Is Homosexuality Right Or Wrong? your views

[Joshua 0]

Umm... I say it's just because we are all slaves to our lusts and sins. You could also say a murderer can't help being one, he just is. Even if he is able to physically refrain from murdering someone in his mind he's already committed the crime and thus is guilty. Even if you don't commit adultery/premarital sex with someone in your mind you've most likely already done it, making you guilty. Until you're saved and given a new mind, a new heart, and a new Spirit you are not freed from the bondage of sin so that you are free instead to serve God.So I suppose you can make that argument for anyone other then a Christian. And of course until that heart transaction occurs whereby you get in a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross you are not freed from that sin bondage, nor do you have eternal life. A person living rebelliously in known sin is almost certainly not a Christian is what I am saying. And the Bible makes it abundantly clear that homosexuality like hating others, adultery, lying (whether they're little and white or whatever their characteristics), stealing, coveting (wanting what other people have), etc... is a sin. Just check the first chapter of Romans if you don't believe me. God views sodomy pretty seriously... where do you think the word comes from? Sodom and Gomorrah... Before the angels pulled Lot and his family out of the city before it got burned up, a bunch of homosexuals wanted to rape the angels who they thought were men... It's right there in Genesis 19 btw.

[canpolitics 0]

Umm...  I say it's just because we are all slaves to our lusts and sins.  You could also say a murderer can't help being one, he just is.  Even if he is able to physically refrain from murdering someone in his mind he's already committed the crime and thus is guilty.  Even if you don't commit adultery/premarital sex with someone in your mind you've most likely already done it, making you guilty. 

 

Until you're saved and given a new mind, a new heart, and a new Spirit you are not freed from the bondage of sin so that you are free instead to serve God.

 

So I suppose you can make that argument for anyone other then a Christian.  And of course until that heart transaction occurs whereby you get in a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross you are not freed from that sin bondage, nor do you have eternal life.  A person living rebelliously in known sin is almost certainly not a Christian is what I am saying.  And the Bible makes it abundantly clear that homosexuality like hating others, adultery, lying (whether they're little and white or whatever their characteristics), stealing, coveting (wanting what other people have), etc...  is a sin.  Just check the first chapter of Romans if you don't believe me.

173367[/snapback]

I am going to have to call you on that one... while Romans Chapter 1 does condemn fornicators, it does not single out homosexuality in any way, in other words homosexual sex is no worse than heterosexual sex in the eyes of god. Of course Romans Chapter one calls pretty much everything a sin, even ignorance is a sin according to Romans 1:31.

 

God views sodomy pretty seriously...  where do you think the word comes from?  Sodom and Gomorrah...  Before the angels pulled Lot and his family out of the city before it got burned up, a bunch of homosexuals wanted to rape the angels who they thought were men...  It's right there in Genesis 19 btw.

 

Actually Genesis chapter 19 never really meantions why Sodam was destroyed specifically, it could be that the angels were angry that this mob did not respect thier host's (Lot) hospitality. Actually it doesn't even say the men of Sodam were attempting to rape the guests of Lot, just that they want to "know them", and in fact Lot offers them two of his virgin daughters as bait to keep them away from his guests. Not to mention Lot sins afterwards by having sex with his two surviving daughters after the fall of Sodam and Gomorrah.

[biscuitrat 0]

The Bible is full of such things, but why look at it from a religious aspect when you can see it from a social aspect? To love within your gender is not such a bad thing to a lot of people, myself included. To walk up to a homosexual and say "Your love is a sin - you guys shouldn't be together because the Bible vaguely mentions that it's a horrible act." is a terrible thing to do. Some of my best friends are homosexuals and they're incredibly sweet. A relationship does not always mean lust and sex - it can mean companionship and if it's a fact of science that you cannot control whom you will love, who are we to stop them? Personally, I think a lot of people, orthodox Christians in politics, mainly, are taking this way too seriously. I approve of it right along with selective abortion, and stem cell research.Call me liberal, but our nation was founded on certain liberties. We're hypocrites if we deny people the right to love whom they will and marry whom they will. If I were homosexual, I would detest being forced out of a church on my wedding day (although I probably wouldn't get married in a church anyways). Put yourself in their shoes for a minute and look at the world then. You might be surprised.

[Florisjuh 0]

I dont think there is anything rong about homosexuality. It might not be the way nature wanted humans to live, but does it make a real big difference in your daily life? I mean, would you care if you would know some people on this world are different if its about sexual attraction and that stuff? I aint religious but I think homosexuality is just a twist of nature... Not some sort of disease. When you have it you have it, it might be just as out of control as a girl loving a boy and vica versa.

[Joshua 0]

I am going to have to call you on that one... while Romans Chapter 1 does condemn fornicators, it does not single out homosexuality in any way, in other words homosexual sex is no worse than heterosexual sex in the eyes of god. Of course Romans Chapter one calls pretty much everything a sin, even ignorance is a sin according to Romans 1:31.

Actually Genesis chapter 19 never really meantions why Sodam was destroyed specifically, it could be that the angels were angry that this mob did not respect thier host's (Lot) hospitality. Actually it doesn't even say the men of Sodam were attempting to rape the guests of Lot, just that they want to "know them", and in fact Lot offers them two of his virgin daughters as bait to keep them away from his guests. Not to mention Lot sins afterwards by having sex with his two surviving daughters after the fall of Sodam and Gomorrah.

173373[/snapback]

Doesn't single out homosexuality in any way?!?!?

 

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 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.

Sounds like a pretty clearcut condemnation of homosexuality if you ask me. Romans 1:31 says being without understanding is a trait of those whom God has given over to a reprobate mind, it does NOT say it's a sin:

 

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

As for why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, it is even spoken of their homosexuality here:

 

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

 

All through the OT and even in the NT that phrase of someone "knowing" someone else refers to sexual intercourse. (i.e. Ge. 4:1, Ge. 4:17, Ge. 4:25, Jg. 11:39, Jg.19:25, 1 Sa. 1:19, 1 Ki. 1:4, Mt. 1:25)

 

Lot naturally was horrified by what they wanted to do so much even that he did end up offering his daughters instead. Also, if you'd read Genesis 19:33 you would know that Lot didn't participate willingly, his daughters had to get him so drunk he didn't even know they were in the room for them to be able to do it.

 

 

 

I dont think there is anything rong about homosexuality. It might not be the way nature wanted humans to live, but does it make a real big difference in your daily life? I mean, would you care if you would know some people on this world are different if its about sexual attraction and that stuff? I aint religious but I think homosexuality is just a twist of nature... Not some sort of disease. When you have it you have it, it might be just as out of control as a girl loving a boy and vica versa.

While not all sin may affect anyone other then the sinners personally, it is still sinning against God. And sin is a disease. Christ came not only to forgive us of our sins but to make us new people that would turn from their sins and thus He will destroy the works of the devil, including sin (1 John 3:8).

[Frayed 0]

I strongly believe that homosexuality is perfectly normal. I have no problem what so ever with people being gay, lesbian or bisexual. I am a proud and active member of GSA: Gay Straight Alliance. I believe that someone should have someone to love whether it be that of the opposite or same sex. I am not gay or lesbian, but I do have a strong belief that it is right and there is nothing wrong with it what so ever. I also believe in others different opinions as well, I am not one to try change what they think. I will indeed say something if I hear any prejudice remarks to those who are gay/lesbian. I don't believe in bashing anyones life style, but I do believe in having your own opinions just not stating it to make those feel bad that happen to be gay/lesbian.

[Joshua 0]

I don't believe in bashing anyones life style, but I do believe in having your own opinions just not stating it to make those feel bad that happen to be gay/lesbian.

173429[/snapback]

In other words, you're proclaiming tolerance for all as long as they don't disagree with you. Once they do you feel it's alright to use charachter assassination and bashing to put them down until they no longer are allowed to disagree with you?

[canpolitics 0]

Doesn't single out homosexuality in any way?!?!? 

 

 

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 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.

 

Sounds like a pretty clearcut condemnation of homosexuality if you ask me. Romans 1:31 says being without understanding is a trait of those whom God has given over to a reprobate mind, it does NOT say it's a sin:

173423[/snapback]

Darn, forgot that passage... or rather put it in the wrong book, your right.... sorry my error. Regardless though this is a pretty weak condemnation. First of all it only condemens homosexual sex, not homosexual love, wich considering the bibles view on sex in general is no great shock, since all sex short of sex between a married couple for the sole purpose of procreation is a sin, also this does not condemn lesbianism at all, just male homosexuality. As you have pointed out in other threads the bible has been translated from various other languages, I have heard (since I am not sure what language Romans was originally written in I can't verify it) that the phrase men with men was a translation of the greek word for "pederasty" wich was the common practice of men having sex with their male child slaves. Romans 1:27 could well just be condemning child sexual abuse. Romans 1:26 merely forbids woman to engage is sex outside nature, which could be taken a number of ways, the most likely (given the times) is any sex that does not produce offspring.

 

Also the wording of this passage damns sex between two men that is not agreeable to nature. If this is the case, then if it is possible that homosexuality could be inborn and not just a choice then Paul is actually in favour of homosexuality, just not bisexuality, or infidelity. All of this hinges on what you consider to be sex that is "agreeable to nature" since the original word used was phooskos, wich is translated to agreeable to nature.

 

As for why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, it is even spoken of their homosexuality here:

 

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

 

As I said it does not state that Sodam and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality, but rather fornication, and adultry specifically.

 

All through the OT and even in the NT that phrase of someone "knowing" someone else refers to sexual intercourse.  (i.e. Ge. 4:1, Ge. 4:17, Ge. 4:25, Jg. 11:39, Jg.19:25, 1 Sa. 1:19, 1 Ki. 1:4, Mt. 1:25)

Knowing someone generally is [bold]assumed[/bold] to mean sexual intercourse you mean.

 

Lot naturally was horrified by what they wanted to do so much even that he did end up offering his daughters instead.  Also, if you'd read Genesis 19:33 you would know that Lot didn't participate willingly, his daughters had to get him so drunk he didn't even know they were in the room for them to be able to do it.

While not all sin may affect anyone other then the sinners personally, it is still sinning against God.  And sin is a disease.  Christ came not only to forgive us of our sins but to make us new people that would turn from their sins and thus He will destroy the works of the devil, including sin (1 John 3:8).

 

Several points here.

1) Doesn't matter if Lot knew what had been done, he and his daughters still committed a sin, true his daughters did so willingly and he did so while inebriated, but come on, do you really think you can perform sexually while so drunk that you are unaware you are even having sex?

 

2) As for 1 John 3:8, so it is your belief that Jesus Christ was put on earth to destroy sin? More than 2000 years after he was put to death on the cross sin still exists, at least as rampant as in his lifetime, doesn't seem like it worked.

 

3) Back to the issue of incest, Adam and Eve's childeren had to commit insest in order to create the human race (if you believe in creationism as I assume you do)

 

4) Noah's children must also have engaged in incest in order to rebuild the human race (assuming you believe in the story that a planet wide flood occured which wiped out everything.

[Joshua 0]

Darn, forgot that passage... or rather put it in the wrong book, your right.... sorry my error. Regardless though this is a pretty weak condemnation. First of all it only condemens homosexual sex, not homosexual love, wich considering the bibles view on sex in general is no great shock, since all sex short of sex between a married couple for the sole purpose of procreation is a sin, also this does not condemn lesbianism at all, just male homosexuality. As you have pointed out in other threads the bible has been translated from various other languages, I have heard (since I am not sure what language Romans was originally written in I can't verify it) that the phrase men with men was a translation of the greek word for "pederasty" wich was the common practice of men having sex with their male child slaves. Romans 1:27 could well just be condemning child sexual abuse. Romans 1:26 merely forbids woman to engage is sex outside nature, which could be taken a number of ways, the most likely (given the times) is any sex that does not produce offspring.

So do you know of any homosexuals then which love without having sex? (since we've verified the sex part is wrong)

 

Also, Christ said that simply lusting in your heart can be adultery which would then mean even if they want to do it and don't they're guilty (Mt. 5:28). Just like if you hate someone in your heart you're guilty of murder (1 Jn. 3:15).

 

I just gave those verses and you still don't think they're against being female homosexuality? Here's just one of the verses now...

 

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

As for the original text of 1:27, here it is:

 

Romans 1:27 And <te> likewise <homoios> also <kai> the men <arrhen>, leaving <aphiemi> the natural <phusikos> use <chresis> of the woman <thelus>, burned <ekkaio> in <en> their <autos> lust <orexis> one toward another <eis> <allelon>; men <arrhen> with <en> men <arrhen> working <katergazomai> that which is unseemly <aschemosune>, and <kai> receiving <apolambano> in <en> themselves <heautou> that recompence <antimisthia> of their <autos> error <plane> which <hos> was meet <dei>.

I don't see the word "pederasty" anywhere but I can give you the Greek definitions for any of the words from the Strong's Greek Dictionary, widely considered the best Greek dictionary available.

 

As long as we're into the original Greek, the original for 1:26 is:

 

Romans 1:26 For <dia> this <touto> cause God <theos> gave <paradidomi> them <autos> up <paradidomi> unto <eis> vile <atimia> affections <pathos>: for <gar> even <te> their <autos> women <thelus> did change <metallasso> the natural <phusikos> use <chresis> into <eis> that which is against <para> nature <phusis>:

That word affections is the Greek "pathos", which means:

 

3806.  payov  pathos,  path'-os Search for 3806 in KJV from the alternate of 3958; properly, suffering ("pathos"), i.e. (subjectively) a passion (especially concupiscence):-- (inordinate) affection, lust.

So just the lusts themselves are condemned, regardless of whether children procede or not. As I mentioned before, they sin just within their hearts by doing such things.

 

The final nail in the coffin is that in 1:27 it goes on to say the men left the natural use of the women, meaning it should be a man and a woman, the reverse of that is a woman and a man, but it should be clear there should be no 2 of one kind.

 

However, since we're getting deeper into the subject I might as well throw some other verses at you as well:

 

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

2 Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

 

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

 

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

 

 

Also the wording of this passage damns sex between two men that is not agreeable to nature. If this is the case, then if it is possible that homosexuality could be inborn and not just a choice then Paul is actually in favour of homosexuality, just not bisexuality, or infidelity. All of this hinges on what you consider to be sex that is "agreeable to nature" since the original word used was phooskos, wich is translated to agreeable to nature.

As I said it does not state that Sodam and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality, but rather fornication, and adultry specifically.  Knowing someone generally is [bold]assumed[/bold] to mean sexual intercourse you mean.

Not really, since Paul doesn't just say "not agreeable to nature" but goes on to say "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."

 

Paul elsewhere goes on to say even the effeminate will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven, as the verses I gave above say. And I was saying that the Bible often uses that term of knowing someone to mean sexually.

 

Several points here.

1) Doesn't matter if Lot knew what had been done, he and his daughters still committed a sin, true his daughters did so willingly and he did so while inebriated, but come on, do you really think you can perform sexually while so drunk that you are unaware you are even having sex?

 

2) As for 1 John 3:8, so it is your belief that Jesus Christ was put on earth to destroy sin? More than 2000 years after he was put to death on the cross sin still exists, at least as rampant as in his lifetime, doesn't seem like it worked.

 

3) Back to the issue of incest, Adam and Eve's childeren had to commit insest in order to create the human race (if you believe in creationism as I assume you do)

 

4) Noah's children must also have engaged in incest in order to rebuild the human race (assuming you believe in the story that a planet wide flood occured which wiped out everything.

173563[/snapback]

1) Irregardless, the Bible certainly doesn't condone his actions and the children which proceded from that sin fathered the nations that were Israel's greatest enemies for perhaps thousands of years.

 

2) Christ constantly spoke of a day in which He would judge the world and gave this parable of how He would let the evil and good exist until that day when the world would be judged. Then those who had been born again would be allowed to enter Heaven for they have been born with a Spirit that will seek to destroy all sin in them, and thus sin will be destroyed.

 

Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28  He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

 

Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38  The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39  The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

3) Because of that God had not yet given the Law or its commandments, and where the Law is not given sin is not imputed (Romans 5:13). His main commandment then was to be fruitful and multiply if I recall correctly.

 

4) Same issue, but again, you must realize that Noah was 600 years old at the time. So it wasn't exactly brothers and cousins being 20 years apart for example. You could have a girl and her cousin that could have an age difference of 150 years for example. My point is, it kind of changes the views with which we think of the immediate family. The longevity of that time surely must have affected what we consider the immediate family.

[biscuitrat 0]

600? Pfft. How is that even physically possible, especially in the day when you were considered elderly towards your 30's and 40's? Scientifically, that would be impossible.Also, you keep saying "in the eyes of Christ, it is wrong". What about from your eyes? Would you honestly walk up to a homosexual couple and tell them that their love is unholy, wrong, and ought to be purged? Consider this if they were your best friends. I don't like a lot of people, but I don't like homophobes very much at all. Also people who think abortion and stem cell research is bad.

[Joshua 0]

600? Pfft. How is that even physically possible, especially in the day when you were considered elderly towards your 30's and 40's? Scientifically, that would be impossible.

 

Also, you keep saying "in the eyes of Christ, it is wrong". What about from your eyes? Would you honestly walk up to a homosexual couple and tell them that their love is unholy, wrong, and ought to be purged? Consider this if they were your best friends. I don't like a lot of people, but I don't like homophobes very much at all. Also people who think abortion and stem cell research is bad.

173857[/snapback]

Science thought it was impossible for Ninevah to be as great a city as the Bible described, that is, before they excavated it. Many of the things once deemed improbable or impossible have been shown to be otherwise. We know only what we've experienced. As a result there are only a handful of things about the universe or anything science truly knows for certain, since to "know" something it must be able to know the end results of all possible outcomes. The Bible makes it very clear that people in that age had incredible longevity, and if you are going to doubt that you might as well doubt the story about Lot as well.

 

Me, I would assume that people created then were closer to the perfect form which God created the human being as. That's a fundamental difference between the Bible and evolution. Evolution says we evolved. The Bible says we have devolved, as we live for a shorter time, no longer reach the huge bodily proportions we once could, and that our evils are getting worse and worse. I would also guess that diseases had not yet had much if any time yet to form, so there may not have been any diseases or maladies yet at that time. The earth I would assume would have been smaller since the contents surrounding the core would not have had as much time to grow (think earth's layers). And that's all assuming you don't believe in the water canopy surrounding the earth.

 

That's one interesting thing about evolution. It wants to say carbon dioxide levels among other things have remained at a constant, yet wants to say that the catastrophic events it believes in (meteor showers killing dinosaurs, ice ages, etc...) had no effect on these factors remaining constant.

 

But I digress.

 

I merely wanted to show you that maybe you're not taking everything into account when you write something off as "impossible" rather then "improbable" (and I don't think it even that).

 

As I have said before, I don't go around condemning people for my sins because even if they manage to stop sinning in that respect they will still be as guilty of death as I am. What they need is to get in a right relationship with God so that their sins are forgiven and they are born again and freed from their sin bondage, so that they may freely turn from those sins to serve God instead. Living a good life is not what gets you to Heaven, but accepting that you are evil and that neither you or anyone else can save you but Jesus, and then trusting in Him alone to save you from your sins.

 

And that is one thing with me, I accept the Bible and thus God as the ultimate definer of what is right and wrong, now how I think or feel on a subject.

 

Ravi Zecharias would argue that if we don't believe in evil then all is permissible and that we're just dancing to our DNA, following our own special path in life. That a murderer is just dancing to their DNA, all is hopeless, and that any murder or rape can be done.

 

If you admit there is evil then there must also be good, evil is not something in itself, it is merely the absence of good as darkness is not something but merely the absence of light.

 

If there is evil and good then there must also be a moral law to define what good and evil are, and an embodiment of that moral law, for if one doesn't meet a law how can it exist? And thus you have your moral universe, moral law, and moral God.

 

As for your last comment, about how you can't stand those who claim different things are wrong... You should find this excerpt from Ravi Zecharias' introduction to "Jesus Among Other Gods":

 

The difficulty has really not been in knowing what to say, but in knowing what not to say.  We are living in a time when sensitivities are at the surface, often vented with cutting words.  Philosophically, you can believe anything, so long as you do not claim it is true.  Morally, you can practice anything, so long as you do not claim that it is a "better" way.  Religiously, you can hold to anything, so long as you do not bring Jesus Christ into it.  If a spiritual idea is eastern, it is granted critical immunity; if western, it is thoroughly criticized.  Thus, a journalist can walk into a church and mock its carryings on, but he or she dare not do the same if the ceremony is from the eastern fold.  Such is the mood at the end of the twentieth century. 

[Sprnknwn 0]

It?s not something really good or something really bad. Homosexuality just IS and for me it?s a way to love as good as heterosexuality.I mean, why do we have to be afraid or hate a collective which only is differenced by his sexual orientation? Are we supposing that gay people only seek sex and heteros are trying to find love? Don?t make me laugh, what a sexual maniqueism.So if it seems reasonable to someone to hate homosexuals... Why not to hate fanatical christians that are so self-obsessed with what God says (sic) that they study the whole Bible searching what is sin and what is not? I think this is more unsane.

[Joshua 0]

It´s not something really good or something really bad. Homosexuality just IS and for me it´s a way to love as good as heterosexuality.

 

I mean, why do we have to be afraid or hate a collective which only is differenced by his sexual orientation? Are we supposing that gay people only seek sex and heteros are trying to find love? Don´t make me laugh, what a sexual maniqueism.

 

So if it seems reasonable to someone to hate homosexuals... Why not to hate fanatical christians that are so self-obsessed with what God says (sic) that they study the whole Bible searching what is sin and what is not?    I think this is more unsane.

173873[/snapback]

So far the only person wanting to hate here that I see is you wanting to hate Christians. I don't know about anyone else here, but I certainly never said anything about hating homosexuals. On the contrary, I stressed that they, like all of us, are sinners who are under the bondage of their sins and lusts and not free to escape them. And even if they could live a life free of homosexuality they would still not be good enough to enter Heaven, none of us are.

 

As I stress continually, what they need is rather to find mercy in Jesus Christ, and, repenting of their sins, to let Him change them as He makes them new people. Even as He has done for me.

[kasm 0]

Actually Genesis chapter 19 never really meantions why Sodam was destroyed specifically, ...

If you refer to the Bible you have to take all the story otherwise you have the right to not use or recgnise Bible.

It is not the whole truth or the whole story when u said : Actually Genesis chapter 19 never really meantions why Sodam was destroyed specifically

The story was given in big details and sory that I will put a big quote to show the reason was known . After the angels gave good news to Abraham and Sara to have a son. [Genesis 18:1-19] . Abraham was told about going to punish Sadoom and Gomorrah. Then Abrahaam went into long negotiation with the Lord to resecue the cities [Genesis 18:20-33]. Please notice the underlined:

20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. 22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. 23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? 25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? 26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. 27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, which am but dust and ashes: 28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. 29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake. 30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. 31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake. 32 And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. 33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

Then in [Genesis 19]

12And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: 13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it

So as you see they come specially and also they mention why they will do that . So no need for your suggestion:

 

could be that the angels were angry that this mob did not respect thier host's (Lot) hospitality

It is also disguising the facts by saying:

Not to mention Lot sins afterwards by having sex with his two surviving daughters after the fall of Sodam and Gomorrah

.

I will not discuss it because it out of the subject.

[Unregistered 015 0]

Why do you people recall Bible or religious books when you speak about such a topic? Why are your views so tight? Look further if you are looking for answers. Don't be limited! You are given mind to think why dont you do that insted of looking in some books. I'm not saying those books are wrong or not but there are some living people I know (some are noble prize winers others completely unknown) which I recspect more then any book becouse I think what they think is right! It does not have to be Jesus or someone else to tell you what to belive or what to do? You have brains yourself so think and decide and give your opinion on it!My opinion is that homosexuality is not wrong, but I also think that there should not be gay marriages becouse they can give birth and that's wrong. But couples that have fun with same sex and marry opposite sex are ok.It's in their genes who they should like or not, but it is also in their genes to have offspring!