Homosexuality & Bestiality
-
One should protect the human rights of Christians to believe in and practise what their religion says. You have entered a Christian forum to hear that Christians consider homosexuality to be wrong...what do you expect?Originally posted by geodome:Dear Christians,
What's the point in arguing that homosexuality is wrong?
Christians should be reminded that homosexuality is wrong in the Christian context, and such context is not applicable to non-Christians. Do not impose your religious thoughts on non-Christians. It is infringement of human rights.
Cheers
geodome -
The problem I have with Christians in general that they go round telling non-Christians homosexuality is wrong, especially to people who do not consider themselves to be straight. What better place to tell Christians this message online? This forum.. duh..Originally posted by oxford mushroom:One should protect the human rights of Christians to believe in and practise what their religion says. You have entered a Christian forum to hear that Christians consider homosexuality to be wrong...what do you expect? -
Originally posted by geodome:
Then did the Christians also add, ".. but I will not condemn you .. go and sin no more"?
The problem I have with Christians in general that they go round telling non-Christians homosexuality is wrong, especially to people who do not consider themselves to be straight. [b]What better place to tell Christians this message online? This forum.. duh..[/b]
-
not fair, only condemns gays and not lesbians
-
If you check, gays actually refer to both male & female homosexuals.Originally posted by The man who was death:not fair, only condemns gays and not lesbians -
ok then. not fair, only condemns male homosexuals and not female homosexualsOriginally posted by Raptured:If you check, gays actually refer to both male & female homosexuals. -
well, if it's going to make you any happier, any reference to homosexual is to both male and female, and if the thread seems to be referring only to MALE homosexual, it was only incidental.Originally posted by The man who was death:ok then. not fair, only condemns male homosexuals and not female homosexuals
so to those who want to nitpick, the word homosexual also do not refer particularly to any race either.
.... and my personal stand, anyone who practice homosexuality, I am ok with it, your life, your issue. To Christian readers, homosexuality is sin. -
it's not the thread that seems to be referring only to male homosexuals, it's the bible that seems to be referring only to male homosexuals.Originally posted by Chin Eng:well, if it's going to make you any happier, any reference to homosexual is to both male and female, and if the thread seems to be referring only to MALE homosexual, it was only incidental.
so to those who want to nitpick, the word homosexual also do not refer particularly to any race either.
.... and my personal stand, anyone who practice homosexuality, I am ok with it, your life, your issue. To Christian readers, homosexuality is sin.
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" -
The Bible (as well as all books prior, probably, to the Victorian era) was written with the male gender as the priority. Historically speaking, in most cultures, women is usually placed in the subservient position. Nothing to do whether it's right or wrong, just the way it was back then.Originally posted by The man who was death:it's not the thread that seems to be referring only to male homosexuals, it's the bible that seems to be referring only to male homosexuals.
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination"
There was an effort, a couple of years, to remove the supposed sexist language of the Bible, an effort, I must say, that was not too successful. -
I think last time only got male homosexuals? Female homosexuals become the fashion only recently? Dont know.Originally posted by The man who was death:it's not the thread that seems to be referring only to male homosexuals, it's the bible that seems to be referring only to male homosexuals.
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" -
It is time for the world to acknowledge the superiority of the female species.Originally posted by Chin Eng:The Bible (as well as all books prior, probably, to the Victorian era) was written with the male gender as the priority. Historically speaking, in most cultures, women is usually placed in the subservient position. Nothing to do whether it's right or wrong, just the way it was back then.
There was an effort, a couple of years, to remove the supposed sexist language of the Bible, an effort, I must say, that was not too successful. -
Sorry i think the bible said we are equal. Just have different roles. I apologise to all the female species for what males have done to suppress them.Originally posted by iveco:It is time for the world to acknowledge the superiority of the female species. -
Come to think of it .. the matriachical society existed *before*the patriarchical society.Originally posted by Raptured:Sorry i think the bible said we are equal. Just have different roles. I apologise to all the female species for what males have done to suppress them.
-
Are you sure? Then how come bible in patriarchical terms?Originally posted by Icemoon:Come to think of it .. the matriachical society existed *before*the patriarchical society. -
I really have no problem with that. Tell me the time and I'll be thereOriginally posted by iveco:It is time for the world to acknowledge the superiority of the female species.
Why the need to apologise?Originally posted by Raptured:Sorry i think the bible said we are equal. Just have different roles. I apologise to all the female species for what males have done to suppress them.
Yup, there are some society structures that are matriachical societies, seen an ancient excavation in Xi'an, China where the entire ancient village was based on the women as leaders.Originally posted by Icemoon:Come to think of it .. the matriachical society existed *before*the patriarchical society. -
Hmmm...why does corinthians mention that but not Jesus?Originally posted by vince69:The Corinthians are in Corinth (somewhere in modern day Greece I think)
The book 1st and 2nd Corinthians are part of New Testatment -
Why not? Women suffered greatly at the hands of men. Unless you are in the matriarchical society, where women rapes men & tortures men.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Why the need to apologise? Btw, there is a thread abt women raping men in certain village in chit chat thread or somewhere. Never bother to read it. Funny men can get raped meh? Interesting. 
-
Its true...you cant rape the willing
-
'cos Jesus didn't have a chance to say mah.Originally posted by shade343:Hmmm...why does corinthians mention that but not Jesus?
Jesus had more troubles with self-righteous Pharisees than homosexuals in those places he went. -
EVANGELICAL THEOLOGIAN MAKES BIBLICAL CASE FOR GAY RIGHTS
Louisville, Kentucky—Taking on the most divisive issue in the church today the former Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Jack Rogers, argues unequivocally for the ordination and marriage of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) in Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church.
A life-long evangelical and a respected theologian, Rogers argues that fidelity to the Bible demands equal rights in the church and society for people who are LGBT. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality describes RogersÂ’s own change of mind and heart on the issue; charts the churchÂ’s well-documented history of using biblical passages to oppress marginalized groups; argues for a Christ-centered reading of Scripture; and debunks oft-repeated stereotypes about gays and lesbians.
“The best methods of interpretation, from the Reformation on down through today, call upon us to interpret the Scripture through the lens of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry. Using this method we see clearly that Jesus and the Bible, properly understood, do not condemn people who are homosexual,” Rogers writes in a stirring conclusion that is sure to provoke debate.
Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality was released this March by Westminster John Knox Press to widespread attention and acclaim. Yesterday, Rogers was the featured guest on KQED San Francisco’s “Forum,” which skyrocketed sales on Amazon.com. And next week, Rogers will begin a national book tour with more than twenty speaking engagements confirmed.
The book has also received glowing reviews from some of AmericaÂ’s foremost religious leaders:
· “This is an extraordinary book, arguably the best to appear in the long, drawn-out debates within churches over homosexuality,” says J. Philip Wogaman, former senior minister at Foundry United Methodist Church (where Bill Clinton worshipped) in Washington, D.C. “Rogers frames the issues on deep biblical and theological grounds, challenging superficial readings of Scripture. The book is wonderfully relevant… It is a gift to all of us.”
· “This book is simply wonderful—an intelligent, well-researched, amazingly helpful contribution by a person of faith to one of the most difficult debates of our time,” declares Joanna Adams, pastor of Morningside Presbyterian Church in Atlanta.
· “Rogers’s arguments are relentless, accurate, and devastating to those who claim that there are serious scriptural, doctrinal, or confessional reasons to deprive LGBT people from full participation in the life and ministry of the church,” states the Reverend Elder Nancy Wilson, the Moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church.
· “Rogers adds immensely to those who argue for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the church and in the clergy,” says the Right Reverend Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, Episcopal Church. “His experience in and reflections on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will be useful to people of ALL mainline denominations. Especially helpful was his analysis of how ‘other’ theories (natural law, complementary body parts, etc.) are superimposed onto scriptural texts without any scriptural basis. For those who truly wish to know what the Bible does and does not say, this is a real find.”
*****
Westminster John Knox Press is the trade and academic publishing imprint of the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. With a publishing heritage of more than 160 years, the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation publishes more than 75 new works each year, while maintaining a backlist of more than 1,100 active titles.
To order Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church, call 1-800-227-2872 or visit our Web site at www.wjkbooks.com. -
Just to share some thots:
Repent John 2 >> The best way to ask yourself is: Do I get attracted to the same sex more? Do I get sexually attracted to the opposite sex? Criteria include racing pulse, pupil dilation, etc (won't go deeper for the respect of the other forummers). Homosexuality is about sexual orientation, not about whether you have had sex with the opposite sex. You will be classified as gay as long as you still cling on to that sexual orientation. And it's strange to say that you are not born gay (non-nature) and you had not "experience" any gay lifestyle (non-nurture), but you feel gay, these statements contradict. The best way to describe your situation now is "You are gay, but never experience gay sex (and most likely never will) and you do not "accept" yourself as gay".
shade343 >> We have had many exchanges before on this issue. And it's strange that you can still categorically announce that gays are not borned without considering the evidences supporting it being the case. The theory of social impact has lesser and lesser influence, if you are willing to look at how psychoanalytical (Freud's) theories were debunked.. and how gays are still in existence of countries in which they are subjected to "death" penalty by just being gay.
CE >> Definition of gay is not correct. I know that I'm gay since maybe 10-11. Have always known of my own attraction to guys, but never really engage in anal sex until 29. The impression that gays must be more sexually dependant, you need to have sex before you are considered gay is not right. Acceptance of one's own identity is the "step" towards experiencing who you really are. Not the other way round. -
Since it is God who gave them up for... thenOriginally posted by Raptured:
Romans 1:26-32:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
1. Blame God
2. It is sanctioned by God so no problem liao
So you homo and bestials, rejoice.... -
One question: Are the Biblical quotations refering to (1) people who are attracted to and fall in love with members of the same sex, or (b) people who have sex and other intimate activities with members of the same sex?
(a) may lead to (b) sometimes but they can be unrelated in other cases. And are we making the distinction in our discussion? -
hmmm..... I don't know.... sometimes I felt like killing someone.... does that make me a murderer...???Originally posted by earthlings73:CE >> Definition of gay is not correct. I know that I'm gay since maybe 10-11. Have always known of my own attraction to guys, but never really engage in anal sex until 29. The impression that gays must be more sexually dependant, you need to have sex before you are considered gay is not right. Acceptance of one's own identity is the "step" towards experiencing who you really are. Not the other way round.
that being the case, then I confess: I have been an adulterer, murderer, thief, etc etc. which makes me glad that I have accepted Christ.....
.... whatever it is, that does not make me right.
Whatever Mr Jack Rogers has to say on the issue, I cannot find (note that I did not say that there isn't) any scriptural backing in the entire write up that has Biblical support for homosexuality. Sure, Mr Rogers can argue till the cows come home, and postulate whatever theory he has, the entire intellectual posture has to have scriptural backing..... of course, if you choose to take the Bible out of the entire equation, then sure, say what you want about Jesus may feel about it.
There is always a tendency for the human race to look for reasons or support to justify one's stand on any given matter.
If you earthlings73, enjoy your current lifestyle, it has really nothing to do with me.
But if you earthlings73 claims to be an Christian and homosexuality is Biblical, then I guess you need more than intellectual or philosophical write-ups to support you chosen path. You need specifically supporting Biblical verses in this area. -
I agree with Chin Eng.Originally posted by Chin Eng:hmmm..... I don't know.... sometimes I felt like killing someone.... does that make me a murderer...???
that being the case, then I confess: I have been an adulterer, murderer, thief, etc etc. which makes me glad that I have accepted Christ.....
.... whatever it is, that does not make me right.
Whatever Mr Jack Rogers has to say on the issue, I cannot find (note that I did not say that there isn't) any scriptural backing in the entire write up that has Biblical support for homosexuality. Sure, Mr Rogers can argue till the cows come home, and postulate whatever theory he has, the entire intellectual posture has to have scriptural backing..... of course, if you choose to take the Bible out of the entire equation, then sure, say what you want about Jesus may feel about it.
There is always a tendency for the human race to look for reasons or support to justify one's stand on any given matter.
If you earthlings73, enjoy your current lifestyle, it has really nothing to do with me.
But if you earthlings73 claims to be an Christian and homosexuality is Biblical, then I guess you need more than intellectual or philosophical write-ups to support you chosen path. You need specifically supporting Biblical verses in this area.
There is no specifically supporting biblical verses that has support for homosexuality.