Homosexuality and the Church

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The church should say,“You are a human, a creation of God. You are welcome to worship here, we preach from the bible and strive to live by it’s doctrines. While we, as an institution, do not condone your sexuality, you may cultivate a relationship with God in our midst but we will teach the Bible as the Bible is written.”

They should say this to uncovered women, long headed fellows, drug addicts and any one else.
[/quote]

But they don’t. From their doctrinal perspective, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with women praying with their heads uncovered, women speaking in church, women having short hair, men having long hair, and people divorcing (with “good cause”).

Again, I don’t know what church you belong to that actually does all of this, but I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to the remaining 99% of Christianity.[/quote]

You’re right. As long as you ignore everything everyone else has written on those subjects.[/quote]

You mean all the rationalization about how those are just cultural practices, although the bible doesn’t say this, and the hypocrisy of not acknowledging the homophobia of the time could have similarly influenced Paul’s disapproval of gays?[/quote]

Paul wasn’t the only one who condemned homosexuality.

Plus the condemnations of homosexuality are very different.

Paul with the women stuff is discussing behaving respectfully for the time. And the teaching is that women should obey respectful customs in the church.

Further, using this context of what he says about women is the only interpretation that allows his other writings to make sense. The way you are taking it, the verses on not talking and wearing a head contradict one another.

You are talking out your ass. And have ignored 90% of my rebuttals.
[/quote]

Who’s talking out of his ass here?

HoustonGuy agrees that all of those commandments are biblical, and apply today just as they applied 2k years ago. Who is right, you or him? I don’t see a time limit on what Paul wrote, do you?

Paul is in fact the only person in the entire new testament to even mention homosexuality. Jesus, and every other apostle, said not a word. There are 2 passages in Leviticus and 1 in Genesis, but those don’t count, right? Unless you want to consider eating pork an abomination too.[/quote]

Actually, Christ reinforced that sex is only between men and women in holy matrimony…

/end debate

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The church should say,“You are a human, a creation of God. You are welcome to worship here, we preach from the bible and strive to live by it’s doctrines. While we, as an institution, do not condone your sexuality, you may cultivate a relationship with God in our midst but we will teach the Bible as the Bible is written.”

They should say this to uncovered women, long headed fellows, drug addicts and any one else.
[/quote]

But they don’t. From their doctrinal perspective, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with women praying with their heads uncovered, women speaking in church, women having short hair, men having long hair, and people divorcing (with “good cause”).

Again, I don’t know what church you belong to that actually does all of this, but I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to the remaining 99% of Christianity.[/quote]

You’re right. As long as you ignore everything everyone else has written on those subjects.[/quote]

You mean all the rationalization about how those are just cultural practices, although the bible doesn’t say this, and the hypocrisy of not acknowledging the homophobia of the time could have similarly influenced Paul’s disapproval of gays?[/quote]

Paul wasn’t the only one who condemned homosexuality.

Plus the condemnations of homosexuality are very different.

Paul with the women stuff is discussing behaving respectfully for the time. And the teaching is that women should obey respectful customs in the church.

Further, using this context of what he says about women is the only interpretation that allows his other writings to make sense. The way you are taking it, the verses on not talking and wearing a head contradict one another.

You are talking out your ass. And have ignored 90% of my rebuttals.
[/quote]

Who’s talking out of his ass here?

HoustonGuy agrees that all of those commandments are biblical, and apply today just as they applied 2k years ago. Who is right, you or him? I don’t see a time limit on what Paul wrote, do you?

Paul is in fact the only person in the entire new testament to even mention homosexuality. Jesus, and every other apostle, said not a word. There are 2 passages in Leviticus and 1 in Genesis, but those don’t count, right? Unless you want to consider eating pork an abomination too.[/quote]

Actually, Christ reinforced that sex is only between men and women in holy matrimony…

/end debate[/quote]

Reference?

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The church should say,“You are a human, a creation of God. You are welcome to worship here, we preach from the bible and strive to live by it’s doctrines. While we, as an institution, do not condone your sexuality, you may cultivate a relationship with God in our midst but we will teach the Bible as the Bible is written.”

They should say this to uncovered women, long headed fellows, drug addicts and any one else.
[/quote]

But they don’t. From their doctrinal perspective, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with women praying with their heads uncovered, women speaking in church, women having short hair, men having long hair, and people divorcing (with “good cause”).

Again, I don’t know what church you belong to that actually does all of this, but I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to the remaining 99% of Christianity.[/quote]

You’re right. As long as you ignore everything everyone else has written on those subjects.[/quote]

You mean all the rationalization about how those are just cultural practices, although the bible doesn’t say this, and the hypocrisy of not acknowledging the homophobia of the time could have similarly influenced Paul’s disapproval of gays?[/quote]

Paul wasn’t the only one who condemned homosexuality.

Plus the condemnations of homosexuality are very different.

Paul with the women stuff is discussing behaving respectfully for the time. And the teaching is that women should obey respectful customs in the church.

Further, using this context of what he says about women is the only interpretation that allows his other writings to make sense. The way you are taking it, the verses on not talking and wearing a head contradict one another.

You are talking out your ass. And have ignored 90% of my rebuttals.
[/quote]

Who’s talking out of his ass here?

HoustonGuy agrees that all of those commandments are biblical, and apply today just as they applied 2k years ago. Who is right, you or him? I don’t see a time limit on what Paul wrote, do you?

Paul is in fact the only person in the entire new testament to even mention homosexuality. Jesus, and every other apostle, said not a word. There are 2 passages in Leviticus and 1 in Genesis, but those don’t count, right? Unless you want to consider eating pork an abomination too.[/quote]

Actually, Christ reinforced that sex is only between men and women in holy matrimony…

/end debate[/quote]

Reference?

[/quote]

Mathew 19:

19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

edit: Marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman, as planned by God, from the very beginning.

You were unaware that Christ said as much? I’ve always assumed that you knew this…

Another point, apparently Christ never shocked his disciples and apostles with any language condoning homosexuality (and it would’ve been flat out shocking), deviating from the norm. Had he, we would’ve seen it in the gospels. It would’ve been a pretty big damn deviation from moral teaching.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?[/quote]

What about all the exceptions? The bible doesn’t say it’s ok to divorce when your spouse cheats on you, or when you are physically abused, or even when you just have irreconcilable differences. But how many churches actually encourage this?[/quote]

Do these people actively seek out divorce in their life? NO. there is no equivalence.

Sometimes divorce can be the lesser of evils.

Like say if you had the option of having sex with a man or 50 children dieing, gay sex could be justified. But then you aren’t actively seeking out the sin.[/quote]

Fair enough, so if being in a committed same sex relationship significantly improves someone’s physical and mental health, while reducing suicides, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and sexual irresponsibility, would you agree that it would be the lesser of evils?[/quote]

It may be the lesser of those 2 evils, but is not the least of the available choices. Those are not the only choices available. So, no, it is not acceptable.[/quote]

What about, for example, believers who have committed suicide due to their inability to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sexual orientation? Would it not be the least evil for them to be in a healthy, loving same sex relationship than to endure a life so miserable they would rather end it?[/quote]

It would also be better for me to rape the women I meet, rather than rape AND kill them. But rape is still wrong.

And if they were following religious beliefs, they wouldn’t commit suicide more than they wouldn’t be a homosexual.[/quote]

Ok, but by the same token divorce is still wrong, so the woman can avoid sin by staying in an abusive marriage. Why put her eternal soul at risk, just to avoid a black eye every now and then?[/quote]

You are ignoring what I already stated. In that case there are only 2 options. Getting abused and getting divorced. Divorce can be the best option.

They don’t have any other options.

But you will probably just ignore this point too.[/quote]

And what you’re ignoring is that acting contrary to one’s sexual orientation can be just as damaging.[/quote]

I’m sorry, I thought we were discussing Christianity.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The church should say,“You are a human, a creation of God. You are welcome to worship here, we preach from the bible and strive to live by it’s doctrines. While we, as an institution, do not condone your sexuality, you may cultivate a relationship with God in our midst but we will teach the Bible as the Bible is written.”

They should say this to uncovered women, long headed fellows, drug addicts and any one else.
[/quote]

But they don’t. From their doctrinal perspective, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with women praying with their heads uncovered, women speaking in church, women having short hair, men having long hair, and people divorcing (with “good cause”).

Again, I don’t know what church you belong to that actually does all of this, but I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to the remaining 99% of Christianity.[/quote]

You’re right. As long as you ignore everything everyone else has written on those subjects.[/quote]

You mean all the rationalization about how those are just cultural practices, although the bible doesn’t say this, and the hypocrisy of not acknowledging the homophobia of the time could have similarly influenced Paul’s disapproval of gays?[/quote]

Paul wasn’t the only one who condemned homosexuality.

Plus the condemnations of homosexuality are very different.

Paul with the women stuff is discussing behaving respectfully for the time. And the teaching is that women should obey respectful customs in the church.

Further, using this context of what he says about women is the only interpretation that allows his other writings to make sense. The way you are taking it, the verses on not talking and wearing a head contradict one another.

You are talking out your ass. And have ignored 90% of my rebuttals.
[/quote]

Who’s talking out of his ass here?

HoustonGuy agrees that all of those commandments are biblical, and apply today just as they applied 2k years ago. Who is right, you or him? I don’t see a time limit on what Paul wrote, do you?

Paul is in fact the only person in the entire new testament to even mention homosexuality. Jesus, and every other apostle, said not a word. There are 2 passages in Leviticus and 1 in Genesis, but those don’t count, right? Unless you want to consider eating pork an abomination too.[/quote]

So why haven’t you yet argued that a christian is not allowed to do anything but meditate on the law?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You do know that churches actively try to prevent and discourage divorce, right?[/quote]

What about all the exceptions? The bible doesn’t say it’s ok to divorce when your spouse cheats on you, or when you are physically abused, or even when you just have irreconcilable differences. But how many churches actually encourage this?[/quote]

Do these people actively seek out divorce in their life? NO. there is no equivalence.

Sometimes divorce can be the lesser of evils.

Like say if you had the option of having sex with a man or 50 children dieing, gay sex could be justified. But then you aren’t actively seeking out the sin.[/quote]

Fair enough, so if being in a committed same sex relationship significantly improves someone’s physical and mental health, while reducing suicides, anxiety, depression, drug abuse, and sexual irresponsibility, would you agree that it would be the lesser of evils?[/quote]

It may be the lesser of those 2 evils, but is not the least of the available choices. Those are not the only choices available. So, no, it is not acceptable.[/quote]

What about, for example, believers who have committed suicide due to their inability to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sexual orientation? Would it not be the least evil for them to be in a healthy, loving same sex relationship than to endure a life so miserable they would rather end it?[/quote]

It would also be better for me to rape the women I meet, rather than rape AND kill them. But rape is still wrong.

And if they were following religious beliefs, they wouldn’t commit suicide more than they wouldn’t be a homosexual.[/quote]

Ok, but by the same token divorce is still wrong, so the woman can avoid sin by staying in an abusive marriage. Why put her eternal soul at risk, just to avoid a black eye every now and then?[/quote]

You are ignoring what I already stated. In that case there are only 2 options. Getting abused and getting divorced. Divorce can be the best option.

They don’t have any other options.

But you will probably just ignore this point too.[/quote]

And what you’re ignoring is that acting contrary to one’s sexual orientation can be just as damaging.[/quote]

I’m sorry, I thought we were discussing Christianity. [/quote]

You forgot forlife is ALWAYS discussing homosexuality.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

The church should say,“You are a human, a creation of God. You are welcome to worship here, we preach from the bible and strive to live by it’s doctrines. While we, as an institution, do not condone your sexuality, you may cultivate a relationship with God in our midst but we will teach the Bible as the Bible is written.”

They should say this to uncovered women, long headed fellows, drug addicts and any one else.
[/quote]

But they don’t. From their doctrinal perspective, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with women praying with their heads uncovered, women speaking in church, women having short hair, men having long hair, and people divorcing (with “good cause”).

Again, I don’t know what church you belong to that actually does all of this, but I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to the remaining 99% of Christianity.[/quote]

You’re right. As long as you ignore everything everyone else has written on those subjects.[/quote]

You mean all the rationalization about how those are just cultural practices, although the bible doesn’t say this, and the hypocrisy of not acknowledging the homophobia of the time could have similarly influenced Paul’s disapproval of gays?[/quote]

Paul wasn’t the only one who condemned homosexuality.

Plus the condemnations of homosexuality are very different.

Paul with the women stuff is discussing behaving respectfully for the time. And the teaching is that women should obey respectful customs in the church.

Further, using this context of what he says about women is the only interpretation that allows his other writings to make sense. The way you are taking it, the verses on not talking and wearing a head contradict one another.

You are talking out your ass. And have ignored 90% of my rebuttals.
[/quote]

Who’s talking out of his ass here?

HoustonGuy agrees that all of those commandments are biblical, and apply today just as they applied 2k years ago. Who is right, you or him? I don’t see a time limit on what Paul wrote, do you?

Paul is in fact the only person in the entire new testament to even mention homosexuality. Jesus, and every other apostle, said not a word. There are 2 passages in Leviticus and 1 in Genesis, but those don’t count, right? Unless you want to consider eating pork an abomination too.[/quote]

Actually, Christ reinforced that sex is only between men and women in holy matrimony…

/end debate[/quote]

Reference?

[/quote]

Mathew 19:

19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

edit: Marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman, as planned by God, from the very beginning.

You were unaware that Christ said as much? I’ve always assumed that you knew this…

Another point, apparently Christ never shocked his disciples and apostles with any language condoning homosexuality (and it would’ve been flat out shocking), deviating from the norm. Had he, we would’ve seen it in the gospels. It would’ve been a pretty big damn deviation from moral teaching.[/quote]

I’m well aware of the passage, but was hoping you might provide something that actually supported what you said.

It’s a timely passage though, because it was in reference to a question by the Pharisees on a man being able to divorce his wife. Jesus said quite clearly that what god has joined together, let no one separate. He said that with the sole exception of adultery, divorce was a sin.

Interesting biblical commentary on Paul’s 3 statements about
homosexuality. I share it to help some of the Christians in our midst
understand why other Christians may genuinely interpret these passages
differently:

[quote]ROMANS 1:26-27
NATURAL AND UNNATURAL

What does Romans 1:26-27 say about God?

For our discussion, this is the most controversial biblical passage of
them all. In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish
women who exchange “natural use for unnatural” and non-Jewish men who
“leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.”

This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women
and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let’s
go back 2,000 years and try to understand why.

Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the
Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to
honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex
and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors.
Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual
behaviors – including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken
sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male
and female) – all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.

The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator
celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion
gets control of our lives, we’re in deep trouble.

When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God’s children
and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the
false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul’s time. In our
obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who
created us – and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the
great dreams God has for our lives.

Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because
they were lesbian or gay? I don’t think so. Did God abandon them
because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.

In our Soulforce video, There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy, the Rev.
Dr. Louis B. Smedes, a distinguished Christian author and ethicist,
describes exactly how the Bible says these promiscuous priests and
priestesses got into this mess. Once again it has nothing to do with
homosexuality:

SMEDES: “The people Paul had in mind refused to acknowledge and
worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God. And being
abandoned by God, they sank into sexual depravity.”

SMEDES: “The homosexuals I know have not rejected God at all; they
love God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts. How, then,
could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for
refusing to acknowledge God?”

SMEDES: “Nor have the homosexuals that I know given up heterosexual
passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the
moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from
one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were
homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have
heterosexual sex.”

SMEDES: “And the homosexual people I know do not lust after each other
any more than heterosexual people do… their love for one another is
likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love
can be.”

Thank you, Dr. Smedes. (To get a copy of the video featuring Dr.
Smedes, There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy, visit www.soulforce.org.)

Getting to know a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person of
faith will help you realize that it is unreasonable (and unjust) to
compare our love for each other to the rituals of the priests and
priestesses who pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana.
Once again, I feel certain this passage says a lot about God, but
nothing about homosexuality as we understand it.

You’ll also note that Romans 2 begins with “Therefore, [referring to
Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others;
for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself…” Even after
he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that
judging others is God’s business, not ours.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10
THE MYSTERY OF “MALOKOIS” AND “ARSENOKOITAI”

Now what do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy
1:10 say, first, about God, and then about homosexuality? These are
the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex
behavior. We can combine them because they are so similar.

Paul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are
fighting among themselves. (Sound familiar?) In Corinth they’re even
suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts across the distance,
“You are breaking God’s heart by the way you are treating one
another.”

Like any good writer, Paul anticipates their first question: “Well,
how are we supposed to treat one another?” Paul answers, “You know
very well how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on
tablets of stone.”

The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To
remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat
one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don’t
kill one another. Don’t sleep with a person who is married to someone
else. Don’t lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include
admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury,
drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes “malokois” and
“arsenokoitai.”

Here’s where the confusion begins. What’s a malokois? What’s an
arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars
to this very day. We’ll say more about them later, when we ask what
the texts say about sex. But first let’s see what the texts say about
God.

After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in
Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love
that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying,
cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict
adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and
a faith that isn’t phony.

That’s the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn’t
want us squabbling over who is “in” and who is “out.” God wants us to
love one another. It’s God’s task to judge us. It is NOT our task to
judge one another.

So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and
lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to
make an entirely different point?

Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois
probably meant “effeminate call boys.” The New Revised Standard
Version says “male prostitutes.”

As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don’t know exactly what it means
– and the fact that we don’t know is a big part of this tragic
debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the
customers of “the effeminate call boys.” We might call them “dirty old
men.” Others translate the word as “sodomites,” but never explain what
that means.

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that
mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even
though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that
translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word
homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

In the past, people used Paul’s writings to support slavery,
segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul’s writings to
oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in
society.

Now we have to ask ourselves, “Is it happening again?” Is a word in
Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society’s
prejudice and condemn God’s gay children?

We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word
arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the
argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who
hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they
hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.

Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses
children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the
threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed
priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that
this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as
we understand it today.[/quote]

[quote]
Sloth:
Actually, Christ reinforced that sex is only between men and women in holy matrimony…

/end debate

Forlife:
Reference?

Sloth:

Mathew 19:

19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

edit: Marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman, as planned by God, from the very beginning.

You were unaware that Christ said as much? I’ve always assumed that you knew this…

Another point, apparently Christ never shocked his disciples and apostles with any language condoning homosexuality (and it would’ve been flat out shocking), deviating from the norm. Had he, we would’ve seen it in the gospels. It would’ve been a pretty big damn deviation from moral teaching.

I’m well aware of the passage, but was hoping you might provide something that actually supported what you said.[/quote]

I just did. Knock it off.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Interesting biblical commentary on Paul’s 3 statements about
homosexuality. I share it to help some of the Christians in our midst
understand why other Christians may genuinely interpret these passages
differently:

ROMANS 1:26-27[/b]
NATURAL AND UNNATURAL

What does Romans 1:26-27 say about God?

For our discussion, this is the most controversial biblical passage of
them all. In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish
women who exchange “natural use for unnatural” and non-Jewish men who
“leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.”

This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women
and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let’s
go back 2,000 years and try to understand why.

Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the
Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to
honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex
and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors.
Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual
behaviors – including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken
sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male
and female) – all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.

The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator
celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion
gets control of our lives, we’re in deep trouble.

When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God’s children
and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the
false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul’s time. In our
obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who
created us – and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the
great dreams God has for our lives.

Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because
they were lesbian or gay? I don’t think so. Did God abandon them
because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.

In our Soulforce video, There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy, the Rev.
Dr. Louis B. Smedes, a distinguished Christian author and ethicist,
describes exactly how the Bible says these promiscuous priests and
priestesses got into this mess. Once again it has nothing to do with
homosexuality:

SMEDES: “The people Paul had in mind refused to acknowledge and
worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God. And being
abandoned by God, they sank into sexual depravity.”

SMEDES: “The homosexuals I know have not rejected God at all; they
love God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts. How, then,
could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for
refusing to acknowledge God?”

SMEDES: “Nor have the homosexuals that I know given up heterosexual
passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the
moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from
one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were
homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have
heterosexual sex.”

SMEDES: “And the homosexual people I know do not lust after each other
any more than heterosexual people do… their love for one another is
likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love
can be.”

Thank you, Dr. Smedes. (To get a copy of the video featuring Dr.
Smedes, There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy, visit www.soulforce.org.)

Getting to know a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person of
faith will help you realize that it is unreasonable (and unjust) to
compare our love for each other to the rituals of the priests and
priestesses who pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana.
Once again, I feel certain this passage says a lot about God, but
nothing about homosexuality as we understand it.

You’ll also note that Romans 2 begins with “Therefore, [referring to
Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others;
for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself…” Even after
he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that
judging others is God’s business, not ours.[/quote]

Pathetic. The verse makes no distinctions at all. It makes a generalized statement about the homosexual act, period. Absolutely pathetic. Directly it compares the natural sex between men and women, with the ‘perversion’ of the unnatural act of each being with the same.

This is first grade reading level.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

A direct comparison between natural sex (men with women) and perversions (the sexes with same sex). Period.

But by golly, we just discovered Jesus was revolutionary Jewish sexual anarchist!

[quote]Sloth wrote:

No, you didn’t. It’s a question specifically about divorce, which obviously only entailed men and women since gays didn’t marry back then. And in any case, it says absolutely nothing about sex in the passage.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Interesting biblical commentary on Paul’s 3 statements about
homosexuality. I share it to help some of the Christians in our midst
understand why other Christians may genuinely interpret these passages
differently:

ROMANS 1:26-27[/b]
NATURAL AND UNNATURAL

What does Romans 1:26-27 say about God?

For our discussion, this is the most controversial biblical passage of
them all. In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish
women who exchange “natural use for unnatural” and non-Jewish men who
“leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.”

This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women
and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let’s
go back 2,000 years and try to understand why.

Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the
Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to
honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex
and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors.
Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual
behaviors – including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken
sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male
and female) – all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.

The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator
celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion
gets control of our lives, we’re in deep trouble.

When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God’s children
and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the
false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul’s time. In our
obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who
created us – and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the
great dreams God has for our lives.

Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because
they were lesbian or gay? I don’t think so. Did God abandon them
because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.

In our Soulforce video, There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy, the Rev.
Dr. Louis B. Smedes, a distinguished Christian author and ethicist,
describes exactly how the Bible says these promiscuous priests and
priestesses got into this mess. Once again it has nothing to do with
homosexuality:

SMEDES: “The people Paul had in mind refused to acknowledge and
worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God. And being
abandoned by God, they sank into sexual depravity.”

SMEDES: “The homosexuals I know have not rejected God at all; they
love God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts. How, then,
could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for
refusing to acknowledge God?”

SMEDES: “Nor have the homosexuals that I know given up heterosexual
passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the
moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from
one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were
homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have
heterosexual sex.”

SMEDES: “And the homosexual people I know do not lust after each other
any more than heterosexual people do… their love for one another is
likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love
can be.”

Thank you, Dr. Smedes. (To get a copy of the video featuring Dr.
Smedes, There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy, visit www.soulforce.org.)

Getting to know a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person of
faith will help you realize that it is unreasonable (and unjust) to
compare our love for each other to the rituals of the priests and
priestesses who pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana.
Once again, I feel certain this passage says a lot about God, but
nothing about homosexuality as we understand it.

You’ll also note that Romans 2 begins with “Therefore, [referring to
Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others;
for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself…” Even after
he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that
judging others is God’s business, not ours.[/quote]

Pathetic. The verse makes no distinctions at all. It makes a generalized statement about the homosexual act, period. Absolutely pathetic. Directly it compares the natural sex between men and women, with the ‘perversion’ of the unnatural act of each being with the same.

This is first grade reading level.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

A direct comparison between natural sex (men with women) and perversions (the sexes with same sex). Period.

But by golly, we just discovered Jesus was revolutionary Jewish sexual anarchist!

[/quote]

Oh, you mean it makes absolutely no distinctions just like forbidding women to pray with their heads uncovered makes absolutely no distinctions? Gotcha.

[quote]forlife wrote:

No, you didn’t. It’s a question specifically about divorce, which obviously only entailed men and women since gays didn’t marry back then. And in any case, it says absolutely nothing about sex in the passage.
[/quote]

Dude, we’re talking about Christianity, remember? Marriage is sanctioned by God. God created man and women to leave their mother and fathers and be with those of the opposite sex. And really, now I have to defend the anti-fornication and adultery teachings of Christianity? I thought you were at least aware enough of the bible and Christianity, so I could at least skip having to back up those topics.

  1. Pre-marital sex is a sin in Christianity. Don’t start acting dumb on this one.
  2. Men were not sanctioned to marry men (as you yourself said). Christ not only didn’t challenge this, he reinforced that marriage was between men and women, as planned from the beginning by God.
  3. Homosexuality, is not only an unnatural act, but can only be an act of fornication.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Interesting biblical commentary on Paul’s 3 statements about
homosexuality. I share it to help some of the Christians in our midst
understand why other Christians may genuinely interpret these passages
differently:

ROMANS 1:26-27[/b]
NATURAL AND UNNATURAL

What does Romans 1:26-27 say about God?

For our discussion, this is the most controversial biblical passage of
them all. In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish
women who exchange “natural use for unnatural” and non-Jewish men who
“leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.”

This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women
and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let’s
go back 2,000 years and try to understand why.

Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the
Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to
honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex
and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors.
Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual
behaviors – including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken
sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male
and female) – all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.

The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator
celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion
gets control of our lives, we’re in deep trouble.

When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God’s children
and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the
false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul’s time. In our
obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who
created us – and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the
great dreams God has for our lives.

Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because
they were lesbian or gay? I don’t think so. Did God abandon them
because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.

In our Soulforce video, There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy, the Rev.
Dr. Louis B. Smedes, a distinguished Christian author and ethicist,
describes exactly how the Bible says these promiscuous priests and
priestesses got into this mess. Once again it has nothing to do with
homosexuality:

SMEDES: “The people Paul had in mind refused to acknowledge and
worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God. And being
abandoned by God, they sank into sexual depravity.”

SMEDES: “The homosexuals I know have not rejected God at all; they
love God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts. How, then,
could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for
refusing to acknowledge God?”

SMEDES: “Nor have the homosexuals that I know given up heterosexual
passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the
moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from
one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were
homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have
heterosexual sex.”

SMEDES: “And the homosexual people I know do not lust after each other
any more than heterosexual people do… their love for one another is
likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love
can be.”

Thank you, Dr. Smedes. (To get a copy of the video featuring Dr.
Smedes, There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy, visit www.soulforce.org.)

Getting to know a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person of
faith will help you realize that it is unreasonable (and unjust) to
compare our love for each other to the rituals of the priests and
priestesses who pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana.
Once again, I feel certain this passage says a lot about God, but
nothing about homosexuality as we understand it.

You’ll also note that Romans 2 begins with “Therefore, [referring to
Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others;
for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself…” Even after
he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that
judging others is God’s business, not ours.[/quote]

Pathetic. The verse makes no distinctions at all. It makes a generalized statement about the homosexual act, period. Absolutely pathetic. Directly it compares the natural sex between men and women, with the ‘perversion’ of the unnatural act of each being with the same.

This is first grade reading level.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

A direct comparison between natural sex (men with women) and perversions (the sexes with same sex). Period.

But by golly, we just discovered Jesus was revolutionary Jewish sexual anarchist!

[/quote]

Oh, you mean it makes absolutely no distinctions just like forbidding women to pray with their heads uncovered makes absolutely no distinctions? Gotcha.[/quote]

Cool, you support orthodox practices. Me too. In fact, I take my hat off before entering a church.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

No, you didn’t. It’s a question specifically about divorce, which obviously only entailed men and women since gays didn’t marry back then. And in any case, it says absolutely nothing about sex in the passage.
[/quote]

Dude, we’re talking about Christianity, remember? Marriage is sanctioned by God. God created man and women to leave their mother and fathers and be with those of the opposite sex. And really, now I have to defend the anti-fornication and adultery teachings of Christianity? I thought you were at least aware enough of the bible and Christianity, so I could at least skip having to back up those topics.

  1. Pre-marital sex is a sin in Christianity. Don’t start acting dumb on this one.
  2. Men were not sanctioned to marry men (as you yourself said). Christ not only didn’t challenge this, he reinforced that marriage was between men and women, as planned from the beginning by God.
  3. Homosexuality, is not only an unnatural act, but can only be an act of fornication.

[/quote]

We’re talking about what Jesus actually said, remember? You said that he condemned sex between people of the same gender. He didn’t. He only talked about divorce between men and women.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Interesting biblical commentary on Paul’s 3 statements about
homosexuality. I share it to help some of the Christians in our midst
understand why other Christians may genuinely interpret these passages
differently:

ROMANS 1:26-27[/b]
NATURAL AND UNNATURAL

What does Romans 1:26-27 say about God?

For our discussion, this is the most controversial biblical passage of
them all. In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish
women who exchange “natural use for unnatural” and non-Jewish men who
“leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.”

This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women
and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let’s
go back 2,000 years and try to understand why.

Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the
Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to
honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex
and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors.
Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual
behaviors – including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken
sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male
and female) – all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.

The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator
celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion
gets control of our lives, we’re in deep trouble.

When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God’s children
and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the
false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul’s time. In our
obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who
created us – and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the
great dreams God has for our lives.

Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because
they were lesbian or gay? I don’t think so. Did God abandon them
because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.

In our Soulforce video, There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy, the Rev.
Dr. Louis B. Smedes, a distinguished Christian author and ethicist,
describes exactly how the Bible says these promiscuous priests and
priestesses got into this mess. Once again it has nothing to do with
homosexuality:

SMEDES: “The people Paul had in mind refused to acknowledge and
worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God. And being
abandoned by God, they sank into sexual depravity.”

SMEDES: “The homosexuals I know have not rejected God at all; they
love God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts. How, then,
could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for
refusing to acknowledge God?”

SMEDES: “Nor have the homosexuals that I know given up heterosexual
passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the
moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from
one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were
homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have
heterosexual sex.”

SMEDES: “And the homosexual people I know do not lust after each other
any more than heterosexual people do… their love for one another is
likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love
can be.”

Thank you, Dr. Smedes. (To get a copy of the video featuring Dr.
Smedes, There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy, visit www.soulforce.org.)

Getting to know a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person of
faith will help you realize that it is unreasonable (and unjust) to
compare our love for each other to the rituals of the priests and
priestesses who pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana.
Once again, I feel certain this passage says a lot about God, but
nothing about homosexuality as we understand it.

You’ll also note that Romans 2 begins with “Therefore, [referring to
Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others;
for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself…” Even after
he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that
judging others is God’s business, not ours.[/quote]

Pathetic. The verse makes no distinctions at all. It makes a generalized statement about the homosexual act, period. Absolutely pathetic. Directly it compares the natural sex between men and women, with the ‘perversion’ of the unnatural act of each being with the same.

This is first grade reading level.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

A direct comparison between natural sex (men with women) and perversions (the sexes with same sex). Period.

But by golly, we just discovered Jesus was revolutionary Jewish sexual anarchist!

[/quote]

Oh, you mean it makes absolutely no distinctions just like forbidding women to pray with their heads uncovered makes absolutely no distinctions? Gotcha.[/quote]

Cool, you support orthodox practices. Me too. In fact, I take my hat off before entering a church.[/quote]

So all those women praying in Catholic churches with their heads uncovered are sinning? Yes or no?

How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?

[quote]forlife wrote:

We’re talking about what Jesus actually said, remember? You said that he condemned sex between people of the same gender. He didn’t. He only talked about divorce between men and women.[/quote]

No. This is what I said…

[quote]Actually, Christ reinforced that sex is only between men and women in holy matrimony…

/end debate[/quote]

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

God made the sexes. They come together as male and female. Marriage is sanctioned by God (“God has Joined together”). This was/is his plan from the beginning.

Homosexual marriages are not sanctioned by God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Besides being an abominable unnatural act, homosexual acts do not take place within sacramental marriage. Nor can they ever.

[quote]forlife wrote:

All movement appears to be towards greater inclusiveness towards
homosexuality and homosexuals. This is reinforced by the more
accepting stance of today’s youth. We are unaware of any religious
groups becoming less inclusive.
[/quote]

This may be confounded with the death of Religion in the Western World.

Given that history’s three greatest mass murderers (Mao, Stalin, and Hitler) ran regimes that were either agnostic or staunchly opposed to the Church(es), I worry.

It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

No, you didn’t. It’s a question specifically about divorce, which obviously only entailed men and women since gays didn’t marry back then. And in any case, it says absolutely nothing about sex in the passage.
[/quote]

Dude, we’re talking about Christianity, remember? Marriage is sanctioned by God. God created man and women to leave their mother and fathers and be with those of the opposite sex. And really, now I have to defend the anti-fornication and adultery teachings of Christianity? I thought you were at least aware enough of the bible and Christianity, so I could at least skip having to back up those topics.

  1. Pre-marital sex is a sin in Christianity. Don’t start acting dumb on this one.
  2. Men were not sanctioned to marry men (as you yourself said). Christ not only didn’t challenge this, he reinforced that marriage was between men and women, as planned from the beginning by God.
  3. Homosexuality, is not only an unnatural act, but can only be an act of fornication.

[/quote]

We’re talking about what Jesus actually said, remember? You said that he condemned sex between people of the same gender. He didn’t. He only talked about divorce between men and women.[/quote]

As a Catholic, Sloth believes that Jesus is the Church. What the Church teaches, Jesus as well teaches. To make an arbitrary division between what Jesus said and what the Apostles (including their successors) say goes against what Jesus himself said, “who receives you, receives me. Who rejects you, rejects me.”

[quote]forlife wrote:
So all those women praying in Catholic churches with their heads uncovered are sinning? Yes or no?[/quote]

Why do you think it is sinning for a woman to enter the presence of God with her head uncovered?

[quote]How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?
[/quote]

Which clear biblical commandment are you referring to?