Why is being gay considered wrong?

[Neo-Logic]

I'm assuming you don't disagree with homosexuality yourself, just are answering the question? I assume this because of your sig: "Limitation is my enemy and he who imposes it on me shall become my nemesis."

Kat

If someone asked me what I thought of it, I would say it's wrong, in my personal opinion. But would I support doing away with homosexuals or condemening them? No, I would not. While I do not advocate it, I also do not condemn it.

 

[Cold-Stone]

Michael,

If -just for the sake of argument, you were to see via textual analysis, that those homosexual concepts via those verses were in error and actually the verses condemn the act itself, it I do this for you, will you then adopt the view that homosexual is wrong?

Let's not jump ahead of ourselves here. If the christian church has been wrong on this concept for 2000 years, and some Bishop Spong and other perverts just got smarter then all the rest. The arrogance is thick in here.

I will show you the errors of your ways with these verses since this is my specialty ONLY if you agree that you will then (hypothetically,,,if) adopt the moral implications via the Bible if I'm right (along with every church father in history).

Again, if you don't agree to change, what's the point? It's simply air upon the buttocks of a stubborn ***admin edit***.

Cold-Stone Advantage

 

[pdoel]

Michael,

If -just for the sake of argument, you were to see via textual analysis, that those homosexual concepts via those verses were in error and actually the verses condemn the act itself, it I do this for you, will you then adopt the view that homosexual is wrong?

Let's not jump ahead of ourselves here. If the christian church has been wrong on this concept for 2000 years, and some Bishop Spong and other perverts just got smarter then all the rest. The arrogance is thick in here.

Would you agree that all people who have had pre-marital sex are wrong, and should not be allowed to marry and are abominations that will rot in hell for all eternity?

Would you agree that anyone who has ever been divorced, is also an abomination, who will spend all of eternity in hell?

What about women? Do the women in your family keep themselves covered at all times? Do they keep their mouths shut in Church, and if not, do you stone them for their sins? If not, then you are just as wrong as any homosexual. Since, you are an "expert" on these matters.

You may want to re-read John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that who shall ever believeth in Him, shall not perish, but have ever lasting life."

What makes you think that your sins can be forgiven, but the sins of homosexuals cannot? What makes you think it's ok for Christians to abandon the majority of the laws God spoke of in the old testament, but insist on keeping their ignorant views on homosexuality?

 

[michel]

Bless you, my friend.:clap

 

[Green Gaia]

Hey Cold Stone, you're a literalist right? You show me where Jesus Christ explicitly condemned homosexuality (no substituting any other words there) and I'll agree with you.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

*waits with Maize for the answer*

 

[matey]

Would you agree that all people who have had pre-marital sex are wrong, and should not be allowed to marry and are abominations that will rot in hell for all eternity?

Would you agree that anyone who has ever been divorced, is also an abomination, who will spend all of eternity in hell?

What about women? Do the women in your family keep themselves covered at all times? Do they keep their mouths shut in Church, and if not, do you stone them for their sins? If not, then you are just as wrong as any homosexual. Since, you are an "expert" on these matters.

You may want to re-read John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that who shall ever believeth in Him, shall not perish, but have ever lasting life."

What makes you think that your sins can be forgiven, but the sins of homosexuals cannot? What makes you think it's ok for Christians to abandon the majority of the laws God spoke of in the old testament, but insist on keeping their ignorant views on homosexuality?

Anybody can be forgiven of their sins at any time. But once you've tasted the poison and you puke it out, don't be like the dog who goes back to his own vomit to eat it up again. Though, if you do eat your own vomit again, you can still be forgiven. Though, it's probaly in your best interest to get away from that vomit and get on with living a productive life where you are more free of the desire's of this life.

The four noble truths of the Buddha teach that life is suffering and suffering is caused by desire, so free yourself of desire, and the attachment of desire, and you free yourself of suffering. Adopting the "Judeo-Christian" stance is a safeguard from those desires and the suffering caused by them. So, practically speaking, adopting Stone-Cold's hardline stance, you safeguard yourself from the poisons of this world.

When you sin and realize you have done so, you ask God for forgiveness. And after you have done so, you work on not sinning again. But we are weak, and we return to sin, back to our vomit. And you ask for forgiveness by God again and again, until you no longer want to ask again, and you stop lapping up your vomit and get on with Life.

But if you no longer ask for forgiveness, if you choose not to puke up your vomit which you have eaten again and again, you live in "perpetual gross sin" and you really aren't a Christian because you're in defiance of God by not recoginizing your Sin as a Sin.

But it seems some people pick and choose which commandments of God to adopt to best suit their interests and desires, and in doing so live in defiance of God. Or, some tailor and take out of context of the whole Bible, certain passages to suit themselves and other likeminded individuals.

As far as the old laws of the "OT" goes, I don't know much about that, but that's a good question and I'd like to hear some input about it.

 

[matey]

Hey Cold Stone, you're a literalist right? You show me where Jesus Christ explicitly condemned homosexuality (no substituting any other words there) and I'll agree with you.

I don't want to be answering for Cold Stone, but I have to say something here. Being as how the original Biblical texts were not in English"(no substituting any other words there)", but in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, you couldn't find J.C. explicitly condemning "homosexuality". It's also doubtfall "homosexuality" was even an actual word when the Word of God was written. The idea behind the word, however, was probably alive back in the day.

 

[jamaesi]

... So like, where´s the victim in homosexuality? What makes it so bad besides a book that may not even be right on it.

 

[Draka]

... So like, where´s the victim in homosexuality? What makes it so bad besides a book that may not even be right on it.

No one and nothing.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Pleaseohpleaseohplease... Tell me I'm reading this wrong.

Anybody can be forgiven of their sins at any time. But once you've tasted the poison and you puke it out, don't be like the dog who goes back to his own vomit to eat it up again. Though, if you do eat your own vomit again, you can still be forgiven. Though, it's probaly in your best interest to get away from that vomit and get on with living a productive life where you are more free of the desire's of this life.

Was a person's orientation (something they can no more change than the color of their skin) just compared with vomit?

 

[matey]

Pleaseohpleaseohplease... Tell me I'm reading this wrong.


Was a person's orientation (something they can no more change than the color of their skin) just compared with vomit?

Yes, vomit being a metaphor or simile for a sin. Something bad. If you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian way of thinking, then yes sin is bad, homosexuality being a sin is bad.

You avoid sin(all sin) like you avoid eating your own vomit. You don't think about vomit itself, you think about returning to sin. If you are working on not sinning, you try your best to not sin. If you view homosexual sex as a sin, you avoid it. If you have gaysex, then you have sinned(tasted the poison). If you realize that it was a sin, you ask for forgiveness(puke out the poison). If you have gaysex again then you have sinned again(returned to the vomit). And then you ask for forgiveness and still, you might return to your sin many times over and over, ad nauseam. (The whole point of not returning to sin(vomit), is self-improvement and a ticket to heaven, i.e. getting closer to God, loving God)

The person's own orientation would only be compared to vomit if they subscribe to Judeo-Christian thinking or any other way of thinking which forbids homosexuality.

If you do not think like that you would probaly view your own orientation in a positive light and would not even think about changing your orientation because it would "go against every cell in your body".

If you do not subscribe to this way of thinking then you have no worries about this comparison because you obviously do not apply it to yourself. :bonk:



:areyoucra

 

[Draka]

I don't know about anyone else, but that just seems a gross comparison to me.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

If you do not subscribe to this way of thinking then you have no worries about this comparison because you obviously do not apply it to yourself. :bonk:

But the part I'm more confused/alarmed by is that others would try applying it to me. For example, I don't happen to be gay, but what if my religion taught that all straight people's orientation was vomit because my religion percieves it as a sin? Even if other people didn't subscribe to this theory, it would affect how I interact with them because I would view an unchangeable part of their nature as so much regurgitated food. It would affect me, also, as a straight person, because if I chose to adhere to that interpretation of sin, I would view myself as lesser (or sinful) because I am straight.

I do have worries about this comparison, because if others believe this to be true, then they are going to view my friends as sinful and me sinful as an extention because I believe otherwise. It does affect me, even though I'm not gay or follow the Judeo- Christian belief system.

 

[joeboonda]

dont make them do it. I mean, if one is a fundamentalist, Bible-believing pastor, who believes the Bible teaches that its wrong, then he should not be forced by the government to marry a gay couple in his church. i dont mind them getting married somewhere where they agree with them, i am just saying that gay people have rights and non-gay people have rights, and we should take care not to trample each others rights. gay marriage in history is a very rare thing, and frowned upon in almost every culture, its not just a christian thing, i think thats because God wrote his laws in our hearts if we could tune in to them. but i am no authority, just chatting

 

[Jaymes]

I believe it's supposed to be disgusting enough to get people to change their homosexuality, Draka. Fortunately, I grew up around dogs and have witnessed much nastier displays than eating vomit. (Let's just say we also raise cows... and the dogs have a rather icky interest in their dung. Ew.)

 

[Green Gaia]

I mean, if one is a fundamentalist, Bible-believing pastor, who believes the Bible teaches that its wrong, then he should not be forced by the government to marry a gay couple in his church.

Not is not an issue, has never been an issue and never will be. Churches now can pick and choose whom they marry and who they won't. Some will not marry anyone outside their congregation, some not outside their denomination, and some don't care as long as the wedding party cleans up after themself. I am so sick of hearing this lie that that if same sex couples are allowed to marry ALL churches will be forced to marry gay couples. IT'S NOT TRUE! There are many churches even now willing to marry same sex couples, so I really have no idea what makes people think same sex couples would want to go to someone didn't want them there!

 

[matey]

But the part I'm more confused/alarmed by is that others would try applying it to me. For example, I don't happen to be gay, but what if my religion taught that all straight people's orientation was vomit because my religion percieves it as a sin? Even if other people didn't subscribe to this theory, it would affect how I interact with them because I would view an unchangeable part of their nature as so much regurgitated food. It would affect me, also, as a straight person, because if I chose to adhere to that interpretation of sin, I would view myself as lesser (or sinful) because I am straight.

I do have worries about this comparison, because if others believe this to be true, then they are going to view my friends as sinful and me sinful as an extention because I believe otherwise. It does affect me, even though I'm not gay or follow the Judeo- Christian belief system.

It's only a sin to yourself. You don't apply it to others. That is why you don't judge others, you love others. i.e. love thy neighbor, and don't have a "Holier than Thou" attitude, worry about yourself instead, just like Metallica said.
like Jesus said, let the man without sin cast the first stone upon the sinner. No one cast the first stone because they were all sinners and knew it. Only Jesus was without sin and he didn't cast the first stone because he forgave the sinner, and He forgives all sins, all ya gotta do is ask, I think.

 

[Melody]

I don't like the idea of being raised by parents who teach me to judge, who teach me that this or that is a sin, and point their fingers at all the sinners, while they constantly sin themselves. Living that way is just a defense mechanism. Some people can only feel good about themselves by pointing out the wrongs in other people.

If someone says homosexuality is wrong, that's not pointing a finger and it's not judging. It's merely a statement of their beliefs.
If someone says people who act on their homosexuality are sinners and are going to hell, that's pointing and judging. Only God knows who the sinners are and if their sin is going to send them to hell.

Perhaps that's what is massively wrong with the world...parents aren't teaching their children to "judge" (aka "discern") or teaching them that "this or that" is a sin. I did raise my children this way and it's called "teaching them values" and "teaching them the difference between right and wrong"...both by word and modeling the appropriate behavior.

 

[michel]

Michael,

If -just for the sake of argument, you were to see via textual analysis, that those homosexual concepts via those verses were in error and actually the verses condemn the act itself, it I do this for you, will you then adopt the view that homosexual is wrong?

Let's not jump ahead of ourselves here. If the christian church has been wrong on this concept for 2000 years, and some Bishop Spong and other perverts just got smarter then all the rest. The arrogance is thick in here.

I will show you the errors of your ways with these verses since this is my specialty ONLY if you agree that you will then (hypothetically,,,if) adopt the moral implications via the Bible if I'm right (along with every church father in history).

Again, if you don't agree to change, what's the point? It's simply air upon the buttocks of a stubborn ***admin edit***.

Cold-Stone Advantage

Cold-stone,

From what I understand from your post, you are, if I understand correctly, asking me to:-
a) accept that 'those' homosexual concepts via those verses were in error and actually the verses condemn the act itself, it I do this for you, will you then adopt the view that homosexual is wrong

b) accept that If the christian church has been wrong on this concept for 2000 years, and some Bishop Spong and other perverts just got smarter then all the rest. The arrogance is thick in here.

c) accept that you will show me the errors of my ways with these verses since this is your specialty ONLY if you agree that I will then (hypothetically,,,if) adopt the moral implications via the Bible if you are right (along with every church father in history).

This seems to be able to be reduced to:-
A) The Bible is written incorrectly - and you and you alone know the true verses of the Bible.
B)Christianity in it's beliefs is hogwash, and we have been duped into believing all this hogwash for 2000 years and 'Some Bishop Spong and other perverts just got smarter than the rest?@!&!!!
c) I am to accept your offer conditional, on the following premise :- if you give me the benefit of your secret knowlege that all Christians have been completely lost for the last 2000 years, then I must promise to adopt the moral implications via the Bible (Which I think you are implying you are the only person to have understood).

I hope you won't be upset if I decline your very kind and enlightening offer. I would never promise to something which I have to accept on trust, offered to me by one man - against all the precepts of Christianity for the last 2000 years. Come on; who on Earth do you think would be prepared to accept such a condition ?

Basically, as far as I can understand, you claim to have some revised version of the Bible, which changes the meaning of what you would have it to change to suit your own needs.
You seem to further suggest that you are prepared to share this with me alone - oh How I am honoured!
May I make a suggestion ? :- Why do you not take your wonderful revelations straight to the Pope at the Vatican ? - I think he would be interested to know that he has misunderstodd the bible..................:jam: :help: :shout