The bible and homosexuality

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

Lam asked whether the Bible condemned homosexuality anywhere else than Leviticus. It does.

---

No, it may. The Romans passage is the stongest evidence for your point, but it does not describe loving, monogomous homosexual relationships.The reason I condemn Paul so harshly is to make the case that his words ought not be taken as representing any sort of worthwhile morality. Paul was not a moral man in any sense of the word, therefore the proscriptions contained in his epistolary rants should be ignored by anyone who wishes to live a moral life.I neither like nor dislike Paul. He was a product of his time, and if the bible is to be believed then he was indeed changed by Jesus. However, the reason he should be ignored today is that, since his time, we have come to realize that many of the practices he either endorsed or tolerated are immoral. If right is right and wrong is wrong, as many Christians insist, then much of what Paul endorsed and/or tolerated was just as wrong back then as today. Paul's epistles are therefore worthless.

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

As far as acting like sissies, I don't think effeminate actions are the same as acting like a sissy. I do think cowardice is among the major sins condemned by the Scriptures...

---

Then why doesn't the bible condemn the actions of Lot in Genesis 19?

I agree with that. Not sure Paul would.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The problem with biblical "condemnations" of homosexuality is the context in which they were written and the contexts in which they later were interpretted.For example: Dueteronomy 23:17King James reads, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."This appears to condemn all men who practice anal copulation and oral sex whether with a woman (considering the legal definition of sodomy)or with another man.However, looking at the original, we find the word "qadesh" or "holy one" used in as likely reference a person engaged in the ritual prostitution available at some shrines and temples in Canaan. So, the verse more correctly translates as, "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a 'cult prostitute,' nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a 'cult prostitute.'"Due to the fact that no anti-homosexual pronouncements are recorded as originating from Jesus, some biblical scholars think that the several NT verses commonly cited by Christian homophobics likewise originally referred more to ritual prostitution rather than secular homosexuality.Peace. Ab.

The Bible can be read by anyone and interpreted by anyone to justify many things. Only one who is filled with the Holy Spirit and has extensive knowledge of ancient greek and hebrew can be 100% sure of what the passages says with all its technicalities (this is the purpose of a pastor/teacher). Its not surprising that people can take God's Word and twist it to fit their beliefs. Satan did.

The sphincter muscle of your anus was made to allow things to go out only. Over prolonged "misuse" that muscle will not function as well as one used correctly. We now have proof of new medical problems dealing with anal sex. I know that a.s. isn't for male gays only, none-the-less homosexuality in a whole is unnatural. Two women cannot produce a child nor can two men. The whole idea behind procreation of the species is so we can go on. If we were all gay life would die. (Invetro fert. is time consuming and not everyone is up for it) This is why I'm against it. Gay friends? Yes, I have some. They are some of my closest friends. Are they wrong? Yes, as far as I'm concerned they are. No Bible thumping here bro. -Z

Zachariah blathers:

quote:

---

The sphincter muscle of your anus was made to allow things to go out only.

---

According to whom? You? Are you a proctologist?Of course there are health problems associated with anal sex. There are health problems associated with every possible human activity, including sex of every type.And by the way, why is it that you seem to believe all homosexuals practice anal sex? Do you obsess about this sort of thing?

quote:

---

...homosexuality in a whole is unnatural.

---

Again, according to whom? You? By what evidence is it unnatural?

quote:

---

Two women cannot produce a child nor can two men. The whole idea behind procreation of the species is so we can go on.

---

Where does that leave infertile couples? Are they unnatural, too?

quote:

---

If we were all gay life would die.

---

Here we go again! Why are you fundies so paraniod about the whole population becoming gay? You really do obsess about this stuff, don't you?

quote:

---

Again, according to whom? You? By what evidence is it unnatural?

---

By the evidence that homosexuals cant naturally reproduce.

quote:

---

Where does that leave infertile couples? Are they unnatural, too?

---

No there not unnatural. If they werent infertile they could reproduce. Its like a sickness thats preventing them. Not the fact that they cant naturally reproduce period. Like homosexualsThis message has been edited by almeyda, 06-08-2004 03:27 AM

They can, though. Plenty of them have. All they have to do is have sex with someone of the opposite sex, just like straight people.Did you think being gay makes you infertile, or something?

almeyda repeats the recurring rhetorical:

quote:

---

By the evidence that homosexuals cant naturally reproduce.

---

Neither can infertile couples.

quote:

---

Its like a sickness thats preventing them.

---

Perhaps sometimes. More often it's because of surgery, usually elective surgery. These are heterosexual couples who have chosen to not be able to naturally produce children. If they have sex it would needs be sinful in order for your feeble attempt at logic to hold.

quote:

---

These are heterosexual couples who have chosen to not be able to naturally produce children. If they have sex it would needs be sinful in order for your feeble attempt at logic to hold.

---

No it doesnt. It isnt logical. Even if they have surgery to stop them from having babies it is still the natural way to have sex. And God gave sex not just to reproduce. Of course at the start of marriage its to begin a family. But God isnt asking 80yr olds to not be sterile or else they will sin. They are a married couple that can freely express their love for each other. My feeble attempt at logic?. Ok then.

quote:

---

They can, though. Plenty of them have. All they have to do is have sex with someone of the opposite sex, just like straight people.

---

What the hell is that supposed to mean?. So polygamy is the only way homosexuals can reproduce? That sounds great. And so natural to. Just the way God likes it.

It means that gay people aren't infertile. If you take a gay man's sperm and a lesbian's egg, you'll wind up with a viable embryo.This is contrary to your allegation that gay people are infertile. Obviously, they are not. Who mentioned polygamy? The only way homosexuals can reproduce is the only way heterosexuals can reproduce - having sex with someone of the opposite sex. Why do you think it would be different for gay people?That's like saying that, since I like vanilla ice cream, and you like chocolate, spoons don't work the same way for both of us. It's just stupid. Gay people are just as fertile as straight people, and moreover, they're fertile in the exact same way - they can only conceive through the union of sperm and egg.

In Message 126, Zachariah asserts that "... homosexuality [as] a whole is unnatural ... the whole idea behind procreation of the species is so we can go on."Zach, you should spend some time studying monkeys, baboons, and apes. You'll find that many species closely related to homo sapiens engage in acts that would be classified by the laws of man as "sodomy" and "homosexuality." These act include anal penetration of young males by the dominant male, and playful sexual interactions between troop members of the same sex. Animal behaviorists believe certain behavior that appears as homosexual to the casual viewer in fact is necessary to establish order and promote successful perpetuation of the species.In brief summary, just because man has outlawed certain physical acts does not necessarily make them "unnatural." As a heterosexual lay person, I am not declaring homosexuality to be the "natural state of mankind," but I also don't feel qualified (or driven) to declare it unnatural or abominable.Peace. Ab.

almeyda bleats:

quote:

---

Even if they have surgery to stop them from having babies it is still the natural way to have sex.

---

Why? Because you say so? Sorry, if you're going to make a stab at logic you must be consistent. Sterile couples can no more produce children by having sex with each other than can gay couples. Also, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly in this and other threads, gay people can most certainly produce children in the "natural way". The fact that you may not approve of gay people producing children is your problem.The only reason you have for opposing homosexuality is your own narrow-minded bigotry. It has nothing to do with producing children.And, yes, your attempts at logic are very feeble indeed.

If you wish to identify with animals, that is your affair. Man is created on a higher order and should engage his brain before he engages in 'if it feels good, it must be ok, so do it'.
The distinction is between believers in a moral god, and non-believers. The moral god disdains all acts of perversion, including homosexuality. Regardless of the slant you put on 'it is written'. Paul was in instrument of the Holy Spirit. The latter was able to use an unusual man.
As it is, believers go round and round with unbelievers, where they should not. Round and round has no end in sight, no solution, no agreement, not that any of this is wanted.
God says no to all kinds of things. We say yes because we know better than he, we know what's good for us, after all.....
Christians, let go of those who would vex your spirit. You will not convince them, for here they go round and round again.
Maranatha!