Jump to content
Jesusismyticket

LGBQT debate thing

Recommended Posts

Well that's a contradiction if one was ever devised.

 

How can men engaging in perverse acts condemned by God be living a godly lifestyle?

 

I totally get politically being all, "gay marriage yay" - but the moment you bring it into the church you're pushing heretical doctrine.

well to define this

It is only contradictory to YOU

It is not to me because I do not feel Gay is a sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's all stop bandying the word "heretical" around, it's not conducive to kind or fruitful discussion. Explain, don't accuse, please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I want to get to replying to Cam

 

Number one, the one mentions LUST for one another, something that heavily goes into my theory. It is not LOVE but LUST God is condemning.

Shameful acts with other men is quite vague. What were they doing? As I read, in Corinthians, "Homosexual offenders" are condemned by God. These would be people who abuse those of the same sex. How do we not know this vague action is related to this specific decree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 Timothy 1:8-11

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for the slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to thesound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."

 

Pretty self explanitory. God consideres homosexuality to be a sin, against his law and contrary to the sound doctirne that conforms to the gospel.

 

 

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with woman and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with otehr men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 Although they know God's righteious decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." 

 

 

These verses specificly condem PRACTICING homosexuality and exchanging natural sexual relations for unatural sexual relations. Sexual relations specificly means the act of sex. Yes, lust is always a sin but so is practicing sexual immorality, which homosexuality falls under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmkay, I am just pulling these up again because they do kind of fit to my theory, which you may destroy as well XD

 

1) How do we know that God chooses to make people gay, as opposed to it being a result of the Fall/original sin?: Honestly there is a lot of things we do not know of God's judgment. Many believe homosexuality does not come from birth, so many will disagree. But from birth, besides our original sin lingering, God makes each person with their own traits, ideas, and struggles as well. For instance, I am very bubbly and active, I strongly believe in most Catholic doctrines, and are fairly intelligent. Now I have my struggles too, per say, I struggle with feeling like everyone needs to like me, anxiety, and not having a taste for vegetables. Now God did not make my struggles, I let them happen. I did not push myself to eat veggies young, so I hate them now. I over pressure myself, so I have anxiety. The everyone needing to like me would fall under vanity. However, God did create my personality, my ability to believe, and gave me the ability to be intelligent. Can I prove he did or didn't give me certain things? No, I cannot. Do I believe He did? yes. So we can put it in this context: A man was born gay, ambitious, and a strong faith in his Lord. His biggest struggles in life are desiring more than he needs (materialistic lust, gluttony, depicting on what it is) and anger. He has a deep faith in God though, and is Gay too. He has a boyfriend he loves very much, they've been together since he was 17. He is 30 now. They love each other very much, and both go to Church together. So what exactly have they done wrong?

2) What evidence is there to suggest that the homosexuality passages are talking primarily about a lust problem that does not apply to all homosexual activity? If lust is the issue, you'd expect to see similar statements about heterosexual activity.

Although lust exist within the heterosexual ideals, it puts much more emphasis on the idea of lust if you are willing to lay with ANYONE just to have sex. For a man to lie with a man just for the sake of sexual pleasure, is an abomination indeed. But God did not say the two men LOVED each other either. Is it not more emphasis on the idea that a man wants sex so much he is willing to lay with a man for the pleasure? Just likes normal, straight people, gay people do not have sex with their lovers all the time either.

 

I really do get your reasoning, but I see potential problems. How do we know that homosexuality counts as just part of the person God made him, and not one of his struggles? For example, there are people who imagine they were simply born mean. Whether they are correct or not, they think of that as just who they are, and so argue there is nothing wrong with it and he shouldn't be expected to change. Now, we both know it's wrong to be mean, whether you're born that way or not. So what reasons do we have to think being gay isn't like that?: That is something I cannot answer. I think honestly this is something between you and God in prayer. God never made my heart feel poorly about them, so I felt well they must not be horrible. I do not think it is something like meanness though. It can be viewed from both ends as good or bad, which again comes down to your heart feelings about it. But again I state, people are not BORN mean. It is a choice. my brother began nice, but became very mean. It is a choice. Gay, in my mind, is not a choice.

 

This is a place where I see what you're saying, and it makes sense, but I don't see why we should believe that's what Scripture is saying. It's certainly not clear about that, and it really just seems like jumping through hoops to make the Bible say something it's not really saying. I mean, do you think someone could ever read these verses on their own and think it's possible they don't prohibit homosexuality?: I honestly looked at it that way upon my first read. the only reason I know that other thing is because I had a lesbian catholic friend online who asked about it, and I searched some stuff for her. I guess my outlook upon anything God says about sin, is the seven deadly sins mentioned. Pride, lust, gluttony, etc. Here, lust would apply, which in this case would mean the two did not love each other but simply wanted worldly pleasure.

 

Again, a research I did saying HOMOSEXUALITY in Bible times (the people who write follow the STYLE of their time) referred to what we call the girl who has sex with everyone in school now

 

as I mentioned too

Gay used to mean happy

but now it is slang for homosexual

words change, can anyone deny that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

well to define this

It is only contradictory to YOU

It is not to me because I do not feel Gay is a sin.

 

Ok, you don't 'feel' 'gay' is sin.

 

Who decides what is sin?

Edited by JAG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God is perfect and holy and cannot sin or 'make' anyone sin. You can be born gay, and everyone is born with a tendency toward certin sin. So you can be 'born' gay and it still be a sin.

 

There are a TON of passages condeming heterosexual lust and sin acts as well. TONS.

 

God made feelings and emotins for a reason, and they are good in context, but you can't base weather it is right or wrong based on how you FEEL alone. The passages clearly condem homosexuality but you cant disregard it just becuase that is how you feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, you don't 'feel' 'gay' is sin.

 

Who decides what is sin?

This is important, and one that just can't be thrown out. Who decides what is/is not sin? If you believe God and His Word does, then anything else is incorrect, and you will have to eventually answer for that. If we as humans do, then in what way? Collectively? Individually? I can't take the latter seriously, to be honest with you. If the door to deciding what is/isn't sin is wide open, then what about salvation? It just doesn't line up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what we who hold the conservative stance here, namely that the Bible condemns homosexual activity, need to work on is how to see our opposition. This debate is new ground for the Church at large; past debates and heresies all centered on much more abstract theological issues, not on practical moral ones. How to handle challenge on a more or less unquestionably unanimous moral teaching of all the Church's history is not immediately obvious like handling the old heresies is.

 

So we are agreed: the Bible teaches the homosexuality is wrong. We agree that the Bible is the proper authority to settle this question. But on another level, who is the authority to judge pro-gay interpretation as anything like a heresy? The Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong, we would agree, but does not specify how serious of a matter this issue is. We could argue from Scripture that our opponents are not correct, but from what basis do we argue how severely they are in error?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not hear to get into a debate.

 

I just want to say there are infinitely better Side A arguments then ones based on "feeling" or "love" making it right. Though in my opinion and experience the Side B argument from an average Christian is almost always better and more convincing, in some cases a lot better, than the Side A argument from an average Christian. For instance I never understood why so many people found the Matthew Vines video so compelling and convincing. But when it comes to in-depth biblical and historical studies the Side A argument is much better, more solid, and more convincing in my opinion. There are many things I was not aware of until recently that have certainly made me see things differently. But with these things I'd say 85-95% of average Christians who hold Side A views and 99% of average Christians who hold Side B views do not know about. If there was more common knowledge it wouldn't mean everyone would agree, but it would mean we would have much better discussions and this whole topic would be treated very differently. 

 

This is important, and one that just can't be thrown out. Who decides what is/is not sin? If you believe God and His Word does, then anything else is incorrect, and you will have to eventually answer for that. If we as humans do, then in what way? Collectively? Individually? I can't take the latter seriously, to be honest with you. If the door to deciding what is/isn't sin is wide open, then what about salvation? It just doesn't line up.

 

QFT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what we who hold the conservative stance here, namely that the Bible condemns homosexual activity, need to work on is how to see our opposition. This debate is new ground for the Church at large; past debates and heresies all centered on much more abstract theological issues, not on practical moral ones. How to handle challenge on a more or less unquestionably unanimous moral teaching of all the Church's history is not immediately obvious like handling the old heresies is.

 

So we are agreed: the Bible teaches the homosexuality is wrong. We agree that the Bible is the proper authority to settle this question. But on another level, who is the authority to judge pro-gay interpretation as anything like a heresy? The Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong, we would agree, but does not specify how serious of a matter this issue is. We could argue from Scripture that our opponents are not correct, but from what basis do we argue how severely their mistake is?

This is a decent question you make Caleb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the UK, for example, same-sex marriage would never have been even discussed before the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Once homosexuality became legal, once it became much more accepted and normalised in society, then came the discussion about whether homosexual marriage was possible. 

 

 

I think it's relevant to point out that not all same-sex sex was illegal in Britain up until 1967. Only sex between men was illegal. There has never been a time in the history of Britain when sex between women was illegal. And more than that is was tolerated and more or less accepted during the 18th, 19th, and first half of the 20th centuries. But up until 1861 the death penalty was the punishment in Britain for men convicted of having had same-sex sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris is so depressing on matters of the heart. I am still an old school Marxist romantic, the likes of Badiou and Žižek. Erotic love is the purest, true love in the sense that it is the only love that is not wholly aim-inhibited. In Hegelian terms, erotic love is the absolute, because it is the Alpha and the Omega of our libidinal drive. It contains the original being of sex qua sex act and all its surplus, spiritual sublimations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris is so depressing on matters of the heart. I am still an old school Marxist romantic, the likes of Badiou and Žižek. Erotic love is the purest, true love in the sense that it is the only love that is not wholly aim-inhibited. In Hegelian terms, erotic love is the absolute, because it is the Alpha and the Omega of our libidinal drive. It contains the original being of sex qua sex act and all its surplus, spiritual sublimations. 

I must be too, considering Chris said I sound like you XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris is so depressing on matters of the heart.

 

So I believe people like to have sex! Don't make me no kind of cynic |D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I believe people like to have sex! Don't make me no kind of cynic |D

I think most people do...but some people don't desire it all the time...

I am 17 and have honestly never had a desire to have sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

I think what we who hold the conservative stance here, namely that the Bible condemns homosexual activity, need to work on is how to see our opposition. This debate is new ground for the Church at large; past debates and heresies all centered on much more abstract theological issues, not on practical moral ones. How to handle challenge on a more or less unquestionably unanimous moral teaching of all the Church's history is not immediately obvious like handling the old heresies is.

 

So we are agreed: the Bible teaches the homosexuality is wrong. We agree that the Bible is the proper authority to settle this question. But on another level, who is the authority to judge pro-gay interpretation as anything like a heresy? The Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong, we would agree, but does not specify how serious of a matter this issue is. We could argue from Scripture that our opponents are not correct, but from what basis do we argue how severely they are in error?

 

How severely they are in error?  Are you saying sin is now an ancillary issue for 'modern' Christianity?

 

I don't know how you wish me to respond.  You're basically asking if we should be proud of being the 'tallest midget' or the 'least evil super villain' or the 'most holy unholy person.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How severely they are in error?  Are you saying sin is now an ancillary issue for 'modern' Christianity?

 

I don't know how you wish me to respond.  You're basically asking if we should be proud of being the 'tallest midget' or the 'least evil super villain' or the 'most holy unholy person.'

 

Well, so for example, there are different theories of the atonement in Christendom. While Satisfaction Theory is the primary atonement theory in Roman Catholic theology, it is not the only acceptable theory of the atonement. Arguably, the Cross is the most important doctrine of Christendom. Yet, most people are comfortable with someone believing in Christus Victor, another Recapitulation Theory, another Girard's mimetic theory, etc. In like manner, conservatives on the topic of homosexuality can hold to the belief that a leftist interpretation of homosexuality and the New Testament is within the range of reasonable interpretation. It is not akin to denying the Trinity, or that Christ took on a human incarnation (Gnosticism). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

People already know my stance on this, so I'll keep it short

 

I'm not God. There are numerous translations and interpretations of the Bible that justify homosexuality as well as those that condemn it. I don't believe the Bible was created by God body-snatching some dudes and writing through them, and though I revere and study it I do not see it as being "perfect" anyways. That being said, someone barking their human opinion formed off of a Bible verse or two is not going to convince me; especially when there are numerous genuine conclusions that can be drawn from the Bible.

 

I am not gay nor do I have homosexual tendencies, so I have no place trying to make heads or tails of it. Sin is defined as something (right or wrong) being done with the belief that it is wrong, so either every homosexual person ever born is a liar or it isn't intrinsically perceived as sin. I see no reason whatsoever to believe it's immoral, and so I will not. However, I'm a flawed, fleshly creature, and I'm sure I'm wrong on a lot of things as is everyone. So I'm especially not going to give yea or nay to something defining of a person's entire life when I have no experience in it and no indisputable evidence in either direction.

 

It's none of my business what it is. Even if it is wrong, I'll love someone who's lgbt just the same. It's between someone and God, and I have no place meddling. If you want to debate tangible things like its legalization or effect on culture, then I'll have more to say.

 

I'll say this much, though. Though I won't say anything definitively, I do not personally believe it is sinful or immoral in any way. However, the LGBT community is rather disgusting with how it chooses to often conduct itself in the public eye. I understand living under a stereotype drives humans to embrace the stereotype for a feeling of control and is a common coping mechanism, but the LGBT community takes it WAY too far. I'd suggest the majority of its members bring adequate clothing to the next gay pride rally or whatever they choose to have, if they want people to stop looking at them like lecherous beasts.

 

 

 

Also, I know a lot of this was supposed to be geared to some theory you made in chat, Jazzy, but I can't reply to it as I wasn't there and don't know what you said TT~TT

Edited by Mike Spero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's relevant to point out that not all same-sex sex was illegal in Britain up until 1967. Only sex between men was illegal. There has never been a time in the history of Britain when sex between women was illegal. And more than that is was tolerated and more or less accepted during the 18th, 19th, and first half of the 20th centuries. But up until 1861 the death penalty was the punishment in Britain for men convicted of having had same-sex sex.

Yes, this is one of those well-known quirky facts, which whilst interesting, wasn't really the point of what I was saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently researching this, I've been wondering about the different Greek words used by Paul when writing about this. Jazzy, your theory does make some sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently researching this, I've been wondering about the different Greek words used by Paul when writing about this. Jazzy, your theory does make some sense.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I know a few

Storgay: affection, like you'd love a pet.

Eros: a powerful love that takes priority over everything else. Like your favourite meal on a menu.

Agappe: perfect love. Only shown by God.

I know Fileo is one but I don't know what it means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is one of those well-known quirky facts, which whilst interesting, wasn't really the point of what I was saying.

 

Though there is a wider point in that the biblical literature never blatantly condemns female-to-female sexual relations. It has been well-known that male-to-male sexual relations were condemned in certain times, but female-to-female sexual relations were passed over in silence. If we are being biblical literalists, then we should have no real reason to be anti-lesbian. Perhaps it is an area of Christian liberty. 

 

I'm currently researching this, I've been wondering about the different Greek words used by Paul when writing about this. Jazzy, your theory does make some sense. 

 

The words about homosexuality associated with St. Paul are μαλακός and αρσενοκοίτης. The tricky thing about the latter word is that it appears to be a neologism invented by St. Paul himself. His uses of the word are the first we have in antiquity. 

 

Michael Carden's "Homophobia and the Politics of Biblical Translation" is an enlightened read on the subject. He is a scholar, who is a friend of a friend.

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People already know my stance on this, so I'll keep it short

 

I'm not God. There are numerous translations and interpretations of the Bible that justify homosexuality as well as those that condemn it. I don't believe the Bible was created by God body-snatching some dudes and writing through them, and though I revere and study it I do not see it as being "perfect" anyways. That being said, someone barking their human opinion formed off of a Bible verse or two is not going to convince me; especially when there are numerous genuine conclusions that can be drawn from the Bible.

 

I am not gay nor do I have homosexual tendencies, so I have no place trying to make heads or tails of it. Sin is defined as something (right or wrong) being done with the belief that it is wrong, so either every homosexual person ever born is a liar or it isn't intrinsically perceived as sin. I see no reason whatsoever to believe it's immoral, and so I will not. However, I'm a flawed, fleshly creature, and I'm sure I'm wrong on a lot of things as is everyone. So I'm especially not going to give yea or nay to something defining of a person's entire life when I have no experience in it and no indisputable evidence in either direction.

 

It's none of my business what it is. Even if it is wrong, I'll love someone who's lgbt just the same. It's between someone and God, and I have no place meddling. If you want to debate tangible things like its legalization or effect on culture, then I'll have more to say.

 

I'll say this much, though. Though I won't say anything definitively, I do not personally believe it is sinful or immoral in any way. However, the LGBT community is rather disgusting with how it chooses to often conduct itself in the public eye. I understand living under a stereotype drives humans to embrace the stereotype for a feeling of control and is a common coping mechanism, but the LGBT community takes it WAY too far. I'd suggest the majority of its members bring adequate clothing to the next gay pride rally or whatever they choose to have, if they want people to stop looking at them like lecherous beasts.

 

 

 

Also, I know a lot of this was supposed to be geared to some theory you made in chat, Jazzy, but I can't reply to it as I wasn't there and don't know what you said TT~TT

I kind of agree with you here... XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently researching this, I've been wondering about the different Greek words used by Paul when writing about this. Jazzy, your theory does make some sense. 

SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS KINDA XD

YAY JAMES

XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×