Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If David was truly gay, why did he have a man killed so that he could sleep with his wife? That alone shows a great lust and desire for WOMEN. There is absolutely no proof that David and Johnathan were lovers. A gross offensive lie.
You have a very reductive way to see things.
A man being attracted to men doesn't mean that he loves all men or that he will get on well with every man just like heterosexual men don't love all women nor do they get on well with every woman.
David was bisexual, he felt for both women and MEN. This is why, instead of comparing friendship with frienship, he took the comparison to romantic grounds.
No proof? please, it doesn't take a high IQ to understand what was going on with those two. The story is very explicit.
"1 Samuel 18:3-4 "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." "
Do I really need to quote once again 2 Samuel 1:26?
You just erased the life experiences of so many people. You're right though, there is no such thing as a gay Christian. Because we aren't things. We are children of God just like you. There are, however, Christians who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. I could introduce you to many.
Don't pray at me, which is what you meant, when you said you would pray for me. That's condescending as Hell, so keep it to yourself.
No... when I said I would pray FOR you, I meant it. And I actually did it just relax
Verse 26 specifically talks about men giving up a natural sexual relation with women for an unnatural one with men. I don't know how much more plain it has to be. Nothing about pagan worship there. It's UNNATURAL.
Well, if you think about it, there are many potential explanations for the use of the word "unnatural" here without immediately driving to Fundiville (hear me out!...I'm at least half-fundi but that word just sounded to funny not to use ). For instance, if it was heterosexual men having gay relations because it is apart of the worship of Cybele, that would be "unnatural" for them...Today, we've learned that for 2% to 10% it may very well be very natural as many if not most of them are born into it just as a percentage with in other animal species appears to be.
Don't forgot that God has already knit together (in the womb) many types of people that are virtually inbetween genders (hermaphrodites as an example..I only use that term because I can't remember what they preferred to be called at the moment ), some of which have both organs to varying degrees...which gender can those people marry? If these people can marry either gender, does that mean its all about "equipment" with you?...Honestly now, God made nature in many diverse ways that don't always seem to match many traditional ideas...perhaps he made it this way and allowed us to discover it as a way to understand the more contextually questionable scriptures too?...Just saying...
..Oh ok, just to be fair and offer an alternative explanation since I said 'many' explanations before, another reason why it might be considered 'unnatural' is the same way St Augustine and perhaps most of the early church fathers viewed verse 26 which was a woman having...um.."other door" relations with a man as apart of this worship...which might give you half a point towards your view when it comes to male couples in verse 27, but feel free to start telling heterosexual couples they can no longer do that...might have to start up your own Westboro Church for that
Last edited by Jrhockney; 03-17-2016 at 01:18 AM..
Well, the conversation on this topic persists, i.e. there is no such thing as a gay Christian, the Bible condemns homosexuality, God hates sin and homosexuality=sin, yada, yada.
But yet ...NO ONE has taken up the challenge to dispute my take (and the take of many Bible scholars or simply those lay-individuals who can READ!) that one of the most quoted scriptures that drive this anti-gay Christian nonsense SAYS NOTHING OF THE KIND! I'm speaking of Romans 1:18-27, of course, and there are only a certain amount of times that I can draw attention to this before it becomes clearly evident that no anti-gay person (Christian?) on this thread has the courage to accept the challenge.
Obviously, I can't force anyone to respond if they choose not to; however, I trust that others will take note that these folks are reluctant to discuss Romans 1:18-27 BECAUSE THEY CANNOT DISPUTE THE FACT (yes, I'm yelling) THAT THIS PASSAGE IS REFERENCING PAGAN IDOLATRY PRACTICES AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY AS WE TODAY DEFINE THE TERM!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Verse 26 specifically talks about men giving up a natural sexual relation with women for an unnatural one with men.
Well, at least one taker. Thanks for that.
Actually, it's verse 27 that mentions men and, even then, it says, "And likewise also the men ..." So, which gender were the "they" referred to before verse 27? Aliens?
Hmmm . . .
Anyway, we could not possibly expect the Apostle Paul to understand the complexities surrounding human sexuality even if he WERE addressing homosexuality as we today define the term. And so, we would have to dismiss whatever Paul had to say about homosexuality based on his complete ignorance on the subject, now, wouldn't we?
In this instance, however, Paul is not addressing "Homosexuality 101" at all. We need to actually read the passage IN FULL and then connect the dots. We need to make the connection between verses 26-27 and the previous theme of the passage concerning the worship of idols. There is no logical reason why Paul would suddenly change tack and begin to talk about something else that was unrelated to the topic of idolatry. He has already established the 'idolatry' theme so no need to change course. Paul has told us that "they" were worshiping idols made to resemble men (or women), birds, animals and reptiles. We know by previous example (Exodus 32:1-6) that people 'who once knew God' returned to their pagan roots and built and worshiped a golden calf when they became impatient for Moses to return from Mount Sinai. There are a number of sites that can be Googled that describe drunken and sexual orgies and such (even child sacrifice) that were a part of ancient idol worship. Let us not forget that what took place thousands of years ago with regard to 'worship' is something that we today (most of us anyway) cannot possibly relate to.
Paul is describing (in his culturally 'coy' manner) what he either witnessed or was told about from others (hence his letter response) being performed IN A PUBLIC SETTING involving WORSHIP. As mentioned previously, this was NOT a report of the 'Adam's and the Steve's' of Paul's day who might be practicing intimacy in private!
Please, folks ...feet for dancing, head for thinking!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I don't know how much more plain it has to be. Nothing about pagan worship there. It's UNNATURAL.
<sigh of frustration>
Just read the text, Jeff, MINUS the preconceived notion (if possible!) that this text has anything to do with homosexuality per se, i.e. non-idolatry intimacy. Does it have to do with men having sex with men? Apparently. In public? evidently. Does it have to do with women having sex with women? Could be. In public? Evidently. Does it have to do with men having sex with women? Likely. Were these people homosexual? Maybe. Were these people heterosexual? Probably. HOWEVER, these are the sexual practices affiliated with idol worship and should be viewed within their contextual frame without any extra 'man-added' padding.
Last edited by RomulusXXV; 03-17-2016 at 02:55 AM..
Well, if you think about it, there are many potential explanations for the use of the word "unnatural" here without immediately driving to Fundiville (hear me out!...I'm at least half-fundi but that word just sounded to funny not to use ). For instance, if it was heterosexual men having gay relations because it is apart of the worship of Cybele, that would be "unnatural" for them...Today, we've learned that for 2% to 10% it may very well be very natural as many if not most of them are born into it just as a percentage with in other animal species appears to be.
Don't forgot that God has already knit together (in the womb) many types of people that are virtually inbetween genders (hermaphrodites as an example..I only use that term because I can't remember what they preferred to be called at the moment ), some of which have both organs to varying degrees...which gender can those people marry? If these people can marry either gender, does that mean its all about "equipment" with you?...Honestly now, God made nature in many diverse ways that don't always seem to match many traditional ideas...perhaps he made it this way and allowed us to discover it as a way to understand the more contextually questionable scriptures too?...Just saying...
..Oh ok, just to be fair and offer an alternative explanation since I said 'many' explanations before, another reason why it might be considered 'unnatural' is the same way St Augustine and perhaps most of the early church fathers viewed verse 26 which was a woman having...um.."other door" relations with a man as apart of this worship...which might give you half a point towards your view when it comes to male couples in verse 27, but feel free to start telling heterosexual couples they can no longer do that...might have to start up your own Westboro Church for that
"Intersexuals".
Regarding the scientifically wrong statement that homosexuality or same-sex sexual intercourse are unnatural. Even if it was two heterosexual men having sexual intercourse it is still natural because homosexuality is found in nature.
The wrong thing here is the writers who dared glorify their ignorance of nature by stating that same-sex sexual intercourse is unnatural.
Let's remember the bible regards bats as being birds. This is how ignorant the bible is.
For instance, if it was heterosexual men having gay relations because it is apart of the worship of Cybele, that would be "unnatural" for them...
Well, it does not say they were fulfilling some rituals, it says was due to their "shameful / sinful lust", and because men "burned with lust" for other men.
I have seen people offer the gay translation many times saying "oh, that was nothing, it was just a ritual". The Bible simply does not say what they want it to say.
I think Paul very well might not have approved of what we now call homosexuality and meant just that. He was Jewish, and his ancestral/cultural laws disapproved of two males "lying together".
So what? That was Paul and his culture.
Jesus said nothing about sexual relations. What people do physically was never his focus. He talked about the kingdom of God and loving one another.
IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER. STOP FOCUSING ON WHAT JUST DOESN'T MATTER, and love one another.
I think Paul very well might not have approved of what we now call homosexuality and meant just that. He was Jewish, and his ancestral/cultural laws disapproved of two males "lying together".
So what? That was Paul and his culture.
Jesus said nothing about sexual relations. What people do physically was never his focus. He talked about the kingdom of God and loving one another.
IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER. STOP FOCUSING ON WHAT JUST DOESN'T MATTER, and love one another.
Jesus did address sexual relations and sexual immorality. Lets not pretend He did not.
Jesus did address sexual relations and sexual immorality. Lets not pretend He did not.
Nor definitively. He mentioned an EXAMPLE.
He also talked about eunuchs, which has been translated homosexual...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
just relax
). For instance, if it was heterosexual men having gay relations because it is apart of the worship of Cybele, that would be "unnatural" for them...Today, we've learned that for 2% to 10% it may very well be very natural as many if not most of them are born into it just as a percentage with in other animal species appears to be. 
), some of which have both organs to varying degrees...which gender can those people marry? If these people can marry either gender, does that mean its all about "equipment" with you?...Honestly now, God made nature in many diverse ways that don't always seem to match many traditional ideas...perhaps he made it this way and allowed us to discover it as a way to understand the more contextually questionable scriptures too?...Just saying...
