Someone help me, please...

[Paul Hazelwood]

No your the one who needs it to be right, my view is that it is no different to any other sin and with Gods grace can be overcome. My worry is that good men are drawn into it and do harm to themselves, thinking they are gay when they could be happy with a woman or to be celibate. Homosexuality is a complex issue, to say to all gay men that they should just accept it I find defeatist, as I found that many men hate being gay and want to stop the addiction, if the church helps drug addicts, should not gay men be given help also.
TT

Many heterosexuals are drawn into unhealthy promiscuous behavior.    That is also a complex issue.

[Lefein]

There are many heterosexual relationships that are based upon emotionally unstable people.

Yes, indeed there are.  But that wasn't entirely my point.  I was speaking in general.  :thumbsup:

The Homosexuality issue is a thing that I do not like to get into, namely because it deals with a subject that I am susceptible to sinning in (not Homosexuality, but sexuality in general) - in effect I am not in a position to tackle the issue, because it is a contact sport, and I do not have the proper armour to safely traverse the irradiated battle field that sexuality is, for me at any rate.

I do not appreciate homosexuality, for the sheer sake of its general negative trend healthwise.  Less "profitable" for the "risk" - I find it to be bad stewardship, compared to the other options anyway.  Any sexual deviance can lead to health problems, heterosexual ones especially in fact, as they are the most common.  But a healthy homosexual relationship in my opinion is a lesser option (fulfillment wise, spiritual wise, emotional wise, positivity wise) than a healthy heterosexual one.

[Paul Hazelwood]

The Homosexuality issue is a thing that I do not like to get into

Yet, here you are.

I do not appreciate homosexuality, for the sheer sake of its general negative trend healthwise.

Heterosexuality is riddled with unhealthy acts , and the association is simple.  There is no case that can be made concerning a "greater" rsk or a "lesser" option when talking about those who stay in monogomous relationships committed for life.

Several  heterosexuals I know have stds some of those they will have for life.   What was it about heterosexuality that was more favorable in those cases?   Not really anything that I can see, both of them that I know stemmed from emotional problems,  but they were heterosexuals and not Gay so I guess as they deal with their uncurable std, they can find solice.

[Lefein]

Yet, here you are.

Specifics vs. General Opinion.  I'm not in a proper position to get into a thorough, exhaustive, indepth study on the issue of sexuality, homo, or hetero; but I do feel capable of giving my general current opinion.  Is this understandable?  I don't feel comfortable digging into the nitty gritty details of sex, and the Bible's opinion of it.

Heterosexuality is riddled with unhealthy acts , and the association is simple.  There is no case that can be made concerning a "greater" rsk or a "lesser" option when talking about those who stay in monogomous relationships committed for life.

You've missed my point I think.  There is far more involved in a relationship than the monogamous sexuality of it.  A homosexual relationship as far as I can see, in my opinion, is not the best available option.

Several  heterosexuals I know have stds some of those they will have for life.   What was it about heterosexuality that was more favorable in those cases?   Not really anything that I can see, both of them that I know stemmed from emotional problems,  but they were heterosexuals and not Gay so I guess as they deal with their uncurable std, they can find solice.

I didn't say heterosexuals were immune to detrimental effects in deviant heterosexual practices; infact I've done my best to emphasise that heterosexual deviance is just as unhealthy, if not more because it is more common.

But none the less, I don't believe homosexuality is pure, good, and right on that same token.  STD's or not.

[CHB]

God created Adam then he created Eve to be his help mate, God didn't create another man for Adam or another woman for Eve, so the ideal and best partner is one of the opposite sex, else God made a mistake.

If sex is ok with two men how about man and beast, this goes on all the time, why isn't this just as ok as homosexual tendencies. Not much difference as far as sex goes. Some people are attracted to animals does that make it ok?  I saw this man and woman on a TV show a while back and the woman had a great dane as her partner, the man had a horse as his.

(Lev. 18:22) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind iit is abomination.
(Lev. 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.

I know we are not under the law now and Paul said every thing was lawful unto him but not everything was expedient. I see this as not being expedient. God told Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth, two men cannot do this. Two men cannot have children, actually they just don't fit together, if you know what I mean?

Just because I don't see homosexuality as a good thing, doesn't mean I think I am better than they are. There is a reason and a purpose for all things and by these homosexuals we must all learn something that we otherwise would not learn. I think this is the main reason for all things is learning. There is male and female in all thing this is how God designed it to be.

CHB

[Paul Hazelwood]

God created Adam then he created Eve to be his help mate, God didn't create another man for Adam or another woman for Eve, so the ideal and best partner is one of the opposite sex, else God made a mistake.

The ideal partner is who you can be happy spending the rest of your life with, I know miserable heterosexual couples that are far from the ideal relationship.

[shawn]

God created Adam then he created Eve to be his help mate, God didn't create another man for Adam or another woman for Eve, so the ideal and best partner is one of the opposite sex, else God made a mistake.

The ideal partner is who you can be happy spending the rest of your life with, I know miserable heterosexual couples that are far from the ideal relationship.

On an intellectual level that makes sense.  Unfortunately, I don't see anywhere in scripture that is supported.

[Lefein]

I think that the common ground here, is that any relationship that is essentially, or elementally poor, and on a negative or detrimental trend (and will continue that trend indefinitely) is harmful.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Yet, here you are.

Specifics vs. General Opinion.  I'm not in a proper position to get into a thorough, exhaustive, indepth study on the issue of sexuality, homo, or hetero; but I do feel capable of giving my general current opinion.  Is this understandable?  I don't feel comfortable digging into the nitty gritty details of sex, and the Bible's opinion of it.

We are beyond the general nature of things.  The general nature of things proves that heterosexuality is no better than homosexuality in terms of general behavior.

Heterosexuality has filled orphanages and homes with unwanted children, spread disease and broken hearts.
Homosexuality has done the same thing.  Well,  not the unwanted children thing.

Monogomous relationships that are loving with two poeple committed to one another for life exist from both orientations and cause none of those problems in our society.

You've missed my point I think.  There is far more involved in a relationship than the monogamous sexuality of it.  A homosexual relationship as far as I can see, in my opinion, is not the best available option.

I do not believe I missed the point.  If you are going beyond scripture and morality then we can start talking about how they might be treated in society.   Well, mixed race heterosexual marriages have had their struggles,  but if two people really love one another then coping out to societal or family approval, may be better for the moment, but it is not necessarily ideal for someones spirit.

If I caved in to that,  I would not have married my wife,  I got no support from a lot of my family, some flat looked upon my wife as bad simply because she was older than me.  So what would have been ideal for me?   Forsaking my love for something "more ideal".  Not me,  it was more ideal for me to forsake my personal comfort when interacting with my family than to appease my families dislike.

[Paul Hazelwood]

God created Adam then he created Eve to be his help mate, God didn't create another man for Adam or another woman for Eve, so the ideal and best partner is one of the opposite sex, else God made a mistake.

The ideal partner is who you can be happy spending the rest of your life with, I know miserable heterosexual couples that are far from the ideal relationship.

On an intellectual level that makes sense.  Unfortunately, I don't see anywhere in scripture that is supported.

Love is presented in many scriptures,  a loveless relationship in any orientation is not more ideal than one that is full of love.   In fact scripture says if you do right but do not have love then it is worth nothing.  Scripture absolutely supports committed love filled relationships.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I think that the common ground here, is that any relationship that is essentially, or elementally poor, and on a negative or detrimental trend (and will continue that trend indefinitely) is harmful.

No argument there, I have seen abuse and failure from both orientations, I have seen love and success in both as well.

[Miriam]

I think that the common ground here, is that any relationship that is essentially, or elementally poor, and on a negative or detrimental trend (and will continue that trend indefinitely) is harmful.

Yes, I believe we are all saying that. It seems to me, however, that a number of people think homosexual relationships are always, by nature, poor and on a negative or detrimental trend. I don't think I agree with that.

[shawn]

I think that the common ground here, is that any relationship that is essentially, or elementally poor, and on a negative or detrimental trend (and will continue that trend indefinitely) is harmful.

I can certainly see that, and yet see some of the points of those who support a loving monogomous homosexual relationship.  But, here is the problem, I don't decide right and wrong.  God has set the standards within scripture. 

I think one of the points missed here isn't just the health, and the detreimental trends which imo can be easily debated on either side.  It's what the Bible says about the relationship between husband and wife.  Look no further than the book of Song of Songs.  Not only is this a story about the love and intimate sexual relationship with a man and woman but I also believe there is further symbolism extending to Christ and his bride.  The marriage of a man and a woman is a natural reflection of the spiritual.  This symbolism leads us back to Christ.  It's God's best for us, he imbedded the truth about his union with his people within the very fabric of a husband and wife relationship.  It's the ideal relationship of intimacy.

[shawn]

I think that the common ground here, is that any relationship that is essentially, or elementally poor, and on a negative or detrimental trend (and will continue that trend indefinitely) is harmful.

Yes, I believe we are all saying that. It seems to me, however, that a number of people think homosexual relationships are always, by nature, poor and on a negative or detrimental trend. I don't think I agree with that.

Miriam, did you come to that conclusion scripturally or through revelation.  If it's scriptural, please help me out.  Why do you believe homosexuality isn't a sin.

[jabcat]

** Was typing this in response to Shawn's and Miriam's posts when Shawn posted in the meantime.


Yes, as far I'm concerned, this isn't primarily a sociological issue.  What say the scriptures?  (Translations, revelation, and accurately dividing the Word included) Who gets to decide?  God, or us?  IMO, any sociological or even what we may consider "moral" arguments are secondary to scriptural and spiritual.

I certainlly believe it's great to reconsider things.  But I don't believe in either going against the revealed scriptures, or trying to find some "comfortable" or convenient way around them - or necessarily to what "makes sense" to us.  (The [carnal] mind is enmity against God).   I've done that many times, and it's NEVER worked.  My conscience condemned me, the Holy Spirit convicts me, and I maintain "what says the Lord"?  All else is secondary and can be used as a diversion.   :2c:

[thinktank]

No your the one who needs it to be right, my view is that it is no different to any other sin and with Gods grace can be overcome. My worry is that good men are drawn into it and do harm to themselves, thinking they are gay when they could be happy with a woman or to be celibate. Homosexuality is a complex issue, to say to all gay men that they should just accept it I find defeatist, as I found that many men hate being gay and want to stop the addiction, if the church helps drug addicts, should not gay men be given help also.
TT

Many heterosexuals are drawn into unhealthy promiscuous behavior.    That is also a complex issue.

I think sexuality in these days is a giant mess, we need God to work hard and produce a miracle in this area, to offer solutions and freedom. It's almost as if a giant selction of forbidden fruit has been flung in front of mankind, that previously was not so extensive, e.g pornography.

From what I have experienced though, most people in society regard homosexuality as worse of a sin than others e.g porn. The reason why homosexuals are treated as more sinfull than say an adulterer, is because most people find homosexuality a strange act. When people are freaked out by a certain behaviour that is just the way it is, people don't like seeing people walking naked on the streets and neither do they like seeing two men together. Some people enjoy seeing people naked, nudists etc, but these people are a minority. It seems to me that homosexual groups demand that people accept their behaviour as normal and grow angry when they do not. This is the problem of living in a free society when people want different things and clash with each other, but in my opinion I think homosexuals have been given a lot of rights, too much in my opinion and mad things like this happen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

Is it a fair society when a minority of people get what they want at the expense of all others?

How far does this sexual stuff dwelve into? I mean where does it end? Should men marry 3 wifes, because they are inclined that way to want more than one woman? Should we be allowed to marry our friends? Our pets? Our automobiles?

[Paul Hazelwood]

If we go to an "I'm OK, You're OK" mentality, then IMO, we're dismissing much of the Holy Spirit's work in our lives individually and in the life of the body, and we may as well toss out huge chunks of the New Testament as being irrelevant, deny that it's sharper than a two-edged sword "cutting asunder", and just go with a feel-good message that tickles our ears. 

I agree,  that is why I have brought up committed monogomous relationships.  I do not see God condoning promiscuity from any orientations and it IS promiscuity in both orientations that cause the problems.  You can prove with facts the problems caused by promiscuity.   You will be hard pressed to find these same problem in monogomous committed relationships, that at least begin with as much insight to the future as heterosexuals engage in  (please do not look at divorce rates and abortions among those though, it might turn out to be a bad example that I have used)

One problem I see however is that homosexuality is inherantly linked to adultery and promiscuity.   That right there is simply untrue.   A homosexual couple living together in most places cannot get married, so therefore a Christian has no proper parallel to use.

I find many homosexuals desire to be recognized as married couples thought provoking.   We can associate heterosexual promiscuity with the lack of wanting to get married rather than a desire for it.

[shawn]

** Was typing this in response to Shawn's and Miriam's posts when Shawn posted in the meantime.


Yes, as far I'm concerned, this isn't primarily a sociological issue.  What say the scriptures?  (Translations, revelation, and accurately dividing the Word included) Who gets to decide?  God, or us?  IMO, any sociological or even what we may consider "moral" arguments are secondary to scriptural and spiritual.

I certainlly believe it's great to reconsider things.  But I don't believe in either going against the revealed scriptures, or trying to find some "comfortable" or convenient way around them - or necessarily to what "makes sense" to us.  (The [carnal] mind is enmity against God).   I've done that many times, and it's NEVER worked.  My conscience condemned me, the Holy Spirit convicts me, and I maintain "what says the Lord"?  All else is secondary and can be used as a diversion.   :2c:

And this is where I stand on every issue.  What do the scriptures say about this subject?  In the English, it's very clear to me.  But, I admit I have not seen a debate from the Greek and Hebrew on the subject.  For me, the belief that homosexuality is a sin is not something I'm unwilling to part with.  But, for me to do so it would have to be fundamentally scripturally sound.

[jabcat]

I don't think we should condone any sin.  Heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, or nonsexual.  Those can be subcategories of what's really a main subject, i.e., Sin.   I have several I struggle with and need to constantly look to the Lord for deliverance, for His grace to "be sufficient"..but not to just cover me, but to cleanse me. 

Inside us, and then around us, salt and light changes things. 

[Lefein]

We are beyond the general nature of things.  The general nature of things proves that heterosexuality is no better than homosexuality in terms of general behavior.

At the point the discussion gets into the graphic details of homosexual, or even heterosexual relationships, especially of the sexual nature - I will need to leave it.  I do not think we've gotten to that point, and so for me it is still in the region of "general opinion" without detailed expertise and graphic thesis involved.

Heterosexuality has filled orphanages and homes with unwanted children, spread disease and broken hearts.
Homosexuality has done the same thing.  Well,  not the unwanted children thing.

I don't think this is what we are arguing.  It is not what I am arguing at any rate.  I am arguing that faced with the two choices, and the factors involved - a homosexual 'marriage' is the lesser option compared to a heterosexual 'marriage'.  An opinion which I derive from scripture (Man and Woman, Adam and Eve) but even aside from scripture there are other reasons that are common sense in a certain fashion.

Men and Women are, naturally meant for one another.  Certain parts are not...commonly meant...to go certain places...not in any...regular sense of its application...

Monogomous relationships that are loving with two poeple committed to one another for life exist from both orientations and cause none of those problems in our society.

Yes, and I am not one to insist that relationships are to be purely utilitarian - IE: "for the raisin of babies, and the curbin of that ol' devil's flame in th' loins, and the makin of sammiches in th' kitchen"  God forbid.  But I can't help but feel that there is something that is not a part of God's greater intentions when it comes to a person seeking their mate - for that person to choose the same sex, solely on that fact that they are of the same sex.  Again, it is hard to explain.

I do not believe I missed the point.  If you are going beyond scripture and morality then we can start talking about how they might be treated in society.   Well, mixed race heterosexual marriages have had their struggles,  but if two people really love one another then coping out to societal or family approval, may be better for the moment, but it is not necessarily ideal for someones spirit.

I'm not dealing with how they'll be treated.  I'm dealing with what is best for the individuals specifically in the relationships, as far as my opinion is able to carry that concept of what is "ideal".

If I caved in to that,  I would not have married my wife,  I got no support from a lot of my family, some flat looked upon my wife as bad simply because she was older than me.  So what would have been ideal for me?   Forsaking my love for something "more ideal".  Not me,  it was more ideal for me to forsake my personal comfort when interacting with my family than to appease my families dislike.

I've not implied that you should do any of this, nor have I suggested any ideal specifically for you.  Except, that you have a wife - she's female.  For all of my concerns, you have the ideal as much as you can have it.

No argument there, I have seen abuse and failure from both orientations, I have seen love and success in both as well.

I am one of the abused.  On the heterosexual side.

[jabcat]

** Was typing this in response to Shawn's and Miriam's posts when Shawn posted in the meantime.


Yes, as far I'm concerned, this isn't primarily a sociological issue.  What say the scriptures?  (Translations, revelation, and accurately dividing the Word included) Who gets to decide?  God, or us?  IMO, any sociological or even what we may consider "moral" arguments are secondary to scriptural and spiritual.

I certainlly believe it's great to reconsider things.  But I don't believe in either going against the revealed scriptures, or trying to find some "comfortable" or convenient way around them - or necessarily to what "makes sense" to us.  (The [carnal] mind is enmity against God).   I've done that many times, and it's NEVER worked.  My conscience condemned me, the Holy Spirit convicts me, and I maintain "what says the Lord"?  All else is secondary and can be used as a diversion.   :2c:

And this is where I stand on every issue.  What do the scriptures say about this subject?  In the English, it's very clear to me.  But, I admit I have not seen a debate from the Greek and Hebrew on the subject.  For me, the belief that homosexuality is a sin is not something I'm unwilling to part with.  But, for me to do so it would have to be fundamentally scripturally sound.

My understanding is that it's there - in the original languages.  Some go to great lengths to explain it away, and attempt to make the words mean other things.  I posted once earlier in another thread, and then repeated in this thread several posts back.  From the most literal English translations available, including one from the Koine Greek, the words specifically are about homosexuality.  I also presented where Apostle Paul taught against same sex relationships without even using those specific words.  That's why I said earlier most walk away believing what they already believed, and God will need to do the rest.  The problem as I see it is, there may be some who are vulnerable, really searching, who can be mislead.

[jabcat]

** Was typing this in response to Shawn's and Miriam's posts when Shawn posted in the meantime.


Yes, as far I'm concerned, this isn't primarily a sociological issue.  What say the scriptures?  (Translations, revelation, and accurately dividing the Word included) Who gets to decide?  God, or us?  IMO, any sociological or even what we may consider "moral" arguments are secondary to scriptural and spiritual.

I certainlly believe it's great to reconsider things.  But I don't believe in either going against the revealed scriptures, or trying to find some "comfortable" or convenient way around them - or necessarily to what "makes sense" to us.  (The [carnal] mind is enmity against God).   I've done that many times, and it's NEVER worked.  My conscience condemned me, the Holy Spirit convicts me, and I maintain "what says the Lord"?  All else is secondary and can be used as a diversion.   :2c:

And this is where I stand on every issue.  What do the scriptures say about this subject?  In the English, it's very clear to me.  But, I admit I have not seen a debate from the Greek and Hebrew on the subject.  For me, the belief that homosexuality is a sin is not something I'm unwilling to part with.  But, for me to do so it would have to be fundamentally scripturally sound.

2 different categories expressed here in the Greek, in the NT;

Be not deceived, neither ...effeminate [Gk: malakos-catamite/boy with man sex] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

"Be not deceived, neither ...abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk: arsenokoites-sodomites/male bed partners/male-liers] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

Some of the other passages without "those particular words"...in Romans 1

"to dishonor their own bodies between themselves"
"women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"
"men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men"

[Paul Hazelwood]

Is it a fair society when a minority of people get what they want at the expense of all others?

I don't know, I'm sure we could investigate this issue more.  Would you want kids to be in a foster home that taught their kids white supremist views?   Isn't it bad enough that their own natural born kids will be taught those views, why should we let some other kid be when we do not have to allow it.

How far does this sexual stuff dwelve into? I mean where does it end? Should men marry 3 wifes, because they are inclined that way to want more than one woman? Should we be allowed to marry our friends? Our pets? Our automobiles?

Marrying friends?  I married my best friend and she still is.    The issue of pets and cars ect is easy really, it is not that hard to define those lines.  Pedophiles have no case because we CAN legally draw a line of consent.  Same with under age girls and men,  there might be girls who are mature enough to make a decision to marry at 13 but there are enough that aren't that we can safely draw a line to where someone is mentally capable of giving consent.  An animal is not capable of giving consent no matter how aware or smart it may be.   A CAR cannot give consent.  Even arguments made perhaps in movies over artificial intelligents and "learning computers" it really is easy,  man designed in a system that mimics human behavior, no matter how convincing it may be.  Those system are increasingly convincing, and as time goes on I have no doubt that at some point there may be androids that for all intense purposes could not be distiguished from a human being.   Maybe then, if you cannot tell the difference, then maybe it would be capable of calculating and giving consent.   However, as it stands right now, those lines are not hard to draw,  when those lines are hard, we can talk about that.

[shawn]

** Was typing this in response to Shawn's and Miriam's posts when Shawn posted in the meantime.


Yes, as far I'm concerned, this isn't primarily a sociological issue.  What say the scriptures?  (Translations, revelation, and accurately dividing the Word included) Who gets to decide?  God, or us?  IMO, any sociological or even what we may consider "moral" arguments are secondary to scriptural and spiritual.

I certainlly believe it's great to reconsider things.  But I don't believe in either going against the revealed scriptures, or trying to find some "comfortable" or convenient way around them - or necessarily to what "makes sense" to us.  (The [carnal] mind is enmity against God).   I've done that many times, and it's NEVER worked.  My conscience condemned me, the Holy Spirit convicts me, and I maintain "what says the Lord"?  All else is secondary and can be used as a diversion.   :2c:

And this is where I stand on every issue.  What do the scriptures say about this subject?  In the English, it's very clear to me.  But, I admit I have not seen a debate from the Greek and Hebrew on the subject.  For me, the belief that homosexuality is a sin is not something I'm unwilling to part with.  But, for me to do so it would have to be fundamentally scripturally sound.

My understanding is that it's there - in the original languages.  Some go to great lengths to explain it away, and attempt to make the words mean other things.  I posted once earlier in another thread, and then repeated in this thread several posts back.  From the most literal English translations available, including one from the Koine Greek, the words specifically are about homosexuality.  I also presented where Apostle Paul taught against same sex relationships without even using those specific words.  That's why I said earlier most walk away believing what they already believed, and God will need to do the rest.  The problem as I see it is, there may be some who are vulnerable, really searching, who can be mislead.

I hear your fears, and have some of those myself.  For me, I believe God is the protector and developer of my growth and knowledge.  I do not fear seeking out, as he has the ability to reel me back in.  If we are truly seeking God's face in these difficult subjects will he reject us?  Will he lead us astray?  I think not.  When we are mislead, I believe it's because we desire to be mislead.  There is something within us that wants to believe it a certain way and we swallow anything that feeds that need.  It's why I had been so cautious with UR.  I wanted to believe it so bad that I wondered if I was chasing my own desires rather than truth.  I no longer believe that.  I believe I was led to the truth. 

[jabcat]

Here it is from The Christian Bible (1991), translated from the oldest available manuscripts in the Koine Greek - much of The Christian Bible admittedly resulted in different beliefs than what some of the translators originally believed prior to entering the translation task.

Why don't you just rather let yourselves be injured?  Why don't you just rather let yourselves be cheated?  Rather, you are injuring and cheating others and doing this to your brothers and sisters!  Or aren't you aware that the unjust won't inherit a share of God's Kingdom?  You must stop being led astray;  neither those who are having nonmarital sexual intercourse, nor those who are idol worshipers, nor those who are having extramarital sexual intercourse, nor those who have a soft, self-indulgent way of life, nor those who are homosexuals...  I Cor. 6