Right, that is quite enough, stop all this nonsense. Jesus supports homosexuals in Scripture.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Either way you slice it, you're striking out with the wrong foot by condemning what I'm explainaing, while simultaneously admitting you have no special knowledge on the topic at hand.

What difference does it make? The only thing you're explaining is your opinion (even though you KNOW the Bible says differently), so who's worse?

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

You are not to act on homosexual urges if you have them, that is a sin. God will except homosexual people, but if you truly followed the word of God you wouldnt act upon them and people wouldnt know you were. Pretty simple.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If two consenting adults love each other, then I think Jesus would be cool with that.

Even if they love each other within an adulterous relationship?

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Deetermined
You do realize you are going to be accused of using the old testament when it suits you, and saying it doesn't apply to Christians when it is inconvenient, right? Quoting Romans chapter 1 would have helped to circumvent that debate. Just a thought.

Any Christian who says that the Old Testament isn't relevant and doesn't apply doesn't understand the entire Bible very well. I guess we should just forget the whole story about Sodom and Gomorrah?!

Most Republicans I know just want people to quit wanting special treatment and to be happy.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Just my opinion on the topic. . . . .

Love should never be considered a sin.


If two consenting adults love each other, then I think Jesus would be cool with that.


*steps back from the thread*

Love is never a sin and no one is condemning love not even God nor Jesus. The sexual act is not love. I love my children but know it is reprehensible to express that love sexually let alone even think about such an act.

Love is from the heart and yes, God knows what is in your heart. The sexual is a physical action based on desire not love. Condemn the sin not the sinner is what Jesus came to teach.

a reply to: CynConcepts

In Matthew 19 the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus by questioning Him on the issue of divorce and remarriage. Jesus answered by going back to God’s original plan for human sexuality, which is this: sex is reserved for a marriage relationship between a man and a woman.

Not exactly. You are conflating marriage -- a voluntary commitment to a lifelong union -- with all sexuality and acts of sex. Jesus' words speak to that complementary union of male and female as we were created, which includes our sexuality, and moreso our ability to be "co-creators" with God/Nature. Marriage is a specific union with specific vows made before God, and it is that specific situation Jesus was speaking to, which is borne out in the full context of the discussion.

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

So Jesus allowed for divorce on the grounds of "fornication," but that's not a well defined term. It is generally taken to mean unethical or immoral sexual acts/relations of all kinds. But what constitutes immoral or unethical will be defined differently by different folks. And remember, to Jesus' audience, the ONLY moral and ethical reason to have sexual relations with your wife was to procreate. There were, however, temple prostitutes to satisfy their fleshly desires.

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

It isn't clear why exactly the disciples think this is a deal-breaker, and are ready to give up on marriage, except that it was also expected -- demanded! -- that men marry and produce children for the faith. Jesus' own (maternal) grandfather was mocked and ridiculed for not producing children until well past his prime, despite being a man of strong faith and commitment to the Temple.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Remember, these men believed that marriage to a woman to produce children was an absolute necessity in life.... and Jesus was telling them that no, it is not. And Jesus used the eunuchs -- which in the 1st century definitions would have included homosexuals -- as examples of those who were not meant to marry and produce children. But Jesus also said not all men would understand.

When Jesus spoke of those "to whom it is given," I expect Jesus is speaking to those who know from experience... from their own hearts and spirits that they are not meant to marry and produce children. Jesus was making it clear that this is an option, contrary to the teachings of the time.

Thats great. What about the Koran? What does that great book have to say about it?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
Love should never be considered a sin.

It never was considered a sin. Love isn't a desire to have sex. If you have children, you probably love them, but you also probably don't wish to engage in various sexual activities with them. Love is not sex.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
The sexual is a physical action based on desire not love

“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.” (1 John 2:15)

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Deetermined
You do realize you are going to be accused of using the old testament when it suits you, and saying it doesn't apply to Christians when it is inconvenient, right? Quoting Romans chapter 1 would have helped to circumvent that debate. Just a thought.

Any Christian who says that the Old Testament isn't relevant and doesn't apply doesn't understand the entire Bible very well. I guess we should just forget the whole story about Sodom and Gomorrah?!

Understood, but you are always going to have those who question why Christians observe some old testament laws but do not observe others. In their minds, law is law. Why do Christians, and Jews for that matter get to pick and choose which laws should still be observed and which do not? See what I'm saying? That's the only reason I mentioned it to you. Carry on, it was just a thought.

In the original Greek he does indeed. So many staple Christian things are total fabrications of the times. The biggest one even but that's for another day.

A question you could ask, is why do some/most christians hate “sinners” in the first place? Especially considering that, by their own standards, everyone is a “sinner”, and most acts that counted as “sin” are publicly acceptable at this point.

Thou shall not kill
And
Thou shall not steal



Are really the only commandments that still have laws regarding them. Adultery is still a legal issue, but you won’t be punished by any authority for it.

Giving false testimony is only against the law when filling out forms, filing charges, or testifying in court.

There are other acts that are considered “sin”, like homosexuality, disrespecting parents, working on sabbith, on and on and on, but there are no current laws regarding them.

Out of all of the acts that count as “sins” described throughout the torah, the bible, and the quran, the one that abrahamic religions cling to is the one about homosexuality, and it only refers to men laying with men. It never even mentions women in this regard at all.


It’s almost as if those religions aren’t even relevant in modern times and we shouldn’t be using ancient books to describe how good people should act around eachother.

a reply to: Klassified

Understood, but you are always going to have those who question why Christians observe some old testament laws but do not observe others. In their minds, law is law. Why do Christians, and Jews for that matter get to pick and choose which laws should still be observed and which do not? See what I'm saying? That's the only reason I mentioned it to you. Carry on, it was just a thought.

I understand what you're saying too, but I think Paul answers that best with the knowledge that...

Romans 2:11-14

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

a reply to: Woodcarver

Out of all of the acts that count as “sins” described throughout the torah, the bible, and the quran, the one that abrahamic religions cling to is the one about homosexuality, and it only refers to men laying with men. It never even mentions women in this regard at all.

There is a reference of even women changing their natural use and going against nature here...

Romans 1:26-28

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.

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;

The Bible is allegory. Shame on them for getting us into this thousand's year mess.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

Out of all of the acts that count as “sins” described throughout the torah, the bible, and the quran, the one that abrahamic religions cling to is the one about homosexuality, and it only refers to men laying with men. It never even mentions women in this regard at all.

There is a reference of even women changing their natural use and going against nature here...

Romans 1:26-28

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.

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;

Eh, i don’t see it. It never explicitly states homosexual acts for women, not like it specifically describes men with men. Some of these people regularly had many wives, harams were a normal thing.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Verse 27 tells you what "going against nature" means and verse 26 says that women did it too.

I usually try to stay brief in my posts, but in this case, brevity was working against me.

Apologies for convoluting love with a sexual act.

I know the two are different.

So to expand, it appears that the main issue is on a sexual act. For the moment, lets just keep it to 2 consenting adults to avoid confusion.

So 2 consenting adults engage in a sexual act. One is all good, the other, not-so-much according to much of society and many religions.

But what is religion but a societal construct we use to define God(s), determine the message of God(s) and the intentions of God(s).

So (the way I see it);

Society determines religion
Religion is a reflection of societal attitudes seen through the lens of faith.
Many people throughout history have seen homosexuality as bad, evil, a sin.

So that impression was reinforced by religion.

Now logically, we can't say religion is correct because there are thousands of religions.

Which one is right?

We'll only know after we die.

The one common thing is that all religions have faith.

Faith is the single most defining factor (again, in my opinion) in every religion.

Faith is pure. It is individualistic. It is direct communication (so to speak) with The Creator.

We cannot determine for others what their faith can or should be.

The same way we cannot determine for others, especially 2 consenting adults, what their affect should entail either.

People confuse faith with religion.

Religion is the T&C's of faith.




So I rambled.

Maybe didn't make a lot of sense.

But bottom line, I think (according to my faith) that Jesus would be cool with the gays.

Now my hands hurt.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

No he did and does not support or even condone homosexuality. Not sure what bible you read that from but it's not true in the slightest. That being said I'm sure in the new age bibles and the Queen James Version it'll be different, still untrue.