Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

Christians - what is your opinion about homosexuality?

I claimed one of those quotes were out of context, and it was.

The Romans passage doesn't say anything about love between two men or women, it also says nothing about sex between two people of the same sex who are in a loving committed relationship.

That passage specifically and clearly calls out having sex with someone of the same sex brought on by the passionate lust those people felt because of their worshipping other/false gods. That's nothing new. The Bible claims heterosexual lust is just as much a sin.

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

So are you arguing that being "unnatural" and being "indecent" isn't implying it is a sin?

It's like telling someone: "You are a real dickhead" and then arguing that you didn't mean it in a bad way.
 
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

So are you arguing that being "unnatural" and being "indecent" isn't implying it is a sin?

It's like telling someone: "You are a real dickhead" and then arguing that you didn't mean it in a bad way.

Then let's look at the larger passage:

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Cliffs: God is a good, loving powerful god. These people refused to acknowledge Him as such, and because of that, they became lustful and He let them.


Like I said, this solely addresses homosexual sex between people brought on by the lust that consumed them for worshipping false gods. It says nothing about loving or committed homosexual sex.


So if you're going to go there, do all the Bible quotes about lustful heterosexual sex mean that all heterosexual sex is also wrong? :confused: Because that's what you're saying.
 
this is simply stated in the first testament

"our lord and tranny allmighty created from his penis, adam, and his vagina, eve, and then from his balls came steve, bow down, and believe, in your maker and creator dont worship a faker, no idols, itl make me pissy, and need midols"
 
Hell yeah its a choice...that born gay crap is BS. If someone is brought up around Mo'ness, or exposed to Mo things growing up, or isnt happy with their lives, or whatever, its all a damn choice.


I disagree.

My cousin is gay. He was exposed to nothing but straight men, he was nurtured and loved growing up. We all knew he was flamin from the start. One Thanksgiving he comes in with his boyfriend and makes "the announcement". Our collective reaction was: and? Fix you boyfriend a plate and lets grub.
 
Then let's look at the larger passage:

Cliffs: God is a good, loving powerful god. These people refused to acknowledge Him as such, and because of that, they became lustful and He let them.


Like I said, this solely addresses homosexual sex between people brought on by the lust that consumed these them for worshipping false gods. It says nothing about loving or committed homosexual sex.


So if you're going to go there, do all the Bible quotes about lustful heterosexual sex mean that all heterosexual sex is also wrong? :confused: Because that's what you're saying.

Ok, so let's get this straight.

1) These people did something bad (Idolatry).

2) So God gave them over to depraved, indecent behaviors including men abandoning the natural function of women (obviously sex... what else could it be) and instead using other men for this purpose.

So you are trying to argue that while idolatry was a sin, the "depraved" and "indecent" behaviors weren't a sin? Do you see the obvious flaw in this argument?

The entire point here is they did a bad thing and it led to even worse things, all of which are sinful and distasteful to God.

Try this argument:

Joe was speeding. And because Joe was speeding, he lost control of his car, hit a school and killed 30 children.

So by this passage, it's obviously acceptable to kill 30 children because the real point is that you shouldn't speed.

The logic just doesn't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ceo
Ok, so let's get this straight.

1) These people did something bad (Idolatry).

2) So God gave them over to depraved, indecent behaviors including men abandoning the natural function of women (obviously sex... what else could it be) and instead using other men for this purpose.

So you are trying to argue that while idolatry was a sin, the "depraved" and "indecent" behaviors weren't a sin? Do you see the obvious flaw in this argument?

The entire point here is they did a bad thing and it led to even worse things, all of which are sinful and distasteful to God.

Try this argument:

Joe was speeding. And because Joe was speeding, he lost control of his car, hit a school and killed 30 children.

So by this passage, it's obviously acceptable to kill 30 children because the real point is that you shouldn't speed.

The logic just doesn't work.

lol I never said the "depraved" and "indecent" behaviors weren't a sin. Where did I say such a thing?

What I said was, the reason those acts were a sin was because they were done out of lust, not because the act itself is a sin. It's the exact same thing as when the Bible says lustful, heterosexual sex is a sin. The heterosexual sex itself is not a sin, the motive behind the sex is. The passage does not address non-lustful homosexual relations, so you can't apply it to such. THAT is a stretch. So this passage really says nothing about gay relationships at all, only the lustful sex is bad, as has been said many times already in the Bible by that point.
 
lol I never said the "depraved" and "indecent" behaviors weren't a sin. Where did I say such a thing?

What I said was, the reason those acts were a sin was because they were done out of lust, not because the act itself is a sin. It's the exact same thing as when the Bible says lustful, heterosexual sex is a sin. The heterosexual sex itself is not a sin, the motive behind the sex is. The passage does not address non-lustful homosexual relations, so you can't apply it to such. THAT is a stretch. So this passage really says nothing about gay relationships at all, only the lustful sex is bad, as has been said many times already in the Bible by that point.

First of all, the passage is completely silent on man-on-woman sex, lustful or not. Using your logic, even lustful interactions of men toward women must be acceptable.

Furthermore, if the goal of the passage was to only show that idolatry leads to sinful lust, then bringing-up the issue of men having sex with men would be a complete waste of text and time in the first place.

The Christan religion evolved (but I agree is not bound) from Jewish law. And Jewish law was unmistakable -- if you committed homosexuality, you were to be bludgeoned to death with rocks. Jesus lightened-up on the stoning issue with "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story, but Christianity was still definitely anti-homosexual. This passage is clearly showing how idolatry can lead to even more distasteful behaviors, including homosexuality.

With the liberties you've taken, I could easily argue that the bible is supportive of divorce, murder, abortion or any other cause I'd like to justify. I'm not cracking on your flavor of Christianity, but you're opening the door wide-open for it to basically be whatever the specific believer wants.
 
Let's modify our test-tube argument to accommodate your "lustful" consideration:

"Joe was speeding. And because Joe was speeding, he lost control of his car, hit a school and enthusiastically killed 30 children."

So you'd be arguing that because Joe was doing something wrong (speeding), he was given-over to enthusiastically killing 30 children. The killing 30 children part is acceptable, but the mistake is in doing it enthusiastically.
 
Let's modify our test-tube argument to accommodate your "lustful" consideration:

"Joe was speeding. And because Joe was speeding, he lost control of his car, hit a school and enthusiastically killed 30 children."

So you'd be arguing that because Joe was doing something wrong (speeding), he was given-over to enthusiastically killing 30 children. The killing 30 children part is acceptable, but the mistake is in doing it enthusiastically.
 
Top Bottom