Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

I, like Xzen, feel in total agreement with what you just said. That means someone is mistaken somewhere.Is this correct?:1) homosexuality is just as much a sin, or condemned, as any other human frailty, and therefore homosexuals are no more bad than any other human.2) that homosexuals deserve, and will get, salvation just like everyone else, as long as they admit their failing and strive to be better and request forgiveness.3) that continued homosexuality would be the same as continued failing such as lying and having sex outside of marriage.4) that it is only in commiting the sin of judgement... in trying to get the spotlight of God off their own failings... that certain Xians try to make it seem like homosexuals are somehow more deserving of punishment and more wicked.This is what I got out of your post, and seems to be in contradiction to Xzen's stated position so far. But I of course could be reading into it myself.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

I'm not trying to be insulting friend.

---

You don't have to worry about this. I get when you are insulting me, versus when you are saying something else is insulting or condemning me.Heck you can even say you condemn me because you follow X and X condemns me. I guess that means that you are insulting me, but it is not without reason.It is only insults without reason, that I really feel insulted by.As far as I can tell anyway, we are simply in disagreement on interpretation, which is what debate is about.

quote:

---

In Romans it says that they were given over to commiting these acts because they were unrighteous. So then if they were to become righteous by accepting Christ wouldn't they then stop those acts?

---

Not exactly. Read the wording of this. What God says he is doing is allowing those who have turned from him, to wallow in all these inconvenient acts which are sure to lead to their weakness and ruin.What he is not saying is that no one else does such things. Such level of decadence as outlined in Romans is surely a sign that a people have turned from God, but not that any individual who commits any such things have done so. After all, these sins are seen everywhere, even among the righteous (he who is without sin cast the first stone?).The main thing is to admit one's failings and strive to be better. Does it mean an end to an activity? The best will I guess, but it is not necessary. The main thing is admitting one's guilt and striving to be better. (Note: this is one huge reason why I am not a Xian myself, I cannot accept life=guilt).

quote:

---

Also how could a non-apostolic church marry a Homosexual couple when it is a display of unrighteousness?

---

The question of gay marriage is separate from biblical condemnation of homosexuality. Personally I do not see how the Old Testament Bible's God would accept such ritual.However the New Testament is up for grabs. It would seem equally, if not more, blasphemous to have interfaith marriages. I mean really, that would have to be the biggest slap in the face to God ever. Yet it is allowed without much yelling and screaming.If one can specifically be married in the eyes of God with a person who denies God and will teach ones children to deny God, why can't one get married to another who despite their other failings believes in God and is striving to be better through him?Both homosexuals could of course maintain fidelity and yet strive not to have sex (which appears to be the main problem). It is not as likely that an opposite faith partner, will strive to come to your God, or renounce their own as false.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

The only difference is that the Christian will by God's grace be able to stop their "unseemly" works. A fornicator by God's grace would cease their fornication.

---

Who on earth had God's grace but the very few prophets? Some of the saints of Catholicism maybe?If you can point to a Xian congregation where every member has given up every sin, then I'll start buying your argument. It was my understanding that we are afflicted with bad tastes and behaviors God KNOWS we will continue to practice. The best that we can hope for is to keep it to a minimum (which is relative), and beg for forgiveness for our unworthiness.Obviously that means that gays can't use this to say "hey see its alright to be gay!". It is just as sinful as other practices and the idea of "gay pride" is about the exact opposite of the humble behavior they should be practicing (as Xians).But this also does not give nongay Xians the right to say laws must be passed against them in specific, or to pick on them as exceptionally wicked to God. That itself is judgement, hubris, and wickedness.

quote:

---

While I don't agree that it's anymore a slap in the face than anything else we do that God doesn't want us too.

---

How could an interfaith marriage in a Xian church not be a much greater slap in the face than a gay marriage?First and foremost... though shalt have no other Gods before me. He is quite specific about never offending him by having other faiths around Him or his places of worship.While those Xians looking for condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible are forced to search for scattered details, those looking for condemnation of people worshipping other gods need look no further than the ten commendments, and the repetition of the importance of not allowing people to worship gods (esp at His temples) is much greater.Remember the point of Romans is that he allowed the corruption of homosexuality (among other things) to creep into a people AS PUNISHMENT FOR NOT WORSHIPPING HIM!If doing the deed he punishes, is not more offensive than the sin he uses as punishment, I stand a very confused person.BTW do you believe interfaith marriages should be banned by Xian churches and by US law (since that would just as well fit the "tradition" argument) just the same as homosexual ones?------------------
holmes

quote:

---

If you have accepted Christ you recieve Grace

---

I believe this is an equivocation on the term grace. Those that accept Christ notoriously fall down again. Only the very few get over whatever their "problems" are completely.My point about congregations which have given up every sin, was to ask you to find me where the presence of God or the acceptance of Christ has actually ended sin completely. If you are telling me you know of some group where God has given VICTORY over sin, I would like to have some evidence.Your example of homosexuals and fornicators giving up their lifestyle sounds like hucksterish claims of Xianity's curative powers. So what if people gave up one or both of those sins? Are you saying they had no other sins to answer for?Giving up one part of your lifestyle and declaring how wonderful you are now is simply ANOTHER SIN (pride and perhaps deceit). People gathering around to purge other people of the sins they themselves partcularly don't like, is once again... ANOTHER SIN (judgement, hubris, pride, and perhaps deceit and lying).Frankly, I can't wait to find the Xian denomination which has overcome the sins of judgement, hubris, pride, and deceit. IMO those would be much better to focus God's grace on, than mere sexual practices.Even your example of King David supports my argument. There are very very very few humans who live up to any of the "idols" of the Bible.

quote:

---

As far as the Church banning interfaith marriages I would have to say they should at least be consistent and ban them as well as homosexual marriage.

---

To be consistent, don't you believe they should be more of concern to Xians than homosexual marriages?Also, don't you believe that Xians should be more concerned about athiests and nonXians than homosexual Xians? One is a bad habit like anyone else's, the other is the height of blasphemy.------------------
holmes

Okay, since we seem to be agreed that it is the same as any other sin, what is the reason for the extra emphasis Xians seem to give it over other sins?And not to be insulting, but at first it seemed you were wanting to demonstrate that it was something extra special (as far as sins go), and not just that it was a sin. If I was not wrong, what was the reason for this?------------------
holmes

quote:

---

In it, holmes seems to be avoiding my very direct question. Perhaps you would do what he seems to be incapable of: What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when it's Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

---

I answered your goddamn question Rrhain. Here it is again: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BESIDES COSMETICS!!!!!!!THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BESIDES COSMETICS!!!! THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BESIDES COSMETICS!!!!!!In addition, I BELIEVE COSMETICS IS AN INSUFFICIENT REASON TO DENY GAYS THE RIGHT TO MARRY!!!!!!I invite everyone to go look at that other thread and tell me (or Rrhain) whether I have answered that question or not, and whether the above statement answers it here! In addition someone might want to tell him that it wasn't even the point I was raising, nor was it necessary for me in order to make my point.Rarrrrrrrrgh!Please Rrhain, do me the courtesy of never mentioning my name in posts again. After three different threads where you have driven me to near madness trying simply to communicate with you, I do not want any cause for having to deal with you anymore.In fact let's end it here. You think I dodge questions, I think you are insane or deliberately avoiding debate by pretending I am not answering you. I assume we both agree the evidence speaks for itself. Let the people judge as they will.And from now on we pretend the other does not exist...

---

holmes

quote:

---

Why are you guys so emotional and angry?!

---

There is a history between us. Despite being in agreement on almost all issues, there is usually one minor point within the overall issue that we disagree on.Long story short... our very ability to communicate ends while debating that disputed minutiae. He usually claims I am saying something (which I certainly am not), or that I am dodging his questions (which to my mind I am not). And I usually claim that he is dodging my questions (and to his mind he is not)... there maybe something else I do but you get the picture.No matter who is really at fault, it's bad all over. That's why I simply don't want him trying to communicate with me, or try to continue debating me on those past topics through others. I don't want to get sucked back in. And if/when it happens I am not going to be charming. I will go kicking and screaming.Feel free to read through our fights in various threads and determine for yourself which one of us is crazy (or being deceitful). We both feel the other is wrong and that the facts speak for themselves. Heheh, maybe we both are.I guess I want to make this clear, I am not saying I am right and he is wrong. That is besides the point. We obviously bring out the worst in each other, and over the slightest issues. So our starting or continuing to communicate is just not worth it (IMO). Kind of like I don't bother with Brad McFall's posts, because whether he is right or wrong it takes way too much of my time just trying to understand what he is saying. I leave him for others, with more time or faster brain processes, to debate.

---

holmes