This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Just another topic about the homosexuality and the Bible.

#11ThuggernautzPosted 1/28/2014 6:43:17 AM
bratt100 posted...
Forgive me if I'm wrong here but isn't Cmat homosexual? Or is it somebody else I'm thinking of?


"The loudest voices we hear are those who advocate conflict, divisiveness." - John C. Danforth

Well, you know what they say: those who object the loudest often have the most to hide. How many topics is this about homosexuality by the same few people again? It may be a cry for attention.

We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves.
#12Hustle KongPosted 1/28/2014 6:55:29 AM
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#13ThuggernautzPosted 1/28/2014 7:01:41 AM
Hustle Kong posted...
Not that there's anything wrong with that.


http://ghostfaceknitter.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/seinfeld.gif
#14EastsideslingerPosted 1/28/2014 7:01:59 AM
Guess what, I don't care what the bible says about homosexuality because the bible has no bearing on the Constitution what soever. The last time religion came into it's own with regards to the Constitution was prohibition and we all know how well that turned out.
---
"That's Mushy Snugglebites' badonkadonk. She's my main squeeze. Lady's got a gut fulla' dynamite and a booty like POOOW!" - Tiny Tina
#15Hustle KongPosted 1/28/2014 7:31:14 AM
Eastsideslinger posted...
Guess what, I don't care what the bible says about homosexuality because the bible has no bearing on the Constitution what soever. The last time religion came into it's own with regards to the Constitution was prohibition and we all know how well that turned out.


If the Topic Post wasnít explicit, this it probably more intended for people who use the Bible as a moral guide that think it doesnít prohibit homesexuality. For you or me, this obviously is nothing more than potentially interesting. Well, at least for me.

I donít think that C_Mat is going to be surprised that a nonchristian doesnít care about what the bible says on the matter.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#16DT2501Posted 1/28/2014 7:48:25 AM
One thing that I think often gets lost in the debate about what the Bible says about homosexuality is that what it meant for a man to have sexual relations with another man in biblical times was a lot different than what it means today. While sodomy had negative connotations in some cultures, other kinds of sexual relations between same-sex partners wasn't necessarily frowned on. In some cultures homosexuality was even encouraged and considered beneficial (it was seen as a teacher-student relationship). It wasn't until after Christianity started to take hold that wide-scale condemnation of all homosexual acts really started to spread. When the authors of those verses of the Bible first wrote them, they were writing them in a VERY different context than what most modern readers are thinking, and it wasn't until after the church was formed that people really started to get bent out of shape over it.
#17serpentslayerPosted 1/28/2014 8:27:42 AM
I actually think homosexuality wasn't widely considered immoral at that time, specifically because of the Roman Empire. It's not a stretch to assume that the man Jesus said had to most faith out of anyone was a homosexual. The only words explicitly against homosexuality come from Paul, and many have argued that Paul distorted Christianity. I am among them. The idea that homosexuality isn't a sin is no stretch.
---
God is man helping man: this is the way to everlasting glory. -Pliny the Elder
#18EastsideslingerPosted 1/28/2014 9:40:17 AM
Hustle Kong posted...
Eastsideslinger posted...
Guess what, I don't care what the bible says about homosexuality because the bible has no bearing on the Constitution what soever. The last time religion came into it's own with regards to the Constitution was prohibition and we all know how well that turned out.


If the Topic Post wasnít explicit, this it probably more intended for people who use the Bible as a moral guide that think it doesnít prohibit homesexuality. For you or me, this obviously is nothing more than potentially interesting. Well, at least for me.

I donít think that C_Mat is going to be surprised that a nonchristian doesnít care about what the bible says on the matter.


True. Seeing the topic title made me see red and activate my auto response before reading it was suppose to be a prolonged discussion between a Cmat and Mor.
---
"That's Mushy Snugglebites' badonkadonk. She's my main squeeze. Lady's got a gut fulla' dynamite and a booty like POOOW!" - Tiny Tina
#19MorgasaurusPosted 1/28/2014 11:13:13 AM
Thanks for making the topic C_Mat. I did not come to this change of viewpoint lightly. I used to hold to the traditional viewpoint which takes the aforementioned verses at face value as condemnations of homosexuality. Until the age of 30 I kept my sexual orientation a secret from everyone unless I was under the guise of anonymity. I also did not pursue a relationship with anyone of either gender, and I remained celibate all this time.

Finally I told my best friend the truth in mid-December. I told him I was going to remain celibate. However, my friend has a habit of calling out my bull, and this was no exception. He is also a Christian, and he also pointed out that he knew several gay Christian couples. He claimed that I was denying myself the happiness of companionship for no reason whatsoever. This created a significant amount of cognitive dissonance. It forced me to reconsider my position because a gay Christian couple is incompatible with the traditional viewpoint.

I then spent the next 48 hours thinking of nothing but how to reconcile this information. I could simply have assumed the gay Christian couples were not truly Christians. I could also have assumed that the couples are actually living in sin. However, this would also be incompatible with my philosophy because a Christian who is truly following God cannot be happy while living in sin. If homosexuality is always condemned under any circumstances, then true Christians in a same-sex relationship would feel conviction and break up.

The reform viewpoint is the one I have now: monogamous same-sex relationships are not condemned. I realized this viewpoint must be correct after a lot of thought, but it seems to contradict Scripture. I actually contend that it does not. In fact, it can be easily demonstrated that based on the context of all potential condemnations in The Bible, none of them actually hold water.

1) Sodom and Gomorrah. This one is easy. First of all, the "evil" present in the city was not as a result of homosexual behavior, but rather from the tendency of the citizenry to gang-rape any newcomers. One thing I'm certain of is that a committed same-sex couple is not going to gang-rape anyone.

2) The famous "abomination" verse from the OT. First of all the word "abomination" in this context is simply referring to anything that is forbidden under Jewish law. It is then not clear whether or not this particular Jewish law continues to remain in effect in the New Covenant. The "sexual immorality" from Mark 7 may simply refer to such things as one night stands. Again, committed partners are not going to do this.

3) Paul in Romans 1. The "they" described in Romans 1 is referring to a group of people who abandoned God and became "godless." Well it's pretty clear that abandoning God is a no-no for Christians. This verse cannot then be generalized to same-sex relationships between Christians.

4) Paul in 1 Corinthians 6. This is the most sticky of the verses, and if you believe many English translations, then you might think homosexual behavior is condemned here. However, one thing about it is very suspicious. The verse makes a distinction between dominant and passive homosexual partners. Okay. If you're Paul and you're going to condemn gays, are you really going to make it a point that your condemnation applies to tops and bottoms? No. What's going on here is that there are two words from ancient Greek whose translations we are depending upon for the traditional interpretation: arsenokoitai and malakoi. It is most likely that these words refer to young male prostitutes and their "customers" because that type of thing was common in ancient Greece. In fact the word arsenokoitai was translated as "pervert" in 1 Timothy.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#20theSMITHSPosted 1/28/2014 11:43:55 AM
Polish_Crusader posted...
Now, you could make a case for someone who likes homosexual feelings, but doesnt do any homosexual actions. In my opinion thats not really a homosexual, in the same way a straight man thinking about fornication is not a fornicator until they ACTUALLY do fornication.

But as for the acts of the homosexual sex, it is painfully obvious that the bible states its a sin and will condemn you to hell.


Well, that's very Dante of you. No chance of forgiveness?