• 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!

What is your belief about homosexuality?

Homosexuality is...


  • Total voters
    85

captainnima

New Member
I guess where and when does it become "unnatural"? In a short time, sex with dogs, horses, and other animals may become "it's just is" as some have mentioned about homosexuals in this forum. Are those natural? Should a person be able to marry his/her dog? The homosexual message is repeated so much over and over again until people lose perspective and most just say something to be agreeable and not to "offend" instead of what they really believe in. So if you think it is natural or it's just is, would you eat a cookie that a homosexual person baked? Be honest with yourself.
 
Last edited:

Drolefille

PolyPanGeekGirl
Dogs and horses cannot consent.

Wait... you wouldn't eat a cookie because a gay person made it? Why? Because you'd get cooties?

How do you feel about bisexual cookies?
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I've been very careful not to say what my o
I guess where and when does it become "unnatural"? In a short time, sex with dogs, horses, and other animals may become "it's just is" as some have mentioned. Is that natural? The message is repeated so much over and over again until people lose perspective and most just say something to be agreeable and not to "offend" instead of hat they really believe in. So if you think it is natural or it's just is, would you eat a cookie that a homosexual person makes and gives you? Be honest with yourself. I wouldn't.
I don't discuss all my beliefs out of personal preference, not because I am afraid of offending someone. The way I see it, discussing what is or what is not a sin is something I'd only want to discuss with other people of my faith. If someone is not of my faith, then we can discuss different sorts of things.
But why wouldn't eat a cookie a gay person gave you?
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I don't take sides nor did I say what I believe in personally. I was trying to explain what the mainstream Christians believe. I can't answer for other people, nor can I tell people what to do.
Fair enough. The question stands, though.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
would you eat a cookie that a homosexual person baked? Be honest with yourself. I for one, wouldn't.
Why? What if a bisexual person bakes you a cookie? What if a transgender person bakes you a cookie?
Why on earth would you feel the need to be so incredibly rude? Seriously. Not accepting a gift is considered highly offensive to some.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
Fair enough. The question stands, though.
I don't discuss what is a sin or what is not sin because it is not my place to. And, as I said in the earlier post, because I only discuss that kind of thing with people of my faith and not within earshot (or eyeshot, in this case) of people who don't follow my faith. If I start to preach that kind of thing to people not of my faith, it is a waste of time. If someone not of my faith would let me witness to them (I never do that if it's against someone's wishes), all I would talk about is Yeshua (Jesus) and the only thing I would mention about sin is that everyone is a sinner. I would like to keep that kind of talk private, as well.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I guess where and when does it become "unnatural"? In a short time, sex with dogs, horses, and other animals may become "it's just is" as some have mentioned about homosexuals in this forum.
It always amuses me, the way you bigots think that your own indifference to consent condemns any morality but your own.

The homosexual message is repeated so much over and over again until people lose perspective and most just say something to be agreeable and not to "offend" instead of what they really believe in.
No, I'm pretty sure that good people genuinely see the obvious truth of the message that loving relationships are good, and forcing people to live a soul-shattering lie is bad.

People like you, otoh, are just throwing a massive tanty because they stopped shutting up to spare your feelings. Maybe y'all shouldn't have been so blatantly vile about the whole thing. (See above 're: consent.)

So if you think it is natural or it's just is, would you eat a cookie that a homosexual person baked? Be honest with yourself.
..........

.........

BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I don't discuss what is a sin or what is not sin
Not that question, sweet. I understand and respect that stance. The question I meant was
"Even if the Bible did say it was a sin - which it doesn't, when read in historical context - do you truly believe that Christ would ask that of us? Would he ask *you* to ask it of us?"

If you prefer to answer privately, that's fine. But as someone who considers you a friend, I ask to know that much.
 
Last edited:
Faith is a choice. I have made a conscious decision to believe in God based on hearing/reading/studying His word. I find His word to be true. Look at His prophesies. They have been fulfilled. It amazes me how He foretold the destruction of Jerusalem. And then there are the prophesies about Him. They have been fulfilled.. Then my reasoning kicks in. Why would so many give their lives for a lie? Why would they willingly be burned alive or killed in horrific ways for something that wasn't true. I'm speaking of the many martyrs in the first century. Then there are records outside the Bible about His existence, His crucifiction, resurrection, miracles, healings, etc. written by non Christians. He made claims about Himself never made by any other. He claimed to be the Son of God and God Himself.

Wow! May I call you Katie? Katie, Look, you talk a tough line to follow except that history, reading and studying has got to be what others have indoctrinated you with. Do you really study, do research or do you just read, study what your Christian teachers tell you to read?

For instance, faith as you have described it is not the original meaning of the Early Church. That definition has been lost and you are proof of that misrepresentation of Early Church. This indicates that you have not read the NT any other way than a literal reading. Why, even a literal reading would give you a different concept of the faith you adhere to.

You have to do better than just presenting a tough line. Give us what the Bible says about faith.

Did you know that glass houses shatter?

You can believe anything you want to but be careful that you do not distort the truth.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
*

Ingledsva said:
But what does it actually make you - when you have been shown - that the usual anti-homosexual verses - ARE NOT ACTUALLY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS - and you choose to stick to the party line ANYWAY?
What does that make YOU?

You have shown me your opinion about those verses I cited. Homosexuality is a sin. It is immoral just as adultery, fornication, bestiality, and incest are. God hates all forms of immorality. The only kind of sex, which is acceptable to God, is between a husband and wife, male and female. If it makes you feel better to name call, feel free. God is your judge as He is mine.

Where did I call you a name?

Show me where in the Bible it actually says homosexuality is a sin!

Are you going by what the Bible says? What Jesus said? Or are you going by the word of man?


*
 
The word of God is to be trusted because our God is the one true God. He is the creator of all things. Allah is not God.

"The "Word of God" contains neither revealed commandments nor revealed doctrines; it accompanies and interprets revelatory situations." Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. I, p. 125.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Romans 1:26
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.


Romans is a little more involved. Keep in mind that, the NT does not define the OT. What defines the NT is the OT and so far, I've established that Leviticus does not find male-male sex an abomination against the LORD. In Romans, Paul sticks to the lesson taught in Leviticus but uses it to address the split of the Jewish and Pagan Christian sects of the Early Church. Paul uses this issue of, what we call homosexuality, to bring the two sects together. Chastising both using what they both understood. Paul uses three words to describe homogenital acts; para physin (unnatural), atimia (degrading) and, aschemosyne (shameless). None of which do not convey what is unethical. To make a long discussion short, Paul was talking about idolatry in the Early Church. There is so much more that goes along with this discussion.

1 Corinthians 6:9,10. Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters,adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality,

Briefly, “sexually immoral” refers to prostitution, “men who submit to homosexual acts” is a gross representation of the Greek text and, “men who practice homosexuality is too.

9*Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes*nor sodomitescscripture


“* [6:9] The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Rom 1:2627; 1 Tm 1:10.scripture

pornoi

pornoi

G4205

n_ Nom Pl m

paramours

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co6.pdf

par·amour
Noun\ˈpa-rə-ˌmu̇r\

: a person with whom someone is having a romantic or sexual relationship and especially a secret or improper relationship Paramour - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The word, “paramours” could be interpreted as a concubine or even a prostitute. The word closely resembles “adultery” in definition. But, prostitutes is more likely to be what 1 Corinthians is speaking about given the footnote from NAB1970.


As for the homosexuality issue. That is all wrong. Basically, two phrases refer to homosexuality; not a likely redundancy. I refer you back to NAB1970 footnote. Again, the doctrine of the Church follows sound exegesis stating that, pedophilia is homosexuality. Not even close.

You don't even have to go into this long explanation.

It tells us this is an act of worship, - that makes these verses about Sacred Sex, Sacred Prostitutes.

*
 
You don't even have to go into this long explanation.

It tells us this is an act of worship, - that makes these verses about Sacred Sex, Sacred Prostitutes.

*
You are right. Others need to see how homosexuality is not the message. It becomes a process that brings Christianity back from moralism
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I guess where and when does it become "unnatural"? In a short time, sex with dogs, horses, and other animals may become "it's just is" as some have mentioned about homosexuals in this forum. Are those natural? Should a person be able to marry his/her dog? The homosexual message is repeated so much over and over again until people lose perspective and most just say something to be agreeable and not to "offend" instead of what they really believe in. So if you think it is natural or it's just is, would you eat a cookie that a homosexual person baked? Be honest with yourself.
I am still trying to figure out what difference it makes homosexuality being "natural" or "not natural".
Do you think that "natural" equals "moral" or "right"?
Or perhaps you think that "not natural" equals "wrong" or "immoral"?
If so, why?
What does natural or not natural have to do with moral/immoral right/wrong?

Do you really want to open the "marriage is a legal contract and all the fluff and window dressing added to legal contract does not in any way change the fact that marriage is a legal contract" can of worms?
I honestly hope so, cause you will have your backside handed to you.

I have no problem eating food prepared by homosexuals.
Do you?
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
I'm puzzled by the 3 votes for "unnatural for humans", which seems to imply that it is natural for some other animals. Which animals is homosexuality natural for?
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
I guess where and when does it become "unnatural"? In a short time, sex with dogs, horses, and other animals may become "it's just is" as some have mentioned about homosexuals in this forum. Are those natural? Should a person be able to marry his/her dog? The homosexual message is repeated so much over and over again until people lose perspective and most just say something to be agreeable and not to "offend" instead of what they really believe in. So if you think it is natural or it's just is, would you eat a cookie that a homosexual person baked? Be honest with yourself.
Why, oh why, do people try to link bestiality with homosexuality? Try to come up with some stupid "slippery slide" argument like one will lead to the other? Never mind the fact that animals cannot give consent, cannot enter into contracts (marriage), just throw out the window that we are discussing two PEOPLE, consentingly, knowingly, entering into relationships regardless of their sex/gender. The sheer stupidity of these arguments is enough to bring headaches. And regardless what you may think, most people do happen to believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexual relationships.

As a footnote, I don't know if you are being literal in the last line or trying to say something else,...but you do realize that homosexuals work in all areas right? You have no idea how many times you have eaten something baked or cooked by a homosexual person...I'm betting a lot. Not to mention that homosexuals have probably been making your clothes, building your cars, programming your computers, and singing songs you hear on the radio. Yep, here you are, in clothes that homosexuals made, driving your car built by homosexuals, listening to music assailing your ears sung by homosexuals. Are you infected with homosexuality now? Do you feel..."dirty" yet?
 

Drolefille

PolyPanGeekGirl
Was this a serious question? What does sexual attraction have to do with baking skills?
If a gay person bakes cookies they'll probably be shaped like penises and anuses and thus encourage immorality and get you covered with the gay cooties. Especially if they're rolled in powdered sugar, it's the glitter of the baking world.
 
Top