Christians Vs. Homosexuals: The battle continues
Welcome back. The fight continues. This is one major battle I have found, but once I read through it, I found a lot of the answers and counter-responces came easily. No ther material added yet.
The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. YAY! They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. You might wanna be a bit more specific about this. Through TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. And one would think that Christians would want these things for everyone, but I am seeing that is not the point. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. Someone's a wakeup! They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do. I don't know about you, but I don't find that every homosexual I meet is going to give me a full-blown detail of their sexlives. Hve you ever considered they are human? That they don't spend 24/7 looking for their next bonk?
In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. GO TEAM! Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. We are entitled to all of that. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. Okay, tht is pushing it. I agree the church shouldn't overlook homosexuals when it comes to employment, but hiring a certain amount is a little over the top. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket. I think you will find that this is in cases of assault, bashings, work-place humiliation/bullying etc. Not for every little thing.
The Christian church has not stood idle. No shit! When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the "religious bigots." Umm, I don't know if you have looked at the history of the church throughout the world, but Christians have been doing these sorts of things since the Medieval Times and earlier, so I am not surprised. But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard. So make one you twit. The problem is that people want a change from the domination of the church in power and politics. Political correctness says it is okay for the homosexual community to impose its will upon churches, but not the other way around. Same comment. You have been imposing your influences on government and politics for many more years than us. Apparently, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians. Gee, I wonder why?
What does the Bible say? Quite a lot in fact, most of it having nothing to do with homosexuality, and the rest that is has a good backing to actually suport homosexuals. So lets begin the wonderful debate shall we?
The Bible, as God's word, Actually, it was Jesus' word translated by many of his followers into their own ideas and thoughts. Over time, the bible has evolved from what it was to what it is. reveals God's moral character and it shapes the morality of the Christian. SNERK! There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality, taken verses out of context which is something you are going to do just in the reverse scheme of things. and read into them interpretations that are not there. Even if they read the verse and don't expand on it? Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. There were/are ten sins, reduced to seven, and I didn't see 'thall shalt not have butt sex with another of the same gender,' written there. And lust doesn't count. That is an indiscriminate sin. Let's look at what it says.
1. Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
2. Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
3. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
4. 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."
With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. I wonder if anyone thought to actully take the bible out of it and have a debate about the situation? But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. God wants us to love one another, isn't that enough for anyone to live by? in order to accomplish their goal. But the truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. The old saying is 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.' My usual responce is 'Yes, God did make Adam and Eve. And look what they did. They defied his law.' Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book once rewriten to suit our cause, and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with its agenda. Has anyone ever considered that the bible is on no-ones side in this? But it doesn't work. You are about to disprove yourself, so don't get on your high horse just yet. The Bible does not support homosexuality as we have seen from the scriptures above. Will debate when this gets into more detail.
Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). Let me think about this for a sec... WRONG! So nothing else but homosexuality is condemnable? What about murder; The taking of someone's life against their will? Is the sinner not condemned for this? What about rape? The scars from rape never truly leave. Is that not condemnable? You suggest that these brutal acts (and many more) are not going to give someone a one-way ticket to the hell house, but because I have a loving relationship with a man I would die for, I have to go to hell. Gee, you certainly put a lot of thought into this didn't you? This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. Translation; The more you sin, the more you want to. Correction: If you want to be a homosexual, if you are a homosexual, then be yourself, because it isn't going to change. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. The only errors in homosexual intercourse is not using a condom and rape. The only error in homosexual relationships is abusing your partner. Look at that. These issues also arise in heterosexual relationships as well. Fancy that! Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation. I know I've mentioned it before in my last set of these, but it is still a good arguement. What if a homosexual wants to go to church so God can forgive him/her for his 'supposed' sin? The church kicks them out because they are trying to do what the priests 'normally would' think was right. So if we can't get forgiveness from going to church, then where can you get forgiveness from? Oops, you didn't think of tht either.
Finally, with their hardened hearts, they seek to promote their lifestyle in society. Correction: They aren't trying to make people like them, they are trying to have people understand, and encouraging people that might feel attracted to the same sex to not be so closed up about it. This is become more real since homosexuals are gaining strength and forcing those with opposing views into confinement and penalty. You say this like it is world war three. So much for fairness. You can't talk. It is okay to demand it for themselves, but they balk at allowing it for those who disagree. Once again, you misunderstand the work being done. When you understand the word 'Acceptance' get back to me.
Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another? YES! YES! I'm saying YES here!
In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Good! Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Absolutely. Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not. You would have us beten up, tortued, manipulated and murdered, simply because you don't agree with us? Gee, who is the sinner now sunshine? I'm sure God will really welcome you into heaven for this.
The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. Do you have any other persuasive arguments, or are you just going to ramble? It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Congratulations! Does this mean you will drop this now? Instead, it relies on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethical structure.
Homosexuality is not natural. Do you have any evidence? Just look at the male and female bodies. We are discussing homosexuality, not the birds and bees. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. So is the homosexual side of things, if you turn the man around. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. This is still not proper evidence. It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together." Just the mental images of this made me double over with laughter at the stupidity of that example. Try again with something more real.
Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. God made the animals before he made the people. But this is problematic. Not really. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive. Some humans do that too you know. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. And the world wars, other wars that were before or after those events, and other major fights, riots, and so on, are the same thing... except the eating people in public. That is reserved for the people who enjoy it and do it where you are not going to notice. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Last arguement again. Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. Neither should you. This will come back to bite you. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. Actually, we are. We evolved from Apes who evolved from fish who evolved from bactiri. So we were animals, are decendant from animals. We are animals. Just more advanced than other animals. We are made in God's image. And I think God's image involved 20% of the population having homosexual intercourse. Logic says that if homosexuality is natural and acceptable because it exists in the animal world, then it must also be natural and acceptable to eat people alive. Get a clue. When you present this case in a court of law, the arguement back is that we are talking about homosexual intercourse, not eating people. There is a major difference in these situations. But, this is obviously faulty thinking. On your behalf: yes. Therefore, appeal to the practice in the animal world as support for homosexual practice is equally faulty. You just like to look agt the little pictures, don't you?
Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. Then heterosexuals should stop having sex as well if that is the case. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.' Same arguement as before on what homosexuals should be in his mind. What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are sexual practices. True. However, making rights for homosexuals does not give rights to these acts. These acts cannot be condoned because of the manipulation that goes into the sexual activities. Homosexuality is a concentual afair (except in the case of rape. Therefore, your arguement has, again, not followed through. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?
Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. Do you even possess equality, diversity or any of the things that God would have you possess? I don't think so. But, the family is the basis of our culture. True, and homosexuals have family as well. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society and homosexuality is not helping the family.
Let me get this straight. Because I am a homosexual, my family has fallen apart. Not true. My parents divorced when I was three, my family is still together and hasn't had any major arguments because I am a homosexual, my aunt is a lesbian and we are still happy with one another. If a family rejects a homosexual it is because they are not going to accept it. That is their choice. They destroy the family because they are too blindsighted to see that their child is still their child, not because the homosexual told the truth. Is telling the truth about ones self so wrong? Is loving and accepting your child for who they are still going to send you to hell? I don't think so.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). So why don't you drop the grandstanding and fully accept them for the people they are? Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. Some sins are forgiveable, some not. I'd think that because someone is the way they are, is not a good enough reason to condemn them. The act of rape and murder is not forgiveable. The act of loving is. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.
Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they would any other person in sin. I think you will find that if God made homosexuals, then they are already on the 'to salvage' list. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like or not, they are made in the image of God. Then if God made homosexuals, he also came up with all the ideas of their sexual relations. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Urg! Not at all. ARG! Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear. What is it is shaped by understanding and acceptance? Should a Christian still oppose them? I don't think you really appreciate the value of what you preach.
In fact the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.
* "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).
*
"But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).
You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. Then shut your big mouth. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. But when homosexuals do it, you give them a hard way to go. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him. I have presented this before and I have said it again, and will do so now. Some homosexuals still believe in god, but are exiled from their church because of who they are. I don't think God would have ment for us to do that, and that everyone, no matter of their race, creed, color, life choices or sexual options should be excluded.
Objections Answered
1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This is where things get contradictory.
The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. Doesn't change anything. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. A GUIDE. You have the option not to follow a guide. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy. That means either you follow none or follow all, not choose to aid your cause.
The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. He did that so we would be free of sin. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.
The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. It doesn't work that way sunshine. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Crap. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. But the bible changes every other year, translated to oppose or support what you need. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect. You'd like them to be.
In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. So you removed the word of God to suit yourselves. Point made. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament which is more self-beneficial condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.
Okay, your arguement has just turned in on itself and shot itself in the foot. You said, and i quote "Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas." Well then you shouldn't do that either. Whats that old saying? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you won't let homosexuals pick-and-choose, then you can't take passages from a part of the bible that has no reference in this phase of time, does not refer to America/Australia or anywhere other than places that are mass-populated by Jews. If you want to use this passage, you will have to start an uphill battle to fight the rest for the other laws. This also confirms my point that the bible has been pulled apart and put back together to suit mans ideals, not gods law.
2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God.This is a fallacious argument.
Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. I thnk God would rather have us loving one-another than killing one another, wouldn't you? Homosexuality is always condemned. In your mind at least. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order. You just don't know when to quit do you. I don't think God came from Heaven and gave you a book titled 'God's Law for Mankind.' And if he did, I am sure it didn't say 'Oh, and if I discover you have let people have butt sex, I am going to be very angry.' As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together Overruled, next please.-- in more ways than one. You're right there. Oral, Vaginal, anal... oh look at that. Men can have anal and oral as well. 2/3 ain't bad. This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. I think that 80% of the worlds population being heterosexual covers that. Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind. If this is true, God wouldn't be too fussed if 20$ of the worlds population weren't making babies and a further 10% weren't gonna have kids from terminal illness, internal injury, etc.
Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. But love is something that is apart of mankind, and God made it before he (suppossedly) condemned homosexuals. If God's setup is the way you put it, I think he made a lot of mistakes and should blow the whole thing up and start over. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused. ou come up with the weirdest ideas. Adultery is a sin. Homosexuals and Adultery have little to do with each other. Yes, homosexuals CAN commit adultery, but I think you will find that when push comes to shove, there is little difference.
If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" you say that like it isn't a fact. You clearly have little love in your heart. Maybe God has hardened it. each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture. Okay, so everyone who is married, get a divorce. Everyone who is dating, break up. If you are attracted to someone, stop it. You are breaking the scriptures. Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Umm, no. For a child to say s/he loved an older fe/male in that way would have taken a lot of manipulation. A child cannot give concent, and therefore, pedophilia has no real chance of becoming legal. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior. That was your last argument. Next.
3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality. If this was a more expanded argument (which it probably was until someone took a pair of garden sheers to it) I would say that there is a lot of truth in that.
SNIP: A round-about argument that doesn't really answer the question, does not come to any conclussion and proves that the author has done no further research to cover his own tracks. In this case, not taking some of the arguments that homosexuals use and rediculing them (probably because he can't) and there is njo thought that the bible wasn't written by god or Jesus, but by men who didn't have a full understanding. In the case of 1 Con.(will expand later), the author has been proven to be a non-practicing homosexual. A homosexual wrote in the original bible. He was so disgusted and hated his attrqaction to men, that he forbid it, in the hopes that no-one would have to go through the same pain he did. Which I suppose is fair enough.
Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God made two laws. 'Love me with all your heart, body, strength and soul.' and 'Love thy neighbor as thy loves yourself, and you shall do all that is desired of you.' Since you seem incapable of following the 'love thy neighbor' bit, you aren't forfilling gods will, are you? God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. Got any evidence? Have you ever considered this is the truth you believe, ut not everyone believes? There is no truth in a situation like this. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. Correction: The men who wrote the bible condemned it. SNIP: same argument that homosexuals should repent, my same old argument that homosexuals get thrown out of church.
4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. Not always true. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lott's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. I still need to read this story, but what is said next is a total laugh. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'” Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. O.O Pwahahahahaha! Are you sure that you were reading the bible? Sounds like you were reading a fan fiction! Try it this way (if you didn't think of it.) The men called out to see the angels because they wanted to have a relationship with god through them. In these times, a relationship was rarely reffered to people in love, but more to knowing someone. I have a relationship with my housemate, that relationship is a friendship. Is that a clear point? Don't blame homosexuals for twisting the bible when you do it yourself. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Then you would be blown back to him in a cloud of smoke, wouldn't you? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin but still a sin nevertheless, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill in multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality, is an exceedingly grave sin. My population arguement again. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. I don't think that would be the case. Back then, homosexuality was rare, unheard of and punishable. Now it is everywhere, generally accepted (by those with an open mind) and if God hardens their heart against him, then he is doing something foolish in that he doesn't want his children to return to him. DUH! This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not then repent. Same point as before. Without repentance there is no salvation and without salvation there is damnation. This is like the third or fourth time you have said this. Please come up with another argument point, you look ridiculous. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable, carries no validity. So because a few men wanted to get to know the Angels, God blew up that city and another one? I think that if that was the case, God would have just had the men drop dead and go to hell. Your point is again not following through to the end.
____________________
1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as “abuser of (one’s) self with mankind” once, and “defile (one’s) self with mankind” once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)
The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts."
I did my best to try and read this, but it was a little painful, so I stopped. My thought process is that over time, as the bible eeps getting retranslated from the older self, it is wrotten more and more into the desires of mankind, rather than the desires of the men who originally wrote it. Inturprating text takes a lot of thought an views. This arguement lacks them. Taking straight to the negative, the argument doesn't look into much more detail of the text than what is plain English. Try looking at the text from a different perspective and see what comes out, and don't fall back to 'it defies homosexuality as a sin' when it does come to another view.
What also ammuses me is that whoever wrote this didn't take the time to argue why the quotes homosexuals use are not ment to be for that use. If you counted up good from bad, in general and secific ideas, using some of the arguments I said throughout this, you will find the bible is more for peace and acceptance than it is condemning someone because they are who they are. I am not supporting people who enjoy killing, molestering children and so on, because that is a choice and has good arguments (biblical or not) to not allow such actions. Homosexuality is different. There is no force or domination against free will, so there is no damage in loving someone, or having a one night stand. Something tells me the church is not going to argue off the quotes homosexuals use (because they can't) and have shot themselves in the foot trying to argue their case. Therefore, I rest mine.
This was found at: http://www.carm.org/issues/homosexuality.htm
Now, my arguements so far have been against people of the church against homosexuals. This is not to say that there is a lot of support for homosexuals in the church. A lot of my christian friends have been supportive of who I am, my own Mother who is a Christian is supportive of me and there have been many arguments within the church for homosexual rights, marriages and so on. here are some links to follow that will give some light that the church isn't all bad (which I believe.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/28/nchurch28.xml
http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section01.html#detail_study
http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section04.html#pederasty
http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/toc.html (This link is the reference to the last two, so if there is anything else you wish to find, go for it.)
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.ecwr.org/resources/homosexuality.html
http://drachmalgbt.blogspot.com/2007/09/gods-love-for-transgender-people.html
HERE IT IS AT LAST!!! EXODUS INTERNATIONAL: You don't have to be "gay."
Okay, seriously, this page is both morally disgusting and somewhat enlightening at the same time. I found it helpful to understand why someone would want to stop being a homosexual. I also think that some were spineless cowards, but still their choice.
I a not going to spork this site, as that is pushing the limits. But you can go along and have a read of what they have to say (and have a good laugh.) If you feel the need to have a sudden sexuality change, close the link.
http://exodus.to/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/
I I think these will be enough to prove my point for now. Hope you have found a compelling arguement here. I hope that if you have decided to help homosexuals who are just as human, normal and natural as you are. All the best,
shikishinobi
The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. YAY! They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. You might wanna be a bit more specific about this. Through TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. And one would think that Christians would want these things for everyone, but I am seeing that is not the point. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. Someone's a wakeup! They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do. I don't know about you, but I don't find that every homosexual I meet is going to give me a full-blown detail of their sexlives. Hve you ever considered they are human? That they don't spend 24/7 looking for their next bonk?
In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. GO TEAM! Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. We are entitled to all of that. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. Okay, tht is pushing it. I agree the church shouldn't overlook homosexuals when it comes to employment, but hiring a certain amount is a little over the top. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket. I think you will find that this is in cases of assault, bashings, work-place humiliation/bullying etc. Not for every little thing.
The Christian church has not stood idle. No shit! When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the "religious bigots." Umm, I don't know if you have looked at the history of the church throughout the world, but Christians have been doing these sorts of things since the Medieval Times and earlier, so I am not surprised. But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard. So make one you twit. The problem is that people want a change from the domination of the church in power and politics. Political correctness says it is okay for the homosexual community to impose its will upon churches, but not the other way around. Same comment. You have been imposing your influences on government and politics for many more years than us. Apparently, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians. Gee, I wonder why?
What does the Bible say? Quite a lot in fact, most of it having nothing to do with homosexuality, and the rest that is has a good backing to actually suport homosexuals. So lets begin the wonderful debate shall we?
The Bible, as God's word, Actually, it was Jesus' word translated by many of his followers into their own ideas and thoughts. Over time, the bible has evolved from what it was to what it is. reveals God's moral character and it shapes the morality of the Christian. SNERK! There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality, taken verses out of context which is something you are going to do just in the reverse scheme of things. and read into them interpretations that are not there. Even if they read the verse and don't expand on it? Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. There were/are ten sins, reduced to seven, and I didn't see 'thall shalt not have butt sex with another of the same gender,' written there. And lust doesn't count. That is an indiscriminate sin. Let's look at what it says.
1. Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
2. Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
3. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
4. 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."
With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. I wonder if anyone thought to actully take the bible out of it and have a debate about the situation? But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. God wants us to love one another, isn't that enough for anyone to live by? in order to accomplish their goal. But the truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. The old saying is 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.' My usual responce is 'Yes, God did make Adam and Eve. And look what they did. They defied his law.' Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book once rewriten to suit our cause, and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with its agenda. Has anyone ever considered that the bible is on no-ones side in this? But it doesn't work. You are about to disprove yourself, so don't get on your high horse just yet. The Bible does not support homosexuality as we have seen from the scriptures above. Will debate when this gets into more detail.
Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). Let me think about this for a sec... WRONG! So nothing else but homosexuality is condemnable? What about murder; The taking of someone's life against their will? Is the sinner not condemned for this? What about rape? The scars from rape never truly leave. Is that not condemnable? You suggest that these brutal acts (and many more) are not going to give someone a one-way ticket to the hell house, but because I have a loving relationship with a man I would die for, I have to go to hell. Gee, you certainly put a lot of thought into this didn't you? This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. Translation; The more you sin, the more you want to. Correction: If you want to be a homosexual, if you are a homosexual, then be yourself, because it isn't going to change. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. The only errors in homosexual intercourse is not using a condom and rape. The only error in homosexual relationships is abusing your partner. Look at that. These issues also arise in heterosexual relationships as well. Fancy that! Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation. I know I've mentioned it before in my last set of these, but it is still a good arguement. What if a homosexual wants to go to church so God can forgive him/her for his 'supposed' sin? The church kicks them out because they are trying to do what the priests 'normally would' think was right. So if we can't get forgiveness from going to church, then where can you get forgiveness from? Oops, you didn't think of tht either.
Finally, with their hardened hearts, they seek to promote their lifestyle in society. Correction: They aren't trying to make people like them, they are trying to have people understand, and encouraging people that might feel attracted to the same sex to not be so closed up about it. This is become more real since homosexuals are gaining strength and forcing those with opposing views into confinement and penalty. You say this like it is world war three. So much for fairness. You can't talk. It is okay to demand it for themselves, but they balk at allowing it for those who disagree. Once again, you misunderstand the work being done. When you understand the word 'Acceptance' get back to me.
Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another? YES! YES! I'm saying YES here!
In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Good! Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Absolutely. Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not. You would have us beten up, tortued, manipulated and murdered, simply because you don't agree with us? Gee, who is the sinner now sunshine? I'm sure God will really welcome you into heaven for this.
The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. Do you have any other persuasive arguments, or are you just going to ramble? It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Congratulations! Does this mean you will drop this now? Instead, it relies on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethical structure.
Homosexuality is not natural. Do you have any evidence? Just look at the male and female bodies. We are discussing homosexuality, not the birds and bees. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. So is the homosexual side of things, if you turn the man around. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. This is still not proper evidence. It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together." Just the mental images of this made me double over with laughter at the stupidity of that example. Try again with something more real.
Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. God made the animals before he made the people. But this is problematic. Not really. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive. Some humans do that too you know. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. And the world wars, other wars that were before or after those events, and other major fights, riots, and so on, are the same thing... except the eating people in public. That is reserved for the people who enjoy it and do it where you are not going to notice. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Last arguement again. Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. Neither should you. This will come back to bite you. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. Actually, we are. We evolved from Apes who evolved from fish who evolved from bactiri. So we were animals, are decendant from animals. We are animals. Just more advanced than other animals. We are made in God's image. And I think God's image involved 20% of the population having homosexual intercourse. Logic says that if homosexuality is natural and acceptable because it exists in the animal world, then it must also be natural and acceptable to eat people alive. Get a clue. When you present this case in a court of law, the arguement back is that we are talking about homosexual intercourse, not eating people. There is a major difference in these situations. But, this is obviously faulty thinking. On your behalf: yes. Therefore, appeal to the practice in the animal world as support for homosexual practice is equally faulty. You just like to look agt the little pictures, don't you?
Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. Then heterosexuals should stop having sex as well if that is the case. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.' Same arguement as before on what homosexuals should be in his mind. What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are sexual practices. True. However, making rights for homosexuals does not give rights to these acts. These acts cannot be condoned because of the manipulation that goes into the sexual activities. Homosexuality is a concentual afair (except in the case of rape. Therefore, your arguement has, again, not followed through. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?
Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. Do you even possess equality, diversity or any of the things that God would have you possess? I don't think so. But, the family is the basis of our culture. True, and homosexuals have family as well. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society and homosexuality is not helping the family.
Let me get this straight. Because I am a homosexual, my family has fallen apart. Not true. My parents divorced when I was three, my family is still together and hasn't had any major arguments because I am a homosexual, my aunt is a lesbian and we are still happy with one another. If a family rejects a homosexual it is because they are not going to accept it. That is their choice. They destroy the family because they are too blindsighted to see that their child is still their child, not because the homosexual told the truth. Is telling the truth about ones self so wrong? Is loving and accepting your child for who they are still going to send you to hell? I don't think so.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). So why don't you drop the grandstanding and fully accept them for the people they are? Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. Some sins are forgiveable, some not. I'd think that because someone is the way they are, is not a good enough reason to condemn them. The act of rape and murder is not forgiveable. The act of loving is. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.
Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they would any other person in sin. I think you will find that if God made homosexuals, then they are already on the 'to salvage' list. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like or not, they are made in the image of God. Then if God made homosexuals, he also came up with all the ideas of their sexual relations. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Urg! Not at all. ARG! Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear. What is it is shaped by understanding and acceptance? Should a Christian still oppose them? I don't think you really appreciate the value of what you preach.
In fact the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.
* "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).
*
"But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).
You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. Then shut your big mouth. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. But when homosexuals do it, you give them a hard way to go. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him. I have presented this before and I have said it again, and will do so now. Some homosexuals still believe in god, but are exiled from their church because of who they are. I don't think God would have ment for us to do that, and that everyone, no matter of their race, creed, color, life choices or sexual options should be excluded.
Objections Answered
1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This is where things get contradictory.
The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. Doesn't change anything. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. A GUIDE. You have the option not to follow a guide. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy. That means either you follow none or follow all, not choose to aid your cause.
The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. He did that so we would be free of sin. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.
The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. It doesn't work that way sunshine. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Crap. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. But the bible changes every other year, translated to oppose or support what you need. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect. You'd like them to be.
In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. So you removed the word of God to suit yourselves. Point made. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament which is more self-beneficial condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.
Okay, your arguement has just turned in on itself and shot itself in the foot. You said, and i quote "Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas." Well then you shouldn't do that either. Whats that old saying? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you won't let homosexuals pick-and-choose, then you can't take passages from a part of the bible that has no reference in this phase of time, does not refer to America/Australia or anywhere other than places that are mass-populated by Jews. If you want to use this passage, you will have to start an uphill battle to fight the rest for the other laws. This also confirms my point that the bible has been pulled apart and put back together to suit mans ideals, not gods law.
2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God.This is a fallacious argument.
Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. I thnk God would rather have us loving one-another than killing one another, wouldn't you? Homosexuality is always condemned. In your mind at least. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order. You just don't know when to quit do you. I don't think God came from Heaven and gave you a book titled 'God's Law for Mankind.' And if he did, I am sure it didn't say 'Oh, and if I discover you have let people have butt sex, I am going to be very angry.' As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together Overruled, next please.-- in more ways than one. You're right there. Oral, Vaginal, anal... oh look at that. Men can have anal and oral as well. 2/3 ain't bad. This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. I think that 80% of the worlds population being heterosexual covers that. Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind. If this is true, God wouldn't be too fussed if 20$ of the worlds population weren't making babies and a further 10% weren't gonna have kids from terminal illness, internal injury, etc.
Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. But love is something that is apart of mankind, and God made it before he (suppossedly) condemned homosexuals. If God's setup is the way you put it, I think he made a lot of mistakes and should blow the whole thing up and start over. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused. ou come up with the weirdest ideas. Adultery is a sin. Homosexuals and Adultery have little to do with each other. Yes, homosexuals CAN commit adultery, but I think you will find that when push comes to shove, there is little difference.
If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" you say that like it isn't a fact. You clearly have little love in your heart. Maybe God has hardened it. each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture. Okay, so everyone who is married, get a divorce. Everyone who is dating, break up. If you are attracted to someone, stop it. You are breaking the scriptures. Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Umm, no. For a child to say s/he loved an older fe/male in that way would have taken a lot of manipulation. A child cannot give concent, and therefore, pedophilia has no real chance of becoming legal. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior. That was your last argument. Next.
3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality. If this was a more expanded argument (which it probably was until someone took a pair of garden sheers to it) I would say that there is a lot of truth in that.
SNIP: A round-about argument that doesn't really answer the question, does not come to any conclussion and proves that the author has done no further research to cover his own tracks. In this case, not taking some of the arguments that homosexuals use and rediculing them (probably because he can't) and there is njo thought that the bible wasn't written by god or Jesus, but by men who didn't have a full understanding. In the case of 1 Con.(will expand later), the author has been proven to be a non-practicing homosexual. A homosexual wrote in the original bible. He was so disgusted and hated his attrqaction to men, that he forbid it, in the hopes that no-one would have to go through the same pain he did. Which I suppose is fair enough.
Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God made two laws. 'Love me with all your heart, body, strength and soul.' and 'Love thy neighbor as thy loves yourself, and you shall do all that is desired of you.' Since you seem incapable of following the 'love thy neighbor' bit, you aren't forfilling gods will, are you? God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. Got any evidence? Have you ever considered this is the truth you believe, ut not everyone believes? There is no truth in a situation like this. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. Correction: The men who wrote the bible condemned it. SNIP: same argument that homosexuals should repent, my same old argument that homosexuals get thrown out of church.
4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. Not always true. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lott's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. I still need to read this story, but what is said next is a total laugh. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'” Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. O.O Pwahahahahaha! Are you sure that you were reading the bible? Sounds like you were reading a fan fiction! Try it this way (if you didn't think of it.) The men called out to see the angels because they wanted to have a relationship with god through them. In these times, a relationship was rarely reffered to people in love, but more to knowing someone. I have a relationship with my housemate, that relationship is a friendship. Is that a clear point? Don't blame homosexuals for twisting the bible when you do it yourself. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Then you would be blown back to him in a cloud of smoke, wouldn't you? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin but still a sin nevertheless, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill in multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality, is an exceedingly grave sin. My population arguement again. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. I don't think that would be the case. Back then, homosexuality was rare, unheard of and punishable. Now it is everywhere, generally accepted (by those with an open mind) and if God hardens their heart against him, then he is doing something foolish in that he doesn't want his children to return to him. DUH! This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not then repent. Same point as before. Without repentance there is no salvation and without salvation there is damnation. This is like the third or fourth time you have said this. Please come up with another argument point, you look ridiculous. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable, carries no validity. So because a few men wanted to get to know the Angels, God blew up that city and another one? I think that if that was the case, God would have just had the men drop dead and go to hell. Your point is again not following through to the end.
____________________
1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as “abuser of (one’s) self with mankind” once, and “defile (one’s) self with mankind” once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)
The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts."
I did my best to try and read this, but it was a little painful, so I stopped. My thought process is that over time, as the bible eeps getting retranslated from the older self, it is wrotten more and more into the desires of mankind, rather than the desires of the men who originally wrote it. Inturprating text takes a lot of thought an views. This arguement lacks them. Taking straight to the negative, the argument doesn't look into much more detail of the text than what is plain English. Try looking at the text from a different perspective and see what comes out, and don't fall back to 'it defies homosexuality as a sin' when it does come to another view.
What also ammuses me is that whoever wrote this didn't take the time to argue why the quotes homosexuals use are not ment to be for that use. If you counted up good from bad, in general and secific ideas, using some of the arguments I said throughout this, you will find the bible is more for peace and acceptance than it is condemning someone because they are who they are. I am not supporting people who enjoy killing, molestering children and so on, because that is a choice and has good arguments (biblical or not) to not allow such actions. Homosexuality is different. There is no force or domination against free will, so there is no damage in loving someone, or having a one night stand. Something tells me the church is not going to argue off the quotes homosexuals use (because they can't) and have shot themselves in the foot trying to argue their case. Therefore, I rest mine.
This was found at: http://www.carm.org/issues/homosexuality.htm
Now, my arguements so far have been against people of the church against homosexuals. This is not to say that there is a lot of support for homosexuals in the church. A lot of my christian friends have been supportive of who I am, my own Mother who is a Christian is supportive of me and there have been many arguments within the church for homosexual rights, marriages and so on. here are some links to follow that will give some light that the church isn't all bad (which I believe.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/28/nchurch28.xml
http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section01.html#detail_study
http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section04.html#pederasty
http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/toc.html (This link is the reference to the last two, so if there is anything else you wish to find, go for it.)
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.ecwr.org/resources/homosexuality.html
http://drachmalgbt.blogspot.com/2007/09/gods-love-for-transgender-people.html
HERE IT IS AT LAST!!! EXODUS INTERNATIONAL: You don't have to be "gay."
Okay, seriously, this page is both morally disgusting and somewhat enlightening at the same time. I found it helpful to understand why someone would want to stop being a homosexual. I also think that some were spineless cowards, but still their choice.
I a not going to spork this site, as that is pushing the limits. But you can go along and have a read of what they have to say (and have a good laugh.) If you feel the need to have a sudden sexuality change, close the link.
http://exodus.to/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/
I I think these will be enough to prove my point for now. Hope you have found a compelling arguement here. I hope that if you have decided to help homosexuals who are just as human, normal and natural as you are. All the best,
shikishinobi