scripture and homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter feetxxxl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
about gay marriage:

those for the ban continue to speak out of belief. belief is centered around the concept of “i” …I believe this… i believe that.

everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

however in the realm of those beliefs no one has been able to explain how allowing gays to marry comes against the fruit of the spirit and against loving ones neighbor as oneself.

those who would say that the spirit that i chose to follow is not the spirit of christ. then please show how what i am following is against the spirit of christ, or against the fruit of the spirit or is against loving ones neighbor as oneself.

all those who support the ban do so out of regulation. that is, god said to do this or god said to do that. and then produce scripture to support that god said to do that.

deut 12:28"Be careful to obey all these regulations I am giving you, so that it may always go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is good and right in the eyes of the LORD your God."

however in the new covenant of christ, we, as spoken by paul in romans, no longer have a relationship to god thru regulation, but instead thru the spirit of christ whom god has put everything under his authority

Romans 7:6
“But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”

by dying to the law we have not done away with it, but instead fulfill it thru the commandment of loving ones neighbor, because it is the summation of all the law, and because fufillment of the law, is love.

law becomes an instrument of conscious about sin, where it points to violation of spirit of loving ones neighbor as oneself.

under christ the essence of marriage becomes loving ones neighbor as oneself, ones neighbor being ones spouse, the difference between the relationship with ones spouse and those relationships with other neighbors is that spousal relationship is a one flesh relationship, and is covered with vows of infidelity of cherishing and primacy “forsaking all others”.

but the essence of all marriages is loving ones spouse as one loves themselves

anyone who has fellowshipped with gay couples who have had long standing committed relationships, have witnessed this kind of love, along with cherishing, and fidelity.

imagine how many marriages would have been saved if the pardners had been able to moved from the love of attraction and into and had embraced this love… this love that is god.
 
Those who are against the ban hold beliefs as well. They believe in gay marriage. Those who speak against the ban have not shown how their beliefs are “the fruit of the spirit,” as you say.

but the essence of all marriages is loving ones spouse as one loves themselves"

No, the essence of all marriage is becoming one in christ. How can two become one in christ, against God’s commands?

As “for loving one’s neighbor, as oneself.”
Homosexuality is NOT a man loving a man as his neighbor and friend, it is a man loving a man as a WOMAN. And it is not permitted by the scriptures to sexually exite oneself, as it is not permitted to sexually excite one’s neighbor.
 
I think using the word ‘‘love’’ as it appears in the Bible to justify homosexual love is pointless unless you understand what ‘‘love’’ it refers to.

Eros? Philia? Agape? Find out and then look up the meaning of those words. If it still fits the Scriptural passage you might have my attention.
 
Delora said:
Those who are against the ban hold beliefs as well. They believe in gay marriage. Those who speak against the ban have not shown how their beliefs are “the fruit of the spirit,” as you say.

but the essence of all marriages is loving ones spouse as one loves themselves"

No, the essence of all marriage is becoming one in christ. How can two become one in christ, against God’s commands?

As “for loving one’s neighbor, as oneself.”
Homosexuality is NOT a man loving a man as his neighbor and friend, it is a man loving a man as a WOMAN. And it is not permitted by the scriptures to sexually exite oneself, as it is not permitted to sexually excite one’s neighbor.
Click to expand...
homosexuality is the human bonding between those of the same gender motivated by mutual love, respect,trust, devotion, and attraction, for a committed shared life together. the same motivating spirit as with heterosexuals

homosexuals dont think “like a woman” because in most cases the attraction began at early childhood…so there is no like woman to make any comparison.

being a heterosexual do you say that you are attracted to woman like homosexuals are attracted to a man?
 
LDNCatholic said:
I think using the word ‘‘love’’ as it appears in the Bible to justify homosexual love is pointless unless you understand what ‘‘love’’ it refers to.

Eros? Philia? Agape? Find out and then look up the meaning of those words. If it still fits the Scriptural passage you might have my attention.
Click to expand...
if you think that homosexual human bonding though of the same spirit as heterosexual bonding. is not of god, then please explain how this human bonding comes against the commandment of loving ones neighbor
 
feetxxxl said:
if you think that homosexual human bonding though of the same spirit as heterosexual bonding. is not of god, then please explain how this human bonding comes against the commandment of loving ones neighbor
Click to expand...
No no, first please explain which of the three ‘‘loves’’ that your quote refers to? I am pretty sure it is agape. Agapeic love is not about interpersonal relationships.
 
feetxxxl said:
“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” - Romans 1:27

lust is the antithesis to human bonding. is it your belief that gay relationships are about lust. if that were the case, then they would not be providing loving nurturing homes for raising abandoned and rejected children from heterosexual unions, equal to those of heterosexual married couples. and the sexual intimacy in that relationship would not be enhancing the loving nurturing environment ,which it does otherwise, there would be no equality in nurturing environments.

if it were about lust compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals would be lacking in sectors of society compared to heterosexuals. that is not the case. homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. they are not less a brother, sister, lawyer, counselor, doctor, pastor, soldier, neighbor, friend etc.

homosexuals bond out of mutual love, respect, devotion, attraction and trust for a committed shared life together the same as heterosexuals.

where there is lust their no human committment. all commitment is to satiating the lust, the other human involved is not for bondiing, but for satiating the lust.

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” - Leviticus 18:22

you need to reread what i originally wrote in addition to hebrews 8 where it contrasts the old and new covenants.
Click to expand...
I may say first that you have bought into a santized view of the homosexual life style. Having said that, homosexuals are like all of us, ranging from “nice, decent” people to the obviously depraved. So some ARE like the characters you see on television; others indulge in orgies worse than what are simulated in the worst porn movies. It is rooted in sexual libertinism. This does not mean–human beings being the onery animals we are–they cannot simultaneously kind to their parents, children and even their partners. But their sexuality tends toward a radical instability that works against their salvation. Think Jeckyl and Hyde.
 
No no, first please explain which of the three ‘‘loves’’ that your quote refers to? I am pretty sure it is agape. Agapeic love is not about interpersonal relationships.

a relationship of loving ones neighbor as oneself…what could be more interpersonnal?

consider rereading 1cor 13

anything done without love is nothing or gains nothing.

do you think that mother teresa ministered thru detached love?

it appears that yout dealing with homosexuality is really about dealing with your understanding about love.

what is the relationship betwen love and fellowship?

“if we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship with one another.”
 
RobbyS said:
I may say first that you have bought into a santized view of the homosexual life style. Having said that, homosexuals are like all of us, ranging from “nice, decent” people to the obviously depraved. So some ARE like the characters you see on television; others indulge in orgies worse than what are simulated in the worst porn movies. It is rooted in sexual libertinism. This does not mean–human beings being the onery animals we are–they cannot simultaneously kind to their parents, children and even their partners. But their sexuality tends toward a radical instability that works against their salvation. Think Jeckyl and Hyde.
Click to expand...
you havent yet touched on the essence of homosexuality. how does it come against loving ones neighbor as onself?
 
feetxxxl said:
No no, first please explain which of the three ‘‘loves’’ that your quote refers to? I am pretty sure it is agape. Agapeic love is not about interpersonal relationships.

a relationship of loving ones neighbor as oneself…what could be more interpersonnal?

consider rereading 1cor 13

anything done without love is nothing or gains nothing.

do you think that mother teresa ministered thru detached love?

it appears that yout dealing with homosexuality is really about dealing with your understanding about love.

what is the relationship betwen love and fellowship?

“if we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship with one another.”
Click to expand...
Loving your neighbour doesn’t mean marrying him or fornicating with him. Again the love described is not romantic love as between two partners, hetero or homo. The love described is charitable love, self sacrificial love. Mother Theresa did not seek a romantic relationship with those that she helped.

The love described in Corinthians, once again, is not romantic love, English has presented this as one word:

‘‘I love my wife’’

‘‘I love my Father’’

‘‘I love God’’

‘‘I love my dog’’

‘‘I love this cheeseburger’’

‘‘I love the smell of napalm in the morning’’

Read a traditional translation from the original languages and you will see that in the modern texts it is written as ‘‘love’’, in the older texts it is more closely translated as ‘‘charity’’.
 
all relationships that are of god have the love of the commandment.

all relationships that are not nothing have this love.

whether its marital, friendship, family, even co worker, or even for a pet.
 
I have never done this before. I think that there is no reason to continue discussion at this time. You have made up your mind way before you opend this thread that there is no argument that will counter yours.

I will throw one out: if homosexuality is allowed, so is beastiality. There.

WOe unto those who call vice virtue and virtue vice.
 
if you review the thread you will see that virtually none of my questions were answered.
 
feetxxxl said:
if you review the thread you will see that virtually none of my questions were answered.
Click to expand...
I have. More than once. Your entire argument is based on saying that since we are to love each other, it is ok. I have seen counter arguments produced, and you return to it. Your entire position is built upon a concept that is not common to Christian thought.

You still have not shown how all of a sudden, a form of sex outside of marriage is allowed, when Jesus made it clear that sex is a man and a woman only, and only those two can have sex with each other.

This is not the word used for love. The word used is almost always karitos. Loving your neighbor as yourself because of your love for God. There is nothing sexual about it at all. NOTHING.

If I love my pet frog, why can I not have a relationship with him? What about NABLA? Are they cool, too?
 
feetxxxl said:
asked and answered…#161
Click to expand...
No. Asked and dodged.
under christ the essence of marriage becomes loving ones neighbor as oneself, ones neighbor being ones spouse, the difference between the relationship with ones spouse and those relationships with other neighbors is that spousal relationship is a one flesh relationship, and is covered with vows of infidelity of cherishing and primacy “forsaking all others”.
Click to expand...
but the essence of all marriages is loving ones spouse as one loves themselves
Click to expand...
Jesus NEVER said it was about loving just anyone. He said that it was A MAN and A WOMAN joined together. He also said that any sexual contact outside of it was a sin. You are forcing things that are not there. You hold to this “If we love eachother, it is fine.” That is not scriptural.

Again, what about beastiality and NAMBLA? Is that not love? Why is that not acceptable?
 
is it your understanding that jesus came to make a new set of regulations, or to affirm some old ones that were to die to when we died in christ and were resurrected with him? or instead he came to offer possibilities of living in the spirit.

in matt 19:11-12 he gives a spirit message of dispensation for all time, for those who are not given the word of a one flesh man woman relationship. a message not to be limited with legalities or traditional thinking, but thru a test of spirit…being .in christ we are led and serve of the spirit thru the grace of the holy spirit.
 
feetxxxl said:
is it your understanding that jesus came to make a new set of regulations, or to affirm some old ones that were to die to when we died in christ and were resurrected with him? or instead he came to offer possibilities of living in the spirit.
Click to expand...
Jesus came not to abolish the law but so that the law might be fulfilled. The new laws are to love God above all else and love neighbor as self. But he never uprooted creation.
in matt 19:11-12 he gives a spirit message of dispensation for all time, for those who are not given the word of a one flesh man woman relationship. a message not to be limited with legalities or traditional thinking, but thru a test of spirit…being .in christ we are led and serve of the spirit thru the grace of the holy spirit.
Click to expand...
This is a mis-quote worthy of the hall of fame. If you are not called to marry, you are to remain a UNICH FOR THE KINGDOM. People without genitals cannot have sexual contact.

Again, what about beastiality and NAMBLA? Are those not about love?
 
ralphinal said:
Again, what about beastiality and NAMBLA? Are those not about love?
Click to expand...
And group marriage! When it is between two men or two women there is nothing to objectively define a “couple.” Why two? Since it is all about “love your neighbor as yourself” why does he limit to just one neighbor?

Honestly this thread has been a bit like being in an argument with my toddler. “No it’s NOT!” stamps foot You, ralphinal, and Eden, and LDNCAtholic have given him lots of cohesive discourse. You are right, his mind is made up. He says he answers yet it is always another dodge.
 
LittleDeb said:
And group marriage! When it is between two men or two women there is nothing to objectively define a “couple.” Why two? Since it is all about “love your neighbor as yourself” why does he limit to just one neighbor?

Honestly this thread has been a bit like being in an argument with my toddler. “No it’s NOT!” stamps foot You, ralphinal, and Eden, and LDNCAtholic have given him lots of cohesive discourse. You are right, his mind is made up. He says he answers yet it is always another dodge.
Click to expand...
asked and answered…#161
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top