SHOULD CHRISTIANS SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALITY?

[SomeRandom]

not at all. This is a different story

But you claimed it was unnatural. Not sure how as nature routinely displays homosexual behaviour. Even has same sex parenting among swans at a relatively high level for some reason. But whatever. I guess nature goes against itself somehow. I don’t know.

If you’re against something “unnatural” then surely you should not favour something that is specifically man made as that is often considered unnatural, at least in most usages of the word that I’ve encountered.

 

[Baroodi]

But you claimed it was unnatural. Not sure how as nature routinely displays homosexual behaviour. Even has same sex parenting among swans at a relatively high level for some reason. But whatever. I guess nature goes against itself somehow. I don’t know.

If you’re against something “unnatural” then surely you should not favour something that is specifically man made as that is often considered unnatural, at least in most usages of the word that I’ve encountered.

O man Swans are so loyal to family values until they die. Paradoxically this weird behavior is not uncommon among humans

 

[Baroodi]

Members of the jury, I present into evidence "Exhibit 1" for making an ineffective argument. Just assume the subject of the argument, whatever it is, not only applies to all but is mandatory for all.

I have said before, and I shall no doubt have occasion to say again, "there is a cure for ignorance, but it is doubtful that the patients most in need will take it."

Diplomatic answers are worthless

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Diplomatic answers are worthless

Nonsense. You wrote: "Not at all, to refute this it costs no time at all. When men marry men, mankind extincts within 100 years roughly. this tells you it is against nature."

That implies two things very directly:

1. that "all" men marry men, because if that were not the case, then children are still being produced.
2. that it is marriage that causes children, not heterosexual sex, so it is necessary that all men also stop having heterosexual sex, even if they are not marrying other men.

Apparently, you are unaware that it is actually only a very, very few men who wish to marry other men, and only a very, very few women who wish to marry other women. And you also seem to be unaware that, if they are not allowed to do that, they are not going to automatically revert to heterosexual and go produce babies.

You also seem to be entirely unaware that many, many species of other animals than humans also engage in homosexual behaviour, and some of them do so exclusively...yet, their species seem to continue just fine (until we humans get to them of course, and contribute to their extinction … which IS unnatural!)

When I used the term "ignorance," I meant it in the strictly dictionary way: not knowledgeable about a subject. And on this topic, you have demonstrated that you do not possess anything like enough knowledge to be able to say anything remotely worthwhile about it. That, of course, never stops people. It is usually those who know least about a bunch of topics who have the most to say about them, and with the most conviction.

You know what IS unnatural? Plastic...it exists nowhere in nature, yet we humans are making enough of it that we're on the verge of choking our entire planet on it. And I'm willing to be you use a lot of plastic.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Hi guys, much as happened within our society over the past few years. Many have claimed one side or the other when it comes to homosexuality and the Bible. In this video, I give some statements about each side of the scope and discuss them a bit. I hope it help and maybe gives a new perspective.

I don't know, should Christians support left handed people or gingers?

 

[Sand Dancer]

This whole topic hinges on the question on if gay people are"born this way". Since according to scripture being gay is a sin and the bible repeatedly says one can overcome sin than people are NOT " born this way" therefore scriptually speaking they are simply people who wont change there ways and there is no reason for a christian to support them.

P.S. i know some people will insist they truly feel they were born gay but my response is jeremiah 17:9.

Homosexual behavior is ritually unclean, as is menstruation. Is menstruation a sin? I think someone would know if they were gay or not. Only you know if you are hetero or not.

 

[sealchan]

Hi guys, much as happened within our society over the past few years. Many have claimed one side or the other when it comes to homosexuality and the Bible. In this video, I give some statements about each side of the scope and discuss them a bit. I hope it help and maybe gives a new perspective.

Christians should accept homosexuality because it is apparently a feature of Gods creation and it is not in anyway associated with a higher propensity to sin. The Bible passages which say otherwise should be seen as wrong morally.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But Jesus was a Jew. That was his religion. And he remained a Jew throughout his life. So I see no reason to presume that he was starting a new religion, regardless of whatever words were written into his mouth by those scribes who WERE starting a new religion, later on.

That defeats the whole point of the "prophesied messiah" thing. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man may enter unto the father except through me." And all his "do this to go to the Kingdom, do this and end up in darkness, the furnace, gnashing teeth, and fire." This is how to pray, and when being religious don't make a public spectacle of it. It wasn't necessarily a new religion, but, rather a fulfillment of prophesy to bring an existing religion into a new era. The new religion part only came out because the Jews rejected the Gentile Messiah and the Gentiles chose to insist this character fills the Messiah role. So, without the original aspects, a new religion was necessary.

So IF Jesus ever said anything about being "fishers of men", he was probably not talking about proselytizing religion, or converting sinners.

It is contextually exactly what he was talking about. Jesus began a ministry of preaching, and when he began he spoke, metaphorically, that he would show his disciples how to be "fishermen of men." And then Jesus went out and ministered. It's no different than trying to say the Bible doesn't have a problem with homosexuality (kill them). Or that god doesn't have a problem with adultery (kill them), freedom of religion (kill them), and never takes offense at the sight of a eunuch (not even allowed in).

 

[Baroodi]

Nonsense. You wrote: "Not at all, to refute this it costs no time at all. When men marry men, mankind extincts within 100 years roughly. this tells you it is against nature."

That implies two things very directly:

1. that "all" men marry men, because if that were not the case, then children are still being produced.
2. that it is marriage that causes children, not heterosexual sex, so it is necessary that all men also stop having heterosexual sex, even if they are not marrying other men.

Apparently, you are unaware that it is actually only a very, very few men who wish to marry other men, and only a very, very few women who wish to marry other women. And you also seem to be unaware that, if they are not allowed to do that, they are not going to automatically revert to heterosexual and go produce babies.

You also seem to be entirely unaware that many, many species of other animals than humans also engage in homosexual behaviour, and some of them do so exclusively...yet, their species seem to continue just fine (until we humans get to them of course, and contribute to their extinction … which IS unnatural!)

When I used the term "ignorance," I meant it in the strictly dictionary way: not knowledgeable about a subject. And on this topic, you have demonstrated that you do not possess anything like enough knowledge to be able to say anything remotely worthwhile about it. That, of course, never stops people. It is usually those who know least about a bunch of topics who have the most to say about them, and with the most conviction.

You know what IS unnatural? Plastic...it exists nowhere in nature, yet we humans are making enough of it that we're on the verge of choking our entire planet on it. And I'm willing to be you use a lot of plastic.

Thanks for the post. This is a rarity behavior among some animals and is not well understood. partnering among animals doesn't mean homosexuality as interpreted for humans.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thanks for the post. This is a rarity behavior among some animals and is not well understood. partnering among animals doesn't mean homosexuality as interpreted for humans.

Now what on earth can that mean? I am not an "interpretation," I am homosexual. I am a male. I am sexually attracted to males, and only males. I can't "get it up" for a female, so there would not be a great deal of point in trying to pretend to be heterosexual, even for the stupid reasons presented by those religious types who think it would be wonderful if everybody in the world was exactly like them. (They're wrong, by they way, and they'd bored to death before they knew it.)

And for the record, I made no choice about where my attraction lies, any more than you did...or if you think you did, I bet we'd all be delighted to hear about it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thanks for the post. This is a rarity behavior among some animals and is not well understood. partnering among animals doesn't mean homosexuality as interpreted for humans.

I would also like to add here, this little thought. For those who are homosexual (not "interpretations") it really does seem, in the context of this thread, that there a lot of people who claim to be "Christian" who reason that, "if they can't be like me, then they should be alone and miserable, not living a rich and full life like a good Christian like me deserves."

And oddly, they think they are being "Christlike" in supposing so...funny, eh?

 

[SomeRandom]

O man Swans are so loyal to family values until they die. Paradoxically this weird behavior is not uncommon among humans

They’re literally nature, nothing they can do is unnatural. You made the statement that homosexuality was unnatural.
I retort that nature routinely disproves this on a daily basis.
And it is my understanding that Swans mate for life. Though admittedly it’s been a few years since Biology.
Also natural does not automatically mean beneficial. Conversely unnatural does not necessarily mean detrimental.
Man made things like cars or medicine are hardly organically natural, after all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thanks for the post. This is a rarity behavior among some animals and is not well understood. partnering among animals doesn't mean homosexuality as interpreted for humans.

The behavior is not rare, and is actually very common among social and non-social animals. A list of animals that homosexual behaviors has been observed in--including out in the wild--is pages long. And of course that doesn't mean it isn't inherently healthy for humans. But drinking water and breathing air have also been documented in other animals. Are we then to assume there could be some complications from these actions because we see them in other animals?

 

[PureX]

That defeats the whole point of the "prophesied messiah" thing. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man may enter unto the father except through me." And all his "do this to go to the Kingdom, do this and end up in darkness, the furnace, gnashing teeth, and fire." This is how to pray, and when being religious don't make a public spectacle of it. It wasn't necessarily a new religion, but, rather a fulfillment of prophesy to bring an existing religion into a new era. The new religion part only came out because the Jews rejected the Gentile Messiah and the Gentiles chose to insist this character fills the Messiah role. So, without the original aspects, a new religion was necessary.

The Jews he was speaking to were looking for a Messiah to save them (from Roman oppression). And Jesus was preaching about the triumph of the faithful, of the humble, of the meek, and of the powerless. And he was using terms that they could identify with, like their inheriting a "new kingdom". So they began to see him as their long-awaited Messiah, even though he never claimed to be that, and even though he was not vanquishing the Romans. And when the high priests accused him of claiming to be their Messiah, his response was "YOU say that I am". Not "I say that I am". The "way" that Jesus was preaching was not a religious path. It was a spiritual path open to anyone, Jew, gentile, religious, or not. But at the time, he was a Jew talking to other Jews, in a culture dominated by patriarchal family clans, and that is reflected in how he speaks to them, and why they labeled him as they did.

It is contextually exactly what he was talking about. Jesus began a ministry of preaching, and when he began he spoke, metaphorically, that he would show his disciples how to be "fishermen of men." And then Jesus went out and ministered. It's no different than trying to say the Bible doesn't have a problem with homosexuality (kill them). Or that god doesn't have a problem with adultery (kill them), freedom of religion (kill them), and never takes offense at the sight of a eunuch (not even allowed in).

We only have a story, now, that was written long after Jesus' death by people with preset beliefs about him, and a religious agenda. We can only surmise, through reason, that there was a real person that inspired the story, and what that person might have actually said and done. The fact that even in the story, he was a Jew and remained so, indicates that he was NOT starting a new religion. The fact that Jews then and now do not believe anyone needs to convert to Judaism to align themselves with God would indicate that Jesus did not evangelize, or promote evangelism. The fact that Jews then and now do not believe that non-Jews need to follow Jewish religious beliefs, traditions, or proscriptions as laid out in scripture indicates that when Jesus said this, he was saying it as a Jew talking to other Jews, not as a Jew talking to US.

And when I put these basic presumptions together, I see modern religious Christianity as being a very wrong-headed religious interpretation of the story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, and of the words and deeds of the person they claim to revere. Once we remove the Judaic admonishments and messianic presumptions, what we have is a purely spiritual revelation, and promise, open to all of us, regardless of religion. So the fact that Christianity has become a religion, and especially that it has become an exclusive, evangelical religion, is completely off the mark, in my opinion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Jews he was speaking to were looking for a Messiah to save them (from Roman oppression). And Jesus was preaching about the triumph of the faithful, of the humble, of the meek, and of the powerless. And he was using terms that they could identify with, like their inheriting a "new kingdom". So they began to see him as their long-awaited Messiah,

I'm not aware of the Jews having began to see Jesus as a Messiah. There are too many prophesies he did not fulfill, too many things he didn't do and wasn't doing, and the absence of the Jewish state being a world power and all the Jews being called home and all that.

The "way" that Jesus was preaching was not a religious path. It was a spiritual path open to anyone, Jew, gentile, religious, or not.

What he preached came complete with dogma, expectations, messages of eternal bliss or damnation, lots about god, and so on. He didn't speak of a spiritual path, but specifically that when you pray to model your prayers "Our Father who are in Heaven." Don't do this, but do that. That is religious dogma, not a spiritual practice that has broken from such rigid practices.

But at the time, he was a Jew talking to other Jews, in a culture dominated by patriarchal family clans, and that is reflected in how he speaks to them, and why they labeled him as they did.

That is what Christianity would have you believe. But with the missing 30 years of Jesus' life, we can't even say he was raised a Jew because it is not known, with the claim being not as outlandish as claiming Jesus studied to be a priest of Diana but having equal evidence to support it. But other than a Jewish historian who was known for appeasing the Romans and wrote long after the events, we can't even prove Jesus actually existed.

We only have a story, now, that was written long after Jesus' death by people with preset beliefs about him, and a religious agenda. We can only surmise, through reason, that there was a real person that inspired the story, and what that person might have actually said and done.

I agree there probably was a person who did inspire the Jesus stories. But when these stories become the Gospels, the religious message was there from day one, especially after the Counsel of Nicaea established Biblical Cannon.

 

[Baroodi]

The behavior is not rare, and is actually very common among social and non-social animals. A list of animals that homosexual behaviors has been observed in--including out in the wild--is pages long. And of course that doesn't mean it isn't inherently healthy for humans. But drinking water and breathing air have also been documented in other animals. Are we then to assume there could be some complications from these actions because we see them in other animals?

Yes Dear. I think so, a lot of complications. At least we can see many sexually transmitted diseases more often with this behavior, HIV as an example. Speculations link the origin of this virus to animals.

 

[Baroodi]

They’re literally nature, nothing they can do is unnatural. You made the statement that homosexuality was unnatural.
I retort that nature routinely disproves this on a daily basis.
And it is my understanding that Swans mate for life. Though admittedly it’s been a few years since Biology.
Also natural does not automatically mean beneficial. Conversely unnatural does not necessarily mean detrimental.
Man made things like cars or medicine are hardly organically natural, after all.

Yes SomeRandom, man made the car on the light of given science that was developed over time to follow the Math/physics laws, like the 3 Newton Laws which were discovered after toll of pain and efforts. Every thing is following a law (God creation)
Some people rebel to streamline with nature. I think it is a molded behavior. Mankind tend to be affected by the surrounding environment, I think so. If any one invented a cult today, after some time he can convince some people to follow him, though may be few of them

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes SomeRandom, man made the car on the light of given science that was developed over time to follow the Math/physics laws, like the 3 Newton Laws which were discovered after toll of pain and efforts. Every thing is following a law (God creation)
Some people rebel to streamline with nature. I think it is a molded behavior. Mankind tend to be affected by the surrounding environment, I think so. If any one invented a cult today, after some time he can convince some people to follow him, though may be few of them

“Law” in science is just the next stage of a Theory. It literally just describes a known predicatable phenomenon. I don’t think it’s really accurate to conflate scientific laws with that of theological understood “laws of God” since they are more abstract and change depending on the sect and religion. And even interpretation. A scientific law is a predicatable demonstrable phenomenon independent of such abstract notions. It is completely objective in nature and thus able to be understood and accepted regardless of things like disciplines (sects) or indeed academic backgrounds. It is not debated, it is not interpretated nor is it up for specific interpretations from any book.
Mathematical “laws” follow objective logic, again not to be conflated with subjective interpretations of law given to man by God/s.
It is plain unfiltered logic.

Cults are as old as human civilisation itself. Religions are arguably cults. At least some of them, including sects of Christianity. Not sure how that is relevant but whatever.
And yeah people are shaped by their environment, again no brainer. The hell does that have to do with homosexuality?
You do realise even when it was against the law or even punishable by death gay people still existed right?
That should be a clear indication that it’s not really a choice insofar as you seem to be trying to imply it is. If I understand the implications of your comment correctly.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think so, a lot of complications.

Practicing safe sex tends to take care of that. Plus there isn't really much a homosexual couple can do that a heterosexual couple can't (and don't).

At least we can see many sexually transmitted diseases more often with this behavior, HIV as an example.

Practicing safe sex tends to take care of that. Horny men, homo or hetero, are known for their unwillingness to practice it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Question.

Does the bible condemn male and female sexual interaction that is not vagina/penis intercourse?