What monkey, what whale, what penguin, what mouse, has-- under observation --ever built a temple, performed a recognizably ritual dance, or prayed, worshipped, or abased themselves before an idol crafted by their own hands, flippers, wings, or paws? None. Animals are creatures of nature, creatures of their own innate nature, and they have little control over the internal forces that drive them.
Man is not the same. Man can choose to be and act other than his nature dictates as natural. Animals are slaves to mating patterns; females go into heat, males vie for the right to impregnate, and the female consents and in time bears fruit. Men can resist their sexual urges, as can women. Men and women are similarly affected by the dictates of their specific natures and drives, but men and women can choose to disregard, even suppress, that nature. Animals, by and large, do not have that luxury.
Likewise, only humans have the capacity for religion; to look at the universe in the abstract, and recognize the undeniable fingerprint of God on everything in existence, even the far-flung unnumbered galaxies and nebulae.
God gave his laws to men, because it is man that sinned against God, not animals. God commanded men to be fruitful and multiply. Anything that goes against that command is therefore sin. After all, homosexuals cannot be fruitful without contact with the opposite sex, to include artificial insemination in the case of lesbians. God views waste as sin. Which is why slothfulness is sinful, why murder is sinful, why lying is sinful, why covetousness is sinful.
God also placed within each of us a conscience. No evidence of this exists in the animal kingdom. Conscience; Con (with) + Science (knowledge), quite simply is the mechanism by which we recognize those things that are right and wrong. For those who have no knowledge of The Law, God has written 'The Law' on their hearts, or conscience. No child needs to be taught that lying is wrong. No child needs to be taught that stealing is wrong-- they know these things instinctively.
There is a PSA that airs during the CBS Evening News that features Nelson Mandela who says,
"No one is born hating another for their religion of the color of their skin. Hatred and intolerance have to be learned..."He is right that no one is born hating another, but he is quite wrong that hatred and intolerance have to be learned. Hatred comes naturally to each and every child born of woman. It is part of who we are, but God expects us reject that nature and choose His instead.
But the conscience can become distorted, or warped, and that is how the idea that homosexuality can be blessed of God is possible. It cannot-- it is both destructive behavior, and a perversion of nature that rejects the natural use of both the male and female genitalia; to lust after what is ultimately unprofitable.
To claim homosexuality is 100% natural, does not take into account the fact that homosexual couples do not propagate; they do not advance the species, and their lifestyle is therefore wasteful: A waste of semen/ova, a waste of effort, a waste of life itself. It is not at all natural, since the natural use of genitalia is to connect male to female, and reproduce.
Man is far far more than simply 'animals in pants.' And God expects far far more of us than He does of the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is against nature, and against God's design for the sexes. But even leaving God out of it, it still goes against nature, and any society which promotes and encourages the belief that homosexuality is natural, normal, or desirable, is a society that, sooner rather than later, fades into the annals of history. No pun intended.
Show me a tribe of monkeys who ritually dance about a bonfire in the midst of a monkey-constructed temple every full moon and who scream and hoot their adoration's to God, and I'll accept the fact that homosexuality is natural in humans.
Dude, your logic is lacking. By this reasoning, then those who remain celibate are sinning. Those who are unable to bear children are sinning.
But you don't think that, do you? And why not?
Because if a couple is physically unable to bear children it's not their fault and God won't count that as sin? But if that's your reason, then that same grace could be extended to our gay friends. You can't help that you're heterosexual, they can't help it they're gay.
There's nothing TO feel guilty about - it's the way God made them, it's natural, the way things are. Just as it's natural that some people remain celibate or that some are unable to bear children.
It's just the way things are.
Dan, I think that the argument that "God made them that way" is a bit fallacious, when God clearly condemns homosexuality throughout the Bible.
If it were a case of God making us that way, then anything goes... I'm an alcoholic, 'cause God made me that way. I'm a pedophile, 'cause God made me that way. I'm addicted to gambling, 'cause God made me that way... The list could go on and on.
In field mice as the population density increases homosexual relations increase. When those homosexual mice are removed the incidents of aggression in the population increases.
In wolves lower order members will sometimes form homosexual relationships to work together for security and advantage in the pack order.
I repeat again that homosexuality has been observed in 1500 animal species. Homosexuality is part of the natural order. Propogating the species is not the only drive for animals. Animals need love an affection too, and often are not opposed to seeking love or attention whereever it is given. This is part of nature, the creation.
What you're suggesting is that people should fight against their natural desires. God put homosexual urges in men and women to tempt/trap them. You base all this on words from a book. This is the arrogance I comment on elsewhere. Men saying that the words in a book trump the evidence of the creation.
"I think that the argument that "God made them that way" is a bit fallacious, when God clearly condemns homosexuality throughout the Bible."
Well now, I disagree with this premise.
1. God does not clearly condemn homosexuality.
2. Where folk find support for this in the Bible is in a HANDFUL of verses - not "throughout the bible."
3. Those few verses are questionable as to their intent.
For instance, a large portion of the biblical argument usually presented is Sodom and Gomorrah. "Everyone knows that they were destroyed for their homosexual behavior!"
When, in fact, homosexuality is never mentioned in ANY biblical references to S/G. The main story that everyone remembers is when the men of Sodom tried to rape two men. But rape is not the same as homosexuality.
I won't bother going through the remaining verses right now (maybe ten?), just know that there are Christians who believe the Bible deeply who deeply disagree with this position.
To back up what Ben is saying about the natural world, in Romans (sorry Ben, I'm sure this drives you crazy), the famous passage there condemns the "ungodly" for...wait for it..."abandoning natural
relations."
Now, I know that this passage says, "men abandoned natural relations, going after women instead...", but as Ben suggests, we've learned something in the last 2000 years - that some people are naturally gay! Just as some people are naturally straight.
It would be a godly shame for them to abandon their natural relations, say many devoted Christians.
We simply disagree with you.
So, let me ask you the question I can't get E to answer: Suppose you're right. Suppose my gay friends get to heaven and are told, "You were wrong. Homosexuality IS a sin."
Will they be kicked out of the club for being wrong?
Will YOU be kicked out of the club for being wrong about some stuff, too?
If we're kicked out for being wrong, then who in the heck's gonna get in?!
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. "
Where you get, "men abandoned natural relations, going after women instead..." is beyond me. The way you quote the verse suggests that man's 'natural' use is with other men, and not women. If this is what your "bible" says, it's no wonder you don't see any prohibition against same sex relations in the bible.
What translation are you reading so I can make doubly sure I avoid that one and warn everyone who asks me to avoid it as well!!!
No, Brooke, I do not. Common sense should tell the couple with eleven children that it's time to be more pro-active against further pregnancies using condoms, preferably, as they are safer than the pill.
Just a typo.
Look, I know what Romans says (typo not withstanding) as well as the maybe nine other verses that people use to justify saying gays can't be as God made them.
I disagree with that interpretation. I'll be glad to go verse by verse thru those very few verses and show you why, but in the end, I expect we'll disagree.
That is why I keep asking what I see to be an underlying question: Must we be right on every sin in order to be saved? And why do you think that?
You claim that there are only (maybe) ten verses in the Bible condemning Homosexuality.
I want a list of the verses condoning, it.
I want you to prove to me using scripture that Homosexuality is Natural, and approved by God Almighty.
Rather than suggesting that because there are only ten verses condemning it, and therefore we should disregard these portions of Gods Word because they are so few, I want you to list for me the supposed myriad of passages from the Bible specifically mentioning Homosexuality in a positive light.
I'm sure that a well studied Bible Scholar such as yourself should have absolutely no trouble providing me with AT LEAST ten verses from the Bible which SPECIFICALLY STATE that Homosexuality is blessed by God, and is a normal facet of a Christian Society.
No. Being right has no bearing on salvation. Salvation depends wholly upon the shed blood of Christ, nothing more, nothing less. Plus nothing, minus nothing.
Having answered that, those who continue in sin should seriously search themselves for apparent changes, for God say's, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." The Holy Spirit will instruct a believer in holiness, and convict him/her of sin. And the genuine convert will change, and dramatically. The Holy Spirit is a consuming fire, not a glass of tepid water.
But since you and I are not likely to ever agree that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination in the eyes of God, there's really no point in continuing this debate. You are where you're at, BenT is stuck on the animal kingdom-- which as I've explained, has no bearing on humans --and I and those who agree with me are where we are... in opposition to what you believe. To continue debating this is pointless. Your arguments will score no points with me, and I suspect mine will achieve similar results with you.
I have allowed Dan, and ER both to draw me into a discussion which has inspired Anger, Pride, Judgementalism and Self Righteousness in me.
These are sins, and I am sorry that I have allowed them to fester within me.
The Revelation (which ER has contended does not even belong in the Bible...) Chapter 2 deals with the issue of "Christians" who disagree with the established message contained in the word of God, and I cannot improve on the Word of God.
The phrase "He who hath an ear, let him hear" does not mean "He who posesses auditory nerves", it means "you who are able to understand, listen and learn."
I will no longer waste my time getting angry with those who, for whatever reason, are unable to understand.
So I am bowing out of this argument.
Dan, ER, make your points. Preach your gospel.
Redefine the Word of God however you see fit.
We will all know the Truth when we return to the presence of God when this lif is over.
I will no longer oppose you.
God does not need me to defend His message. He is able to convict Sin in His followers who ask for His Guidance, and to reveal His Truth to those who seek it.
I cannot know what is in your heart, or what God has ordained your particular Mission to be, nor could I ever.
I know what God says to me through His Word, and I will not let you lead me into Temptation anymore.
Please forgive me if I have offended anyone.
That was not my intention.
"Having answered that, those who continue in sin should seriously search themselves for apparent changes..."
But, as I've pointed out, my gay friends don't think they're sinning by being gay. YOU don't think you're sinning by supporting this war. I don't think I'm sinning by opposing this war.
Sometimes we "continue in sin" without knowing it.
Certainly we ought always to search ourselves, but sometimes we're going to be wrong. I think God's grace covers that.
Praise God. Can I get an amen?
And on that note... Tug's last comment has hit close to home with me. I think it's time I bow out of this profitless argument.
Although, Dan...
I am interested in understanding how you came to believe homosexuality is not a sin. You would care to share that.
Now, if you still want me to deal with this:
"Okay, Dan, Time for YOU to provide your sources.
You claim that there are only (maybe) ten verses in the Bible condemning
Homosexuality.
I want a list of the verses condoning, it."
I'll be glad to.
I don't know of any verses specifically condoning homosexuality. Not one.
How's that?
Here's the thing: If you look to the Bible for standards of morality with regards to sexuality, you will find that it is ALL over the place.
Fathers offering their daughters to be raped, husbands offering their wives to other men, concubines and polygamy practiced by "men after God's own heart," celibacy, non-celibacy, marriage, non-marriage, marriage (by God's command) to a practicing and unrepentant prostitute, and on and on.
Does that mean I think God advocates all of the above? No. Just that one can't point to the Bible and say, "Follow THAT example of living sexually pure lives."
WHICH example!?
We must use our God-given reason and innate morality ("that of God in us," the Quakers say) to struggle through what's right and wrong.
The OT teaches us to kill "men who lay with men," as well as disrespectful children and those who'd violate the dietary laws.
Nowhere in the Bible are those commands "cancelled out," or are we told to disregard them. And yet we do. No one I know of (except maybe everyone's favorite punching bag, Muslim Extremists) is advocating killing folk like the Bible unequivocally commands us. Why aren't we?
Well, because we have some reason in our bodies. We can look through the Bible and find the great Truths therein without saying we must take every word literally.
And so, when I read the few verses that seem to be talking about homosexuality, BUT could also be talking about extramarital or otherwise abusive sexuality, then my God-given reason helps me sort the wheat from the chaff.
In reading the whole of the Bible, the notion I get is that sexuality is a gift and is to be honored and not abused. I further get that the best way that I perceive to honor that gift is in the context of marriage. Marriage for me and my wife (21 years now), marriage for my gay brothers and sisters.
I find nothing in the Bible condemning that sort of holy love and much embracing it.
You?
When you eliminate passages about prostitution and rape, you are left with a total of two passages in the OT that people claim to be about homosexuality.
Leviticus 18
Leviticus 22
Both of these passages condemn "man laying with man," and one of them says that those doing such should be killed. They are part of OT laws, some of which we still observe and some we have, in our wisdom, decided don't apply to us. (Admittedly, sometimes our wisdom is wrong - as I'd suggest is the case with our ignoring of the spirit of the Jubilee Laws.)
Just two verses in all of the OT, and they don't condemn a loving, committed gay marriage kind of relationship, just "men laying with men" - interpret that how you will.
Moving to the NT, we have:
I Cor 6:9
Romans 1:26-27
I Timothy 1:10
And maybe one or two other passages (depending upon your translation - I was being generous when I said there were 10 passages that seem to deal with homosexuality. We're talking a handful.)
I Cor 6 is talking about catamites, or male prostitutes, so I really shouldn't include that as a homosexuality related verse, but I'll include that to clear up any confusion.
The I Timothy passage (and one or two other places) include phrases such as "the effeminate" or "homosexual offenders" (not a direct translation) in lists of those who won't inherit the kingdom of God. Also in these lists are cheaters, liars, and more of the stuff that "we" tend to do, by the way.
Leaving us with the Romans passage that, to my way of reading it, condemns abandoning the natural way God made you.
That's it. The whole biblical case against gays in a handful of verses.
Jesus is entirely silent on this "sin" that many in the church have made one of their main Causes (along with abortion, which is similarly absent from the Bible and from Jesus' teachings).
We could debate the meaning of the words and context in these handful of passages but probably would disagree. I'm okay with that.
My problem is with those who'd insist that,
1. ONLY their interpretation of God's Word is relevant,
2. Those who'd seek to impose their interpretation of God's word on the public at large by means of law with no other reasoning than, "Well, because that's what I say the Bible says." and,
3. Those who'd make this issue a central issue in Christianity when it is, at best, marginally addressed in the Bible.
And now you know the rest of the story.
That would be my exact interpretation of passages like those from Psalm 148 ("Let all creation praise the Lord...")
Praise the LORD from the earth, you sea monsters and all deep waters;
You lightning and hail, snow and clouds, storm winds that fulfill God's command;
You animals wild and tame, you creatures that crawl and fly...
Let them all praise the LORD'S name!
Can I get a witness?
Drawing lines and creating gradations between and among sins, under the New Covenant is wrong, in my book, which is, in fact, the same Bible EL and Tug -- and Dan --use. I freely admit I set the New Testament above the Old Testament.
Homosexuals are no more or less sinful than I am. No man can judge the change that God's grace/the Holy Spirit causes in another. The churches' doors are to be held wide open, following the exclusive example of inclusiveness left by the Savior himself.
The rest of the argument over homosexuality in this country is an argument over politics and personal preference. What I prefer to is to try to follow the Savior's admonition and to love my neighbor as I love myself. And I try to make sure my politics reflects that.
And at the very least, that has to mean, 1., Don't kill your neightbor, and 2., Don't judge him, lest you and I be judged.
BTW, peace, Tug. I apologize for my part in feeding your anger.
Of course, Luther didn't like James either, and it's one of my favorite epistles.
You know, before my current church, I think the only sermons I ever heard out of James are the ones about "taming the tongue."
Interesting that verses about "cultivating peace" or that so strongly condemn the wealthy go untouched so often...coincidence, I guess.
i recommend a healthy dose of self-flagellation, tugger.
KEVron
dat's a lotta monkey woops!
(thigh!)
KEvron