Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I love how you use the term "Scientists" as if that makes them immune to political influence.
Christians believe in objective truth. What is right for me is right for everyone.
Skin color has nothing to do with it. You seem to hold an incorrect assumption that what is true of one minority is true of all minorities.
I have been arguing for over 70 pages that the propriety of sexual orientation depends on God's design for reproduction and his will for marriage. Based on that criteria, there is only one orientation fitting and suitable for reproduction. I gave you a neutral analogy highlighting the foolishness of acting contrary to aim and purpose. There is only one orientation that is compatible with reproduction.
Those aren't facts. They are conclusions. And as I said, scientific conclusions aren't a matter of fact, they are a matter of philosophy.
I don't think that is true. All we need to do is think critically about the scientific conclusion and reject it if necessary. I don't need to write a polemic against the research. I already gave you reasons to reject their conclusions.
Maybe that is true. I don't know. But I guarantee that scientists will not get published if their conclusions violate the dominant paradigm. I would think that anyone alive during the so-called Covid-19 would have seen that first hand.
Yes, I am arguing from my worldview. What else would you expect? Do you honestly believe science is the ONLY means to knowledge and truth?
Didn't anyone tell you that incredulity is not proof? You have a lot to learn if you need to understand that facts need to be interpreted. And you need to learn the difference between facts and truth.
I already argued the point ad nauseam. The Bottom line is this. Here we see a clash of worldviews again. You seem to affirm a material cause for such things as romantic attraction. In my view, the idea that the product of the mind and spirit have a material cause contradicts what we know from everyday experience and the Biblical worldview. Man is responsible for his actions because he made those actions freely and without coercion. Christians do not accept, acknowledge or affirm that all human behaviors flow from genetic or environmental factors.
I like the phrase "life-sustaining" because I would love to make a video describing the anti-Christ as "anti-life." I'm not surprised that we lack the vocabulary to talk about anti-life. If I get time, I'll try to create one.
What about the Chief Scientist?
THE RELIGIOUS WAR ON LGBTQ IS PRODUCING COLLATERAL DAMAGE among a large percentage of those termed gay men, of whom a 2019 study by the Yale School of Medicine indicates 83% are closeted. If 3% of males are gay, then 2-3 in a hundred are closeted. Many of those are closeted because of religion, are in the pews. To those boys/men, these following scriptures may be of help.
@Arthur81 asks: "If sex between two males itself alone was major sin, why is it not in the Ten Commandments? Why did Jesus not mention it when he spoke of Sodom?"THE RELIGIOUS WAR ON LGBTQ IS PRODUCING COLLATERAL DAMAGE among a large percentage of those termed gay men, of whom a 2019 study by the Yale School of Medicine indicates 83% are closeted. If 3% of males are gay, then 2-3 in a hundred are closeted. Many of those are closeted because of religion, are in the pews. To those boys/men, these following scriptures may be of help.
Jesus said of the religious leaders of His day: "Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger." (Matt 23:4 ASV)
Jesus said to those burdened by the religious leaders: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matt 11:28-30 ASV) * Jesus does not say, "unless you are gay"!
The sin of adultery is mentioned 56 times in the Bible, the sin of fornication is in the Bible 40 times. Yet the NT Greek word modern translations often translate as homosexuality (arsenokoites) is found only twice in the NT: 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10. Two things to notice, 1st, the Greek translated "homosexuality" is distinguished from fornicators and adulterers; 2nd, the 2021 Updated Edition of the NRSV, by the Society of Biblical Literature states about the word arsenokoites: "Meaning of Gk uncertain".
If sex between two males itself alone was major sin, why is it not in the Ten Commandments? Why did Jesus not mention it when he spoke of Sodom? Why, when Paul is listing some commandments and love of neighbor, why did he not list it as sin?
"For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law." (Rom 13:9-10 ASV) * True biblical love is not emotions or sexual desire, it is about how you treat others, as you wish to be treated, 1 Cor. 13:4-7.
About the Sodom story; has a gay forced himself on another, sodomizing? Breaking down the door? Gen. 19:9
The Leviticus reference, is for whom? "These are the commandments, which Jehovah commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34 ASV) *It was for the Israelite under the law of Moses; and Mosaic Law was "abolished" in Christ, Eph. 2:15 by nailing it to the cross, Col. 2:14.
The Rom. 1:27 reference clearly speaks of those so much "consumed with lust"(RSV), or "burned in their lust"(ASV), therefore they "gave up"(RSV) sex with women, or "leaving" sex with women. Has a gay been in a relationship with a woman from which he left or gave up? We supposedly use the "Historical-grammatical" approach to biblical interpretation. Why then do many ignore the historical and read into a passage their ideas from our culture of today? What was it like when Paul wrote this? A Greek philosopher living in Paul's day describes it just as Paul has, but in much greater detail -
From the Greek philosopher Dio Chrysostom (40-110 AD) in The Seventh or Euboean Discourse
Phrasing lifted from text numbered 133 through 152
"In dealing with brothel-keepers and their trade we must certainly betray no weakness as though something were to be said on both sides, but must sternly forbid them...Such men bring individuals together in union without love and intercourse without affection, and all for the sake of filthy lucre...For evils are never wont to remain as they are; they are ever active and advancing to greater wantonness if they meet no compelling check...Indeed, beginning with practices and habits that seem trivial and allowable, it acquires a strength and force that are uncontrollable, and no longer stops at anything...Now at this point we must assuredly remember that this adultery committed with outcasts, so evident in our midst and becoming so brazen and unchecked, is to a very great extent paving the way to hidden and secret assaults upon the chastity of women and boys of good family...The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things, when he finds there is no scarcity, no resistance, in this field, will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love, as a thing too readily given — in fact, too utterly feminine — and will turn his assault against the male quarters, eager to befoul the youth who will very soon be magistrates and judges and generals, believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure. His state is like that of men who are addicted to drinking and wine-bibbing, who after long and steady drinking of unmixed wine, often lose their taste for it and create an artificial thirst by the stimulus of sweatings, salted foods, and condiments."
That does not seem to be describing simple sex between two males; but it is heterosexuals who are so eaten up with lust they eagerly rush into such depravity.
Demanding that a gay man/boy act contrary to his sexual nature for salvation, is to force him to rely on his own righteousness, and ignoring saved by grace through faith. But scripture reads -
"For they ignore God’s way of righteousness, and try to set up their own, and therefore they have not submitted themselves to God’s righteousness; for Christ is the end of the law and brings righteousness for everyone who has faith...If the confession ‘Jesus is Lord’ is on your lips, and the faith that God raised him from the dead is in your heart, you will find salvation. For faith in the heart leads to righteousness, and confession on the lips leads to salvation." (Rom 10:3-4, 9-10 REB)
"Christ was innocent of sin, and yet for our sake God made him one with human sinfulness, so that in him we might be made one with the righteousness of God." (2Cor 5:21 REB)
"There is no salvation through anyone else; in all the world no other name has been granted to mankind by which we can be saved." (Acts 4:12 REB)
There are definitely a couple of verses in Romans 14 that need to be considered:
"Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand." (Rom 14:4 NRSV) * It is the Holy Spirit who will convict the regenerate of sin if he is mistaken and in error. John 16:7ff
"it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God; happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves. But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." (Rom 14:21-23 RSV)
I neither endorse nor promote homosexuality, but it exists, and with the extremes seen in religious circles that come across as homophobic, I present here a scholarly counter-balance.
Wow, what a terrific post.
I don't get what you think this has to do with sexual acts between males. No one denies God created male and female. I've not written about the modern perversion of the definition of marriage, to make it include same-sex marriage.
It is called fornication and at the very least is sexual immorality... which fornication is.
You know the difference between fornication and adultery, correct?
There is only one thing that should be considered about the act itself. As I already stated.
Yep. I know.... and I am not talking about divorce.
Special Attention to @St. SteVen
You wrote "every time you see a biblical reference to fornication, adultery, or sexual immorality, homosexuality is included" and you have indeed included the lousy modern choice in translation, changing from "fornication" to "sexual immorality". Yes indeed, you can stick whatever you wish under "sexual morality", but it is only your opinion. Nowhere in scripture do you find fornication or adultery in a context of two males? I can only find M-F contexts. I see a lot of pious sounding phrasing in your reply, but NO scripture with your exegesis.
You wrote: "#1. God determined that His 'Good' Creation is the Dictionary for His Children to find the definition(s) of sin."
Your 1995 NASB translates arsenokoites as "homosexuals"; but the NKJV translates malakos as homosexuals. Which is it? Sounds to me like the footnote in the NRSVue is right about the uncertainty of the Greek. If you read the KJV, RV, ASV and YLT, and use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary on the key words of 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10; you see arsenokoites is sodomites, which is NOT homosexuals and the 1828 makes it perfectly clear what sodomites are. There is no variance in the Greek manuscripts on these words, so new discoveries can't affect it. I'll stay with the older, standard translations on this. After the 1946 erred in translating by "homosexuals", the more scholarly translations quit using the term; the RSV Rev Ed, NRSV and REB. The word and concept of homosexuality did not even come into English until 1900, since the concept originated in Germany in 1869. The Bible has no Hebrew or Greek word equivalent to "homosexual".
