Christians: do you believe homosexuality is an abomination? (grace, mythology, marriage)

[dojilynn]

Originally Posted by bigthirsty

So the thread started as a question on homosexuality and we've already moved to the rotation of the Earth, cosmos, and evolution in like 3 posts..

Where's the foreplay.. I need to be wined and dined before I'm called an idiot.

You're killing me Big T!

[nay624]

Originally Posted by bryfry

Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:26-27
Genesis 19:4-5
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10

These are all great scripture passages regarding this. Homosexuality has probably been around as long as humanity itself, but for me it's not the sinner, it's the sin.

You should get some interesting discussion on this one.....

Ditto.....


Why are you asking the question???????






Ditto............

[AT9]

Yes I believe it is, as ALL other sins are. Even if it is natural (and I believe it is) it still doesn't matter. My heterosexuality is natural, but when I look at a girl with lust, I am sinning. Being gay isn't a sin any more than being straight is a sin, it's what you do with those thoughts that matter.

[happynoodleboycey]

Sorry to be blunt but if God hated homosexuality then he wouldn't have made people gay and lesbian in a first place. Just like a heterosexual person doesn't choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex, homosexuals don't choose to be attracted to people of the same sex either. I myself am bisexual and never chose to be attracted to people of both sexes, I just am. That's how the good Lord made me and that it how I will be until the day I die. I can tell you first hand that being attracted to people of the same sex as you can be insanely frustrating and awkward at times so to say that anyone would choose to do so is quite frankly ridiculous. Fundamentalist Christians can spend the rest of eternity telling the world that anyone who isn't straight chooses to be that way but that will never make it so. They will never be gay themselves so they will never know.

[AT9]

Originally Posted by boycew02

Sorry to be blunt but if God hated homosexuality then he wouldn't have made people gay and lesbian in a first place. Just like a heterosexual person doesn't choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex, homosexuals don't choose to be attracted to people of the same sex either. I myself am bisexual and never chose to be attracted to people of both sexes, I just am. That's how the good Lord made me and that it how I will be until the day I die. I can tell you first hand that being attracted to people of the same sex as you can be insanely frustrating and awkward at times so to say that anyone would choose to do so is quite frankly ridiculous. Fundamentalist Christians can spend the rest of eternity telling the world that anyone who isn't straight chooses to be that way but that will never make it so. They will never be gay themselves so they will never know.

I am sorry to hear that you are sometimes frustrated, and I will never know that kind of feeling. But I still believe God hates sin, including homesexuality. God hates every other sin, no? Yet he has created those (or allowed them to happen, whatever you think) nonetheless.

But once again, I don't think it's the attraction to the same sex that is a sin, it's the lustful thoughts behind those. In fact, I think God hates my lustful thoughts as much as he hates a gay person's lustful thoughts. IMO

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by AT9

But I still believe God hates sin, including homesexuality.

The question then is if Jesus would hate homosexuality?

[happynoodleboycey]

Originally Posted by AT9

I am sorry to hear that you are sometimes frustrated, and I will never know that kind of feeling. But I still believe God hates sin, including homesexuality. God hates every other sin, no? Yet he has created those (or allowed them to happen, whatever you think) nonetheless.

But once again, I don't think it's the attraction to the same sex that is a sin, it's the lustful thoughts behind those. In fact, I think God hates my lustful thoughts as much as he hates a gay person's lustful thoughts. IMO

I don't agree that God hates homosexuality per se however I do agree that he hates lustful thoughts and that is definately something that can be applied to everyone.

[JUST THE TRUTH]

This question is answered in Mathew 19. What Jesus said in Mathew 19 is completely self contained and can only be read literally. It answers all of our biblical questions about “nature versus nurture”, homosexuality, marriage, monogamy, and celibacy.

Mathew 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,
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?

Here Jesus establishes the obligation for a man to marry and be faithful to one wife. He allows no other option. This is important because it is literally true.

9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for
fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

This reaffirms the requirement of monogamy.

10: His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it
is not good to marry.

The disciples find this rule difficult to accept.

11: But he said unto them, All (men) cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. (The word “men” is implied, not stated in the Greek version).

Jesus gives them an option. In this option he says that there are those that
cannot accept this rule (to marry a woman and be monogamous). It is important to note here that he does not say “will not”, “would rather not”, “chose not to”, but he said “cannot”. This would imply that he was referring to people incapable (mentally, physically, or both) from living by the rules of men. This is a very important distinction.

12A: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb:

I suspect this means all those incapable of consummating a relationship with a woman for whatever reason. (hermaphrodite or gay). The Church chooses to omit gay as a possibility. However, consider the command above:

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?

This kind of puts the homosexual into an impossible situation. How can he consummate a marriage?

12B: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men:

We pretty well all agree that these are actual eunuchs (castrated at a young age).We have established two categories (hermaphrodites according to Church doctrine and actual Eunuchs ---castrated).

12C: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

This is the most contentious category. The church insists that these are simply celibate priests, even though they agree that the first two groups are hermaphrodites (their definition) and castrati all of whom have malformed genitalia or missing testes. The problem is that there is nothing said or done up to the moment that Christ said this that would indicate that celibacy was a requirement or even a virtue in priests. In fact, all indications are that it was disallowed. How do you “make yourself a Eunuch”? Physical Eunuchs and homosexuals tend not to have an interest in women, so to that extent, the church is correct. However, to be a eunuch 2000 years ago meant more than simple celibacy.
Remember that I said “What Jesus said in Mathew 19 is completely self contained and can only be read literally”? Well once again lets look at verse

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?

No doubt about it, if you were capable of consummating a relationship with a woman, you were required to be married. To declare yourself a eunuch was to declare yourself uninterested in women, a eunuch, a non man. It was not simply a question of celibacy (although by there very nature eunuchs were certainly not interested in women).
Having said this there were eunuchs that were allowed into the temple (natural eunuchs who were anatomically correct). It was only the ones that were physically cut (castrated) that were not allowed into the temple (along with all of those who were physically imperfect---the blind---the crippled---etc). If Jesus was not married he was a eunuch by his own definition. He was anatomically correct because he regularly entered the temple. He had to be a natural eunuch (or married, one or the other).
Only by declaring themselves eunuchs were they exempt from the requirement of marriage. In fact, they were exempt from all rules pertaining only to men. The reason was that they were not considered to be “men”. Rules quoted about man being with man did not apply to eunuchs because eunuchs were not considered to be men. The sin was not being gay, but pretending to be men while engaging in feminine behavior. These were the ones that were living a lie. It is interesting that this literal translation of what Jesus said also has people neither telling nor living a lie. There was indeed a place for everyone in Christ’s world. It was indeed a world built on honesty.
It is most likely that the natural eunuch was the first category:

12A: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb:

and likely included homosexuals.

This group:

12C: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

were more likely those whose sex drives were so out of control (example child molesters) that castration was the only alternative to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
I am not saying that Jesus could not have been just celibate and suppressed all of his desires (including the sin of Onan---masturbation), but realistically, did we expect priests with normal sex drives to live this way their entire lives? (I think the current state of the Catholic Church concerning pedophilia answers this question).
It all ends with:

12D: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Translate---He that can be married should do so, and he who is a eunuch should accept that.
It was just like Jesus to declare himself a eunuch and in so doing put himself at the bottom of the social hierarchy. This was his way. He could have been a King. He chose to be a servant.

[RDSLOTS]

Hmm. . . God strikes me as pretty 'gay' Himself, sometimes. I think he accepts us all -- it's we, who have problems with one another.

[Reads2MUCH]

Originally Posted by JUST THE TRUTH

[SIZE=3]This question is answered in Mathew 19. What Jesus said in Mathew 19 is completely self contained and can only be read literally. It answers all of our biblical questions about “nature versus nurture”, homosexuality, marriage, monogamy, and celibacy.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Mathew 19:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]4: And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]at the beginning made them male and female, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Here Jesus establishes the obligation for a man to marry and be faithful to one [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]wife. He allows no other option. This is important because it is literally true.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]her which is put away doth commit adultery. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]This reaffirms the requirement of monogamy.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]10: His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]is not good to marry.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]The disciples find this rule difficult to accept.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]11: But he said unto them, All (men) cannot receive this saying, save they to whom [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]it is given. (The word “men” is implied, not stated in the Greek version).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Jesus gives them an option. In this option he says that there are those that [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]cannot accept this rule (to marry a woman and be monogamous). It is important to [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]note here that he does not say “will not”, “would rather not”, “chose not to”, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]but he said “cannot”. This would imply that he was referring to people incapable [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3](mentally, physically, or both) from living by the rules of men. This is a very [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]important distinction.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]12A: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]I suspect this means all those incapable of consummating a relationship with a woman for whatever reason. (hermaphrodite or gay). The Church chooses to omit gay as a possibility. However, consider the command above:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3] This kind of puts the homosexual into an impossible situation. How can he consummate a marriage?[/SIZE]


[SIZE=3]12B: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3] We pretty well all agree that these are actual eunuchs (castrated at a young age).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]We have established two categories (hermaphrodites according to Church doctrine and actual Eunuchs ---castrated).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3] 12C: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]This is the most contentious category. The church insists that these are simply celibate priests, even though they agree that the first two groups are hermaphrodites (their definition) and castrati all of whom have malformed genitalia or missing testes. The problem is that there is nothing said or done up to the moment that Christ said this that would indicate that celibacy was a requirement or even a virtue in priests. In fact, all indications are that it was disallowed. How do you “make yourself a Eunuch”? Physical Eunuchs and homosexuals tend not to have an interest in women, so to that extent, the church is correct. However, to be a eunuch 2000 years ago meant more than simple celibacy.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Remember that I said “What Jesus said in Mathew 19 is completely self contained and can only be read literally”? Well once again lets look at verse 5:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]No doubt about it, if you were capable of consummating a relationship with a woman, you were required to be married. To declare yourself a eunuch was to declare yourself uninterested in women, a eunuch, a non man. It was not simply a question of celibacy (although by there very nature eunuchs were certainly not interested in women).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Having said this there were eunuchs that were allowed into the temple (natural eunuchs who were anatomically correct). It was only the ones that were physically cut (castrated) that were not allowed into the temple (along with all of those who were physically imperfect---the blind---the crippled---etc). If Jesus was not married he was a eunuch. He was anatomically correct because he regularly entered the temple. He had to be a natural eunuch (or married, one or the other).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Only by declaring themselves eunuchs were they exempt from the requirement of marriage. In fact, they were exempt from all rules pertaining only to men. The reason was that they were not considered to be “men”. Rules quoted about man being with man did not apply to eunuchs because eunuchs were not considered to be men. The sin was not being gay, but pretending to be men while engaging in feminine behavior. These were the ones that were living a lie. It is interesting that this literal translation of what Jesus said also has people neither telling nor living a lie. There was indeed a place for everyone in Christ’s world. It was indeed a world built on honesty.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] It is most likely that the natural eunuch was the first category:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]12A: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]and likely included homosexuals. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]This group:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]12C: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]were more likely those whose sex drives were so out of control (example child molesters) that castration was the only alternative to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] I am not saying that Jesus could not have been just celibate and suppressed all of his desires (including the sin of Onan---masturbation), but realistically, did we expect priests with normal sex drives to live this way their entire lives? (I think the current state of the Catholic Church concerning pedophilia answers this question). [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]It all ends with:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]12D: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Translate---He that can be married should do so, and he who is a eunuch should accept that.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]It was just like Jesus to declare himself a eunuch and in so doing put himself at the bottom of the social hierarchy. This was his way. He could have been a King. He chose to be a servant. [/SIZE]

Wow, that is some post! But whose got the time to read all that! Let's just simply say that other than creatures who reproduce with themselves(asexual) I have never seen a child of any kind produced by a male/male relationship. Yes, there are examples in nature of elicit homosexual activities amongst some other species, but we can't really say why that is. But the principle reason for sexual relations is reproduction. Thus, if kids are not in the cards, you must be doing something unnatural! Not saying homosexuals are sinners or going to hell, but there activities are certainly questionable. Thanks for reading!