Why are some Christians against homosexuality?

[Zweite Alaje]

My "whining" about Liberalism is justified.

Your whining about liberalism is as irrelevant as my glorifying of tits. Because as nice as glorifying tits and whining about liberalism is, it has nothing to do with Christians being against homosexuality. Literally nothing.

Actually, it has alot to do with modern homosexuality. But I won't derail thread any longer.

My "whining" about Liberalism is justified.

Let's not get off-topic in this thread. The point is to discuss why Christians seem to have a hate fetish for homosexuality, and not why you seem to have a hate fetish for liberalism.

Ok? Why bother commenting on it?

My "whining" about Liberalism is justified.

Well yes, that's the whole idea of tsundere.

What are you talking about? How am I a tsundere?

[Samuraikoku]

What are you talking about? How am I a tsundere?

Conserative Morality pointed that out once.

Tsun: "Stupid liberalism, it's evil and morally repulsive."

Dere: "I agree with liberal policies... but it's not because I like liberalism or anything!"

[Anachronous Rex]

Ken Hamm, the owner of that site, has stated that, even in cases where reality seems to disagree with scripture, reality must be wrong.

http://www.creationtoday.org/why-does-t ... -unicorns/

Is this more satisfactory?

Once again you list a creationist website. These are people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old, and you expect me to take them seriously? Do you believe that? Because if you do I'm going to have to reevaluate my entire handling of your person.

Besides which, you do not dispute the talking animals or monsters. I noticed you do something similar earlier. It's as though if you can win a battle by fixating one one small detail of a post, that invalidates the rest of the post.

[Benedictus]

Who are we to change the definition of marriage?

You're right. A man should be able to take 3 wives just like the old days. Not to mention all those rapists not marrying their unwed victims - how shameful!

The passive aggressiveness in your post is pretty amusing, anyways...

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-what-the ... rriage.htm

[Agymnum]

You're right. A man should be able to take 3 wives just like the old days. Not to mention all those rapists not marrying their unwed victims - how shameful!

The passive aggressiveness in your post is pretty amusing, anyways...

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-what-the ... rriage.htm

The site lumps evolution in with supposed "doctrines of demons".

Still biased against reality. Try again.

[Anachronous Rex]

You're right. A man should be able to take 3 wives just like the old days. Not to mention all those rapists not marrying their unwed victims - how shameful!

The passive aggressiveness in your post is pretty amusing, anyways...

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-what-the ... rriage.htm

That's mockery. Passive-aggressiveness is something else.

Also. What with the site spamming? He just pointed out that rapists marry their victims in the bible. Do you actually have some evidence that invalidates that? Can you state it? Like a reasonable person?

Because I could just go, "you're wrong:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page"
And let that be the end of it. But wouldn't be very productive, would it?

[Anachronous Rex]

What are you talking about? How am I a tsundere?

Conserative Morality pointed that out once.

Tsun: "Stupid liberalism, it's evil and morally repulsive."

Dere: "I agree with liberal policies... but it's not because I like liberalism or anything!"

I chuckled.

[Benedictus]

http://www.creationtoday.org/why-does-t ... -unicorns/

Is this more satisfactory?

Once again you list a creationist website. These are people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old, and you expect me to take them seriously? Do you believe that? Because if you do I'm going to have to reevaluate my entire handling of your person.

Besides which, you do not dispute the talking animals or monsters. I noticed you do something similar earlier. It's as though if you can win a battle by fixating one one small detail of a post, that invalidates the rest of the post.

In very special cases God allows animals to speak like humans.

The serpent spoke to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but the serpent was not just an animal; it was Satan.

I'm honestly not trying to win any battle, I'm just on here having fun debating things. I'm not upset or trying my darndest to win anything.

I gave you sources, it's your choice whether you wish to utilize those or not.

[Blekksprutia]

Yeah, pretty much. You can't just make a bullshit claim and tell us to find them ourselves.

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

Funny how the only countries where homosexuals are put to death for being homosexual are Mauritania, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, southern Somalia and northern Nigeria, all predominantly Muslim countries, while Leviticus is directed towards the Jews.

I'm not trying to flame Muslims here at all. I'm trying to say that Jews and Christians don't follow this anymore for the most part.

[Agymnum]

I gave you sources, it's your choice whether you wish to utilize those or not.

Your sources are shit because they deny basic scientifically supported concepts like evolution.

Try again if you want to have a serious debate. Otherwise, the rest of us should just start posting Rational Wiki links that shit all over the Bible.

[Divair]

I gave you sources, it's your choice whether you wish to utilize those or not.

Your sources are shit because they deny basic scientifically supported concepts like evolution.

Try again if you want to have a serious debate. Otherwise, the rest of us should just start posting Rational Wiki links that shit all over the Bible.

I hope he asks for evidence for evolution, I haven't used my list in a while.

[Zweite Alaje]

What are you talking about? How am I a tsundere?

Conserative Morality pointed that out once.

Tsun: "Stupid liberalism, it's evil and morally repulsive."

Dere: "I agree with liberal policies... but it's not because I like liberalism or anything!"

I don't agree with liberal policies, my reasoning for reaching similar conclusions completely different.

[Anachronous Rex]

Once again you list a creationist website. These are people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old, and you expect me to take them seriously? Do you believe that? Because if you do I'm going to have to reevaluate my entire handling of your person.

Besides which, you do not dispute the talking animals or monsters. I noticed you do something similar earlier. It's as though if you can win a battle by fixating one one small detail of a post, that invalidates the rest of the post.

In very special cases God allows animals to speak like humans.

Allows...? As though the only thing stopping them is that they lack permission...

The serpent spoke to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but the serpent was not just an animal; it was Satan.

A biblical interpretation not actually justified by the text.

I'm honestly not trying to win any battle, I'm just on here having fun debating things. I'm not upset or trying my darndest to win anything.

Yeah... I'm pointing out that your debating strategy is... bad. Oh, but that's all okay because you're not actually trying. Well good. I would hate to think that this could represent a sincere effort by a thinking person.

I gave you sources, it's your choice whether you wish to utilize those or not.

You gave us bias and misinformed nonsense.

[Benedictus]

Your sources are shit because they deny basic scientifically supported concepts like evolution.

Try again if you want to have a serious debate. Otherwise, the rest of us should just start posting Rational Wiki links that shit all over the Bible.

I hope he asks for evidence for evolution, I haven't used my list in a while.

I believe that evolution was a process set in motion by God.

[Anachronous Rex]

I hope he asks for evidence for evolution, I haven't used my list in a while.

I believe that evolution was a process set in motion by God.

Then why do you keep citing sources that don't?

[Benedictus]

I gave you sources, it's your choice whether you wish to utilize those or not.

Your sources are shit because they deny basic scientifically supported concepts like evolution.

Try again if you want to have a serious debate. Otherwise, the rest of us should just start posting Rational Wiki links that shit all over the Bible.

Nobody is stopping you.

[Benedictus]

I believe that evolution was a process set in motion by God.

Then why do you keep citing sources that don't?

Supporting a single article on a website doesn't mean that I agree with all of their stances on things.

[New haven america]

They can have children now? That is not right!

First, it's called adoption, surrogacy, and perm banks. Second, why not?

They have perm banks nowadays? Nah jk

[Anachronous Rex]

Then why do you keep citing sources that don't?

Supporting a single article on a website doesn't mean that I agree with all of their stances on things.

Nonetheless you think that people who think the earth is only 6000 years old, are the sort of people who make solid, well-informed, arguments; and are educated as to their subject matter.

[Benedictus]

Supporting a single article on a website doesn't mean that I agree with all of their stances on things.

Nonetheless you think that people who think the earth is only 6000 years old, are the sort of people who make solid, well-informed, arguments; and are educated as to their subject matter.

I'm not going to say that these people are complete idiots because of one of their beliefs. What we're arguing really isn't conducive to the original point of the thread.

[Anachronous Rex]

Nonetheless you think that people who think the earth is only 6000 years old, are the sort of people who make solid, well-informed, arguments; and are educated as to their subject matter.

I'm not going to say that these people are complete idiots because of one of their beliefs. What we're arguing really isn't conducive to the original point of the thread.

Well, they are.

And I'm betting what really happened is that you had never even gave these issues a moments thought before we pointed them out to you. And then, because you had no answer, you quickly tried to find one with google - running directly into the hands of the creationists, who are the only ones stupid enough to try and defend the Bible in this way.

Sound about right?

[St George]

We already have. Or have you failed to notice that marriage is no longer a property exchange between men?

God made man for woman and woman for man. I really don't see how you think that marriage is some sort of property exchange.

Actually the first two humans were Aakulujjuusi and Uumarnituq, both male. They desired companionship and mated with each, somehow resulting in Uumarnituq becoming a pregnant. A spell was then cast on Uumarnituq to change his sex so he could birth their spawn.

[Distributist Chestertonia]

Because anyone who says this or that about homosexuality being healthy, normal, and acceptable to God is an eisegete, not an exegete. Most people are eisegetes to some degree or another, and that's because they fail to read the entire Bible, or they gloss over sections they don't understand or approve of. In other words, it all goes back to how seriously you take God and the Bible. Eisegetes don't rightly care and interpret the Bible as it suits them.

However, if you were to take homosexuality in the Bible in context, you would see that homosexuality in the Bible is surrounded by the context of human sexuality. What is what? Something to this tune:

"Let us make man in our image... be fruitful and multiply... thus a man leaves his family, and clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh.... And Eve bore a son, whom she named Cain, because she said, 'God has given to me a son!' "

This is the image of the first family - a mother, a father, and their children. Now, this image had been distorted afterwards - but not by God. Rather, by men. Now, I'm borrowing what I am saying from a teacher, Scott Hahn, who - if I recall correctly - says that the covenant at Ba'al Peor, not Sinai, is the one that introduced divorce, polygamy (or at least managing these things). And this was not a covenant made between God and the Israelites, but between Moses and the Israelites. (I don't think I quite understand Dr. Hahn, but if you'd like to take a look for yourself, it's in a book called "A Father Who Keeps His Promises", which lays out the etchings of God's salvation history for us.)

Over a millenium later, when the Pharisees asked Jesus about the question of divorce (it is related, very related), what did He respond?

"For the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce. But in the beginning it was not so."

This expresses an interest of Jesus for us to live with each other as we did before the Fall - that is, to restore us to the grace we lost in Eden so long ago. That is, we are to be restored to the relationship with God we had in Eden (and in the end, to become His sons and daughters). This is the entire point of Jesus's coming. Of the miracles. Of the preaching. Dr. Hahn goes into more detail regarding this in the book I mentioned above, and I really recommend you read it.

But if this is the case, that casts the Bible in a new light - or rather, the light it should have been cast in in the first place: the Father trying to bring His children home.

And what is the biggest metaphor for the covenant between God and Israel, Old or New? Marriage. Now there was never any nonsense about gay "marriage" in ancient times. Greeks had wives they were married to, and they sodomised each other at the gymnasium. Teachers sodomised their pupils (pederasty). And that was normal. But a Greek would laugh in your face at the idea of marrying a man for the sake of making children! As for Israel, well, Leviticus makes it clear how they viewed anything other than polygamy, perhaps.

So where does that seat Christians in the middle of all this bickering between Greeks, Jews, and the modern world?

Well, I'll let you research that yourself:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html
There's more in the Bible that speaks about homosexuality than what the OP has cited. (The Church Fathers, from the earliest days of the Church, also speak about it; you will find their opinion below the Scripture quotes.)

http://www.theologicalclowning.org/totb.html
(For a more robust, full-bodied look at the Catholic understanding of human sexuality, I present you Blessed Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" - all of his sermons regarding the question of what our human sexuality looks like, operates, and its purpose.)

I hope you will enjoy the reading. I know I will.

[New haven america]

We already have. Or have you failed to notice that marriage is no longer a property exchange between men?

God made man for woman and woman for man. I really don't see how you think that marriage is some sort of property exchange.

Is that why the term homosexual and bisexual(Me) was made.

[Meryuma]

Cause we care about the children

Why do you hate Greek culture?

We already have. Or have you failed to notice that marriage is no longer a property exchange between men?

God made man for woman and woman for man. I really don't see how you think that marriage is some sort of property exchange.

If God made man for woman and vice versa, how come there are gay people in the first place? God is supposedly omnipotent, he didn't have to design people as being capable of homosexual attractions. It's like if some people were born with functioning wings but people said God made people to walk on land.

Also, he was referring to how marriage was viewed in ancient times (including the Bible), not how he personally views it.