had a four year relationship with another woman. I prayed my socks off for these two people, showed them all the love I had for them and prayed for God's will in their lives.
They split up and my friend is now married with a baby. I'm not sure what is happening with the other girl. I just pray she too will be free from the homosexual spirit.
No one who claims to love God should treat homosexuals any different. Hate the sin but Love the person, show them the love of God within you.
I had a very close friend who one day claimed she was gay. She had a four year relationship with another woman. I prayed my socks off for these two people, showed them all the love I had for them and prayed for God's will in their lives.
They split up and my friend is now married with a baby. I'm not sure what is happening with the other girl. I just pray she too will be free from the homosexual spirit.
No one who claims to love God should treat homosexuals any different. Hate the sin but Love the person, show them the love of God within you.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
In that case, next time you might try praying along these lines:FLOWERGIRL said:
Lord, please lead and guide X person(s) along the lines that are right for THEM, by YOU. I TRUST you, Lord, to help them in the ways that are best. I will not presume, to know your will for all people, for presumptuousness is vain. AMEN.
Hint: This prayer is just as powerful, and helpful, as the ones you were praying. And yet it is also different. Hmmm ...
Love and Light,
andrew
FLOWERGIRL
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
taijasi said:In that case, next time you might try praying along these lines:Lord, please lead and guide X person(s) along the lines that are right for THEM, by YOU. I TRUST you, Lord, to help them in the ways that are best. I will not presume, to know your will for all people, for presumptuousness is vain. AMEN.Hint: This prayer is just as powerful, and helpful, as the ones you were praying. And yet it is also different. Hmmm ...
Love and Light,
andrew
I have no problem with this prayer at all.
Hint: Maybe you should know the actual contents of someones prayer before you begin comparing differences. Hmmm
Dor
Bible Thumper
I see nothing wrong with that prayer, except for me I need to add, In Jesus name before the amen.taijasi said:In that case, next time you might try praying along these lines:Lord, please lead and guide X person(s) along the lines that are right for THEM, by YOU. I TRUST you, Lord, to help them in the ways that are best. I will not presume, to know your will for all people, for presumptuousness is vain. AMEN.Hint: This prayer is just as powerful, and helpful, as the ones you were praying. And yet it is also different. Hmmm ...
Love and Light,
andrew
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Difference: One prayer presumes to know God's will for others. I figure it's just best to leave God's will to GOD. Don't we have a thing or two left to correct in our OWN lives? AHEM!FLOWERGIRL said:I have no problem with this prayer at all.
Hint: Maybe you should know the actual contents of someones prayer before you begin comparing differences. Hmmm
(Yes, I know, I'm opening myself up for it ... I, too, am a fellow hypocrite.)
As Hunter used to say, "It works for me!" So I'd have to say, if it works for you, awesome!Dor said:I see nothing wrong with that prayer, except for me I need to add, In Jesus name before the amen.
andrew