Is being Gay really that bad?

[Brigham]

well said Ray. Kinda like why they want to take God out of the American Pledge, and have taken him out of schools. Even if they dont belive, Christianity is a part of our heritage, and now they want to change OUR heritage to make others feel free. Well the people of OUR Christian heritage DIED so they could feel this FREEDOM. They dont have to participate, but dont REMOVE it! God bless.


-Brigham

[bizzt]

Call me crazy, but I'm getting the feeling that I'm in the presence of some open minded people, so I'll give this a shot.

I have made these arguments before. You'll probably see them posted a few times on this forum, but here they are:

All passages in Leviticus are completed and have fulfilled their purpose since the death and resurrection of Christ. Half of the NT is about that fact. Also, Leviticus and the Law was directed to the Israelites. Are you a Jew?

But let's suppose that you're a Jew from pre-B.C., there are other things you must do: do NOT eat anything in the sea that does not have both fins and scales...

Leviticus 11
9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

So much for the whole "gayness is an abomination" argument. You also cannot wear clothing woven from two types of fabric. You cannot sew fields with two different kinds of seed, etc etc etc.

Evidence from Leviticus would not be entered into a court of law.

Jud 1:7
Few scholars, and a lessoning number of Christians believe that S&G was about homosexuality. Unless you guys really want to emphasize this one passage, I'll just skip over it. Never-the-less, it does not mention homosexuality specifically; it would not be entered into a court of law.

Romans 1:27-28
This might be entered into court, but those who cite it would be pulverized during cross.

A. The whole chapter is about idolatry
B. Because of this idolatry, God gave them up to their own desires...so the "vile passions" were NOT the cause of God abandoning them, only the result of it.
C. The "vile passions" he is referring to is in the context of wide-spread pagan sexual rituals, which include temple prostitution by both male and female priests, non-gay priests cross-dressing to blur gender lines for their transgendered god, ritualized castration to create the same effect, etc.
D. Paul is writing to someone in Rome, it's like one end of a telephone conversation. It's hard to tell what he's referring to.
E. He provides a list of sins that these people do in 1:29-30, yet strangely homosexuality is not one of them.
F. Homosexuality was common in that period, in that region. If Paul was against homosexuality at all, he would have been MUCH more specific.

Paul is simply bashing idolatry in the form of sexual worship. Murder, adultery, theft, and idolatry are mentioned hundreds of times, yet the anti-gay agenda focuses on these sad excuses for evidence.

Maybe You missed this

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:

But this really Struck me
If Romans says this

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered;

Then what do we constitute as Sin?
Anybody?

[IRQ Conflict]

Srry if i wasnt more clear. I agree IRQ, thats why i said "If u think about Acting the sin". My fault 4 not bein clear enough. God bless.
-Brigham

I was sure thats what you meant, I just wanted to expound on it, so as to not have some readers get confused as I know this has been an (small) issue in the past!

God bless.

[Seeker of Knowledge]

Shirtless wrote:

All passages in Leviticus are completed and have fulfilled their purpose since the death and resurrection of Christ. Half of the NT is about that fact. Also, Leviticus and the Law was directed to the Israelites. Are you a Jew?

Acts 15:18-20
18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works.[c] 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[d]from things strangled, and from blood.

I think some of some of the laws of OT is still valid, but we are saved trough the grace of God and our faith in him.

[IRQ Conflict]

I think some of some of the laws of OT is still valid, but we are saved trough the grace of God and our faith in him.

Absolutely! Therefore we believe the Word of God in it's entirety. You cannot 'pick and choose' what you like the Bible to say or not say.

[Shirtless]

All passages in Leviticus are completed and have fulfilled their purpose since the death and resurrection of Christ. Half of the NT is about that fact. Also, Leviticus and the Law was directed to the Israelites. Are you a Jew?

This does not mean we cannot glean moral values from Leviticus when other considerations are present.

As much as I hate to say it, because Leviticus has rules that I would live by in it, you really don't need to follow a single thing in Leviticus...not one thing. Only if another area of scriptures gives this command should we put our full weight on it. I think IRQ said it best:

You cannot 'pick and choose' what you like the Bible to say or not say.

Exactly! We can't say that eating pork is fine; but gay behavior is an exception.

You also can't have sex with your sister, according to Leviticus.

And Leviticus has instructions on the proper treatment of infections, and prevention of diseases, and the diet instructed to eat in Leviticus is healthier, and the laws made Israeli life more orderly and in control of itself, etc. but that doesn't change the fact that Leviticus does not have to be followed at all by someone who doesn't want to--unless backed up by a passage outside of the Law.

It's safe to argue, that outside of Leviticus, there is no such passage that says "don't do this"--even Romans 1 does not specifically indicate that gay behavior is inherently against God's will (ironic when one sees how tolerated it was at the time...you'd think Paul would push it more). The anti-gay argument, IMO, is hanging by a thin slice of string cheese.

This is no more apparent than with Gagnon's short and sour argument. When he got to the goods and said "The biblical proscription of same-sex intercourse is pervasive, absolute, and strong" I rubbed my hands together and thought, ahh, now here's a real argument! But saidly, after reading it I took a deep breath and realized that he is using the same damn method that every anti-gay, anti-polygamy, anti-sex writer does: make you're point as quickly as possible--and move on before the viewer or the writer really has time to think about it. There is never a long-extended argument on one thing. Pro-gay writers are more than happy to do that. Even J.P. Holding, who normally is very thorough, doesn't stick to his point for very long regarding the gay issue. Maybe I'll read Gagnon's longer essays, but let me comment on a few things here:

He makes a lot of assumptions with his writing:
rape = gay behavior
cleave to your wife = don't touch a guy's weenie
Leviticus = The Bible

Here's a quote
"'Male and female he made them' and 'For this reason a man . . . shall be joined to his woman/wife and the two shall become one flesh.' Only a 'man' and a 'woman' are structurally capable of becoming 'one flesh' through a sexual union..."

Jesus makes no such strict guidelines. He never says "only can a man join with a woman". There's no indication that it's a requirement. It's in the context of divorce anyway. String cheese man; bologni and string cheese.

I had to read his piece on Romans 1 four times before I could get anything out of it. It's more watered down than my soda at the movie theatres. Here's a quote: "what bothers Paul about female-female or male-male intercourse is the absence of a gender complement and the narcissistic and/or delusional attempt at merging with a sexual same."

"Objection!" Cries the defense. "This is speculation. He's telling us Paul's mind which none of us know. This is not evidence." Gagnon says that the context of what Paul is saying is about gender roles. Here is Paul's context:

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Also, I really don't know why people cite 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10. I know I have a long argument against them somewhere on this board if you care to look.

BTW, you never responded to most of my critique of the Epistle stuff way back when.

I seem to recall someone having issues with the Epistle site, and listing faults in the webmaster's arguments. To the best of my memory, I responded to it. It was pretty much a lot of "I agree." "You're right there." "I felt the same way." etc So it's not too important.

(SSA) is not addressed in the Bible, and there is no reason to believe that it is a sin. Even SSB is no worse than other forms of sin, including the forms of sin that inevitably affect the lives of Christians today.

That's a wonderful belief that I wish more anti-gay Christians believed.

[note: in regards to the no-incest Leviticus laws as an argument against gay behavior, this argument falls apart rather quickly when one realizes that Cain, Seth, and all Noah's children committed incest by the orders of God. Abraham and Sarah was literally a match made in Heaven...even though she was his half-sister. This goes to show that maybe Leviticus sexual laws are not so set in stone as we thought.]

[Brigham]

Can som1 find that article "Finding a wife for Cane"? It explains the incest thing, it doesnt "fall apart."

[Shirtless]

Hmm, I'm unfamiliar with that particular article; only"Where Did Cain Get His Wife?" and "Adam, Eve, and Incest?". BTW I only mean that the anti-gay advocates shouldn't cite the incest law as an argument.

[jerickson314]

All passages in Leviticus are completed and have fulfilled their purpose since the death and resurrection of Christ. Half of the NT is about that fact. Also, Leviticus and the Law was directed to the Israelites. Are you a Jew?

This does not mean we cannot glean moral values from Leviticus when other considerations are present.

As much as I hate to say it, because Leviticus has rules that I would live by in it, you really don't need to follow a single thing in Leviticus...not one thing. Only if another area of scriptures gives this command should we put our full weight on it. I think IRQ said it best:

You cannot 'pick and choose' what you like the Bible to say or not say.

Exactly! We can't say that eating pork is fine; but gay behavior is an exception.

You also can't have sex with your sister, according to Leviticus.

And Leviticus has instructions on the proper treatment of infections, and prevention of diseases, and the diet instructed to eat in Leviticus is healthier, and the laws made Israeli life more orderly and in control of itself, etc. but that doesn't change the fact that Leviticus does not have to be followed at all by someone who doesn't want to--unless backed up by a passage outside of the Law.

I did not claim that we can make an entire claim from Leviticus alone.

It's safe to argue, that outside of Leviticus, there is no such passage that says "don't do this"--even Romans 1 does not specifically indicate that gay behavior is inherently against God's will (ironic when one sees how tolerated it was at the time...you'd think Paul would push it more). The anti-gay argument, IMO, is hanging by a thin slice of string cheese.

Not all morals are backed up with "don't do this" commands in the New Testament, but we can still glean information from what is written in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is close enough in the case of SSB.

Here's a quote
"'Male and female he made them' and 'For this reason a man . . . shall be joined to his woman/wife and the two shall become one flesh.' Only a 'man' and a 'woman' are structurally capable of becoming 'one flesh' through a sexual union..."

Jesus makes no such strict guidelines. He never says "only can a man join with a woman". There's no indication that it's a requirement. It's in the context of divorce anyway. String cheese man; bologni and string cheese.

I believe Gagnon's argument is that the historical context of the passage implies that Jesus backs the Old Testament model for sexuality.

I had to read his piece on Romans 1 four times before I could get anything out of it. It's more watered down than my soda at the movie theatres. Here's a quote: "what bothers Paul about female-female or male-male intercourse is the absence of a gender complement and the narcissistic and/or delusional attempt at merging with a sexual same."

"Objection!" Cries the defense. "This is speculation. He's telling us Paul's mind which none of us know. This is not evidence." Gagnon says that the context of what Paul is saying is about gender roles. Here is Paul's context:

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

I think the context he refers to is the "leaving the natural use of woman" etc. part. His mention of that in particular does not lend itself well with the interpretation that something else is all that is condemned.

Also, I really don't know why people cite 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10. I know I have a long argument against them somewhere on this board if you care to look.

BTW, you never responded to most of my critique of the Epistle stuff way back when.

I seem to recall someone having issues with the Epistle site, and listing faults in the webmaster's arguments. To the best of my memory, I responded to it. It was pretty much a lot of "I agree." "You're right there." "I felt the same way." etc So it's not too important.

Both the things you refer to are from this thread - your attempted rebuttal at the use of those passages as well as the arguments from me.

(SSA) is not addressed in the Bible, and there is no reason to believe that it is a sin. Even SSB is no worse than other forms of sin, including the forms of sin that inevitably affect the lives of Christians today.

That's a wonderful belief that I wish more anti-gay Christians believed.

Indeed. I believe both the "homosexuals are the worst kind of sinners" and "SSB is not a sin" camps are in error.

[note: in regards to the no-incest Leviticus laws as an argument against gay behavior, this argument falls apart rather quickly when one realizes that Cain, Seth, and all Noah's children committed incest by the orders of God. Abraham and Sarah was literally a match made in Heaven...even though she was his half-sister. This goes to show that maybe Leviticus sexual laws are not so set in stone as we thought.]

Early on, people were all closely related to each other through Adam and Eve, and people lived near only their families. The gene pool hadn't had as much mutation and disease as today. This explains why incest was OK early on, but that doesn't mean it was God's plan of permanence.

[Goodbrother]

Gay means happy. Aren't you happy to be a Christain? No? Why not? God wants everybody to be happy. The word gay means being filled with mirth and merriment. Loving, happy, filled with joy. If we have Christ as our savior we are gay.

im sorry but i am a christian, i also am a normal person, and finally i am as gay as God is the creator as everything.

Do you ever want to change? Or are you content with being gay?

[Jay_7]

Gay means happy. Aren't you happy to be a Christain? No? Why not? God wants everybody to be happy. The word gay means being filled with mirth and merriment. Loving, happy, filled with joy. If we have Christ as our savior we are gay.

im sorry but i am a christian, i also am a normal person, and finally i am as gay as God is the creator as everything.

Do you ever want to change? Or are you content with being gay?

Theres two meanings of gay, homosexual gay and happy gay.

[Goodbrother]

The word gay means being happy, joyful and loving. If we have Christ as our savior we are gay with Christ. If your not gay with Christ your following Satan.

[Jay_7]

The word gay means being happy, joyful and loving. If we have Christ as our savior we are gay with Christ. If your not gay with Christ your following Satan.

Don't act dumb, gay can mean happy, but it also means loving your own sex which is a sin. Being gay may make some people happy, but that doesnt make it right, just like some people murder because they find it fun.

[Goodbrother]

If you must lie, lie like a woman, because if two men lie to each other God does not like it. So if you lie to a woman that's okay as long as your not related to her.

There is no such thing as homosexuality without sex. Notice the sex part of sexuality. This is what the bible says:

Leviticus 18:22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. "

That has nothing to do with love, it has to do with sex. Congratulations on using a strawman religion to make your point! You have no idea what you're arguing against.

[Goodbrother]

So what color of thread do you use? I find that just plain white thread is best.

Hey, no need to respond to me - the record is clearly written as for as I'm concerned. The counter arguments are something you need to think about for yourself, not for my benefit. But since you and I have already had our discussions about trusting the Bible, I'm not sure you're ready to be convinced at this time.

But recall that you asked the question why we believe what we believe, and there's the answer.

I'm not 100% familiar with the discussions you're refering to Felgar, so I'm not sure what you mean .

I'd be happy to respond to the passages you gave. I just wanted to give you a chance to give commentary on them. I'll start a new thread soon.