It's nearly impossible to answer your first question without getting too deep into theology -- but to put it simply, the love of God is a different concept from the love you speak about (Greek "eros" versus "agape"). I really don't want to go further than that...this is not a suitable forum for that discussion. The commonly held argument that homosexuality is only referred to in the old testament law is not true ... there are unmistakable New Testament references to it as well, specifically in the Pauline Epistles. But just as hotballa said, there's too much of a focus on homosexuality ... and this is where I think even many Christians get it wrong: homosexuality *is* natural in the sense that one can be born with those tendencies the same way we are born with the tendencies to lie, cheat, break rules etc. And as Christians we believe that our natural human ability is not sufficient to overcome the nature of what is sinful -- it is the power of the Holy Spirit in us that helps us to do that. That is why Christians should never try to "preach at" non-believers or condemn them for what they do ... all we are supposed to do is lead them to Christ through love, and let God do the rest. It's a spiritual matter and cannot be resolved by natural means.
Hopefully my response (which was a Leviticus verse) did not set off the "ridicule" meter - I don't think it was mocking, but let me know. My post was intended to point out that some verses in the Bible seem to me to be outdated and extreme and impossible to take literally. Why the verses about homosexuality seem to be cited - when the ones that are almost comically inconvenient and unenforceable do not - is something I have never gotten explained to me. If we're taking the Bible literally enough to condemn gays, why are we not taking it literally enough to put all adulterers to death. It is just as explicit, if not more. And by the way, adultery IS a bigger threat to the institution of heterosexual marriage than homosexuals who opt out of opposite-sex coupling. Holy texts are easily-exploited books - 9/11, anyone? - and the Bible is not immune to exploitation. I think that those predisposed to dislike sexual / emotional habits that they do not share have hijacked and stunted an important discussion with an extremely narrow, selective and ultimately inappropriate invocation of biblical verse as a flimsy 'checkmate' on the overdue discussion of homsexuality. You can read the Bible as science or literature or history or fables, but to my thinking, this notion that "the Bible says it so we must follow it note for note" is a simplistic, inconsistent, easily-debunked and frankly doomed misunderstanding of its intended spirit. It's not meant disrespectfully to those who cherish its words - that's fine to me. What's not fine, in picking and choosing passages to follow literally when it conveniently bolsters otherwise-indefensible treatment of man or animal. To me, its dishonest and a bastardization of religious teachings, which - above all - teach us to love each other.
hmm I had to think of a good example for this. It's like two children who are playing doctor with each other but taking it past an acceptable point. The parent has to step in and stop them from doing it. The parent may disapprove of the act or the situation, but they still love the kids just as much. God's love and love in general is not always about encouragement or consent. Sometimes to show love, you have to restrict access. I think the proper word is not overruled, but better explained. It does not mean those old rules are invalid. For instance, Old Testament says homosexuals should be stoned to death, but Jesus explains that yes, it's correct, but let he who is without sin cast that first stone.
the surveys found that African-American young people are more likely to agree that homosexuality is always wrong (55 percent for blacks, 36 percent for Hispanics and 35 percent for whites). A majority of African-American youth also opposed legalizing same-sex marriages, (58 percent for blacks, 36 percent for Hispanics and 35 percent for whites). http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/070201.blackyouthproject.shtml Other studies have pretty much mirrored these results. CBFC: your 50-year bet sounds like a good one to me, all current trends & polling data show that acceptance of homosexuality in the US is growing constantly, and especially so among the younger generation. This thread is so, so sad, on so many levels.
More theological exposition needed .... argh. The bible says that the price of any and all sin is death. The point is not that we're supposed to put sinners to death, the whole point of Christianity is that Jesus paid that price already so anyone who accepts him receives the gift of eternal life. The whole deal about "old testament versus new testament" is that in the new testament, now that Jesus has paid that price, we are no longer "bound" to the law of death but rather we live by the Spirit of God. And that means that now we have the ability to live holy like He wants us to, whereas before we were in what was a hopelessly condemned situation. The only point I'm going into all this is to clarify to those who don't understand what exactly Christians believe about the issue. There's a lot more to it, and the non-believer may not necessarily "get" it or understand that point of view. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't ridicule the other person because you think he's an idiot for believing what he believes.
Let me better explain my question. Its not about God's love in regard to sexual love but the idea about why a loving God would be so concerned about homosexuality in the first place. What is it about homosexuality that would bother God enough that he would have to make an injunction about it? Hotballa cites the example of two children playing doctor well two children playing doctor aren't informed about what they're doing. The same can't be said for two adults. I personally don't understand why God would care about two consenting and loving adults engaging in homosexuality would bother God.
yes, you're right adultery is a MUCH MUCH bigger problem overall than homosexuality (which you COULD take as falling under the umbrella of adultery). Jesus addresses this situation of the Old Testatment laws (aka Law of Moses) on adultery. The crowd has brought an adultress before him and is pushing Him to give the death sentence by stoning to her in accordance with the Law of Moses. Jesus obliges, but then says clearly "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" I don't think the discussion on homosexuality is overdue, but I do agree with the rest of this statement. The number of false teachers that have twisted the Bible to their own little distorted vision has increased leaps and bounds to the point where it's almost impossible to witness to non believers because of all the distortions they've had to hear from the likes of Falwell, Stewart, Baker and their ilk. On the issue of homosexuality and pretty much all sin, ther eis a very fine (but very very distinct) line that Christians must walk between condemnation of the act (ok) and condemnatio of the person (MAJOR not ok). Unfortunately, for those with the gift of gab, this line is very easily and too often distorted.
As human beings we will not always see things the way God sees them, because it's not just a physical interaction that is taking place. It may not be harmful physically, but that doesn't mean it's OK in the spirit realm....just as there are laws of physics that rule the physical realm, there are spiritual laws that rule the spirit realm. And breaking those spiritual laws has consequences, just as breaking the law of gravity will have natural consequences. Does this explain it better?
So which gay act is sinful? Listening to Pet Shop Boys? Collecting shoes? Loving a person of the same sex? Redecorating your home? Going to a Comet's game? Water ballet?
I honestly don't know the answer to this Sishir. I have a bunch of these types of questions myself, like why did You put the tree in the Garden? etc. I would love to know his reasoning behind doing everything He did. I resign myself to the fact that there are just somethings that I'll never find out till after death. I mean I have bits and pieces of why He might be against it, but the fact that He is is good enough for me. I'll worry about the reasoning and logic after I'm dead.
Any sort of physical intimacy where lust is involved between two members of the same sex. and I listen to Erasure religiously BTW
This has been a great read, and probably the most reasonable discussion of religion I have ever seen. Well done ! But not between 2 smoking hot women...right? RIGHT? DD
Only because of ignorant people. It's a shame that people don't like someone because of the color of their skin or their lifestyle when it doesn't hurt anyone else.
They are talking about it on ESPN now. For some reason they showed interviews from local Houston news with Tracy and JVG about what they think of Hardaway. Amaechi sounds like a British Scholar.
That's because there are only 2 games tonight in the NBA and the Rockets were the only team available to the media
The whole "just because I'm a bigot doesn't make me hateful" line that has been running in this thread is bewildering. The soft bigotry of "disagreeing with the lifestyle/races inter-marrying/living in my neighborhood" is what creates the conditions of violence and forces people into being second-class citizens. Gay people like John Amechi are declaring their sexual orientation because the act of doing so still is a political act. Tim Hardaway's quotes only underline why this is still the case.
Judge not lest you be judged.........someone mail that quote to Tim Hardaway and some of the posters on this board. DD
lol the moral side says this is still a huge problem. I'd be lying if I didn't tell you that the physical side screams "hell no".
