Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
I understand the reasoning; however, what about slavery? When black people refused to do as their owners said, was that a sin? "slaves obey your masters whether they be kind or cruel." I think that there is a bias in religious institutions.
Also, the New Testament does not say anything about homosexuality being a sin, and Christians follow the doctrines in the New Testament, not the old testament. There is one verse that states that is a sin for heterosexual men to commit adultery with other men. Note: Before jumping to a conclusion about a verse, look at it's previous wordings. The only other verse that refers to homosexuality being a sin in the New Testament is that "homosexuals" will not inherit the kingdom of God. The word translated to "homosexuals" in recent times, has been translated as "sexual perverts" in past texts. The alteration to homosexuality is a fairly new interpretation concocted by some churches. So, homosexuality is not a sin, nor is same sex marriage. The bible says the heterosexual marriage is wholesome, but it doesn't mean that same sex marriage is not wholesome. I think that religious institutions have too much power; they manipulate the religious text and their followers. A relationship with God should be personal, not what others tell you it should be.
Well there are a few more verses than one, the follwing scripture comes from the New King James Version.
Romans 1:21-27(Read all of this, but make note of verse 27)
Spoiler:
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
---
1 Timothy 1:8–10
Spoiler:
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,
9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
---
Now you mention that the word Homosexual has only been included in recent translations from my reading this seems correct, but the meaning is still the same.
The verse you mention is from 1 Corinthians 6:9 and in the 400 year old King James Version Homosexuals is written as effeminate.
1 Corinthians 6:9
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
And for good measure here's the New King James Version.
1 Corinthians 6:9
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
---
Taking this we have to look on what makes up Homosexuality in this modern day.
Dictionary.com defines it as this: 'sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex'
Now a homosexual might not go around acting effeminately, but having sexual desires for anything even toward a women when out of marriage between one man and one women, one would be committing lust of a sexual nature, which is addressed within Romans 1:21-27. The physical Sexual acts that are sometimes committed within Homosexual relationships would be defined as Sodomy which is addressed 1 Timothy 1:8–10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9.
Yes, homosexuals have desires for the same-sex. But the verse that you quoted states men whom are LEAVING the natural use of woman and then with men. Men who have natural desires for women and may be married or in a relationship with women are sleeping with men. This is adultery; Men whom have wives do not sleep with other men. That does not condemn homosexuals; where does it say that men whom sleep with other men naturally, cannot have sex with men? Some churches have put their own spin on the meaning, when it clearly does not state the latter. You have to take it for what is says.
Abusers of self with mankind would be a male prostitute. The homosexual version, is new, and manipulates the word of God, period. Jesus joins other ancient authorities in viewing the sins of the Sodomites as the abuse of strangers, neglecting the poor and needy, and the stigmatizing of outsiders. The bible never condemns homosexuals that are in committed relationships.
Those are the only verses? And none of them are conclusive.
I do not go to church often, because the priests are not God, and they often misinterpret the Bible, and do not understand much of the word origins. I don't like to think of my faith as a religion, but as a relationship with God. I do Bible study groups and individual studies. Those whom only attend church and do not read the Bible, study it's origins, and converse with others about their individualized perceptions are only getting a second-hand account of what the New Testament truly stands for. Beyond that, I do not think that I have the right to impose my views upon others through legal and societal means; everyone has the right to live their life the way the want to even if I would not follow the same lifestyle as them. You have to understand the that the Bible is 2000 years old, read it carefully and look up the various interpretations of the words. If you have taken a language study you will find that the word "sl*t" used to mean unkept man. As time progressed it became known as unkept woman, then something along the lines of a mistress, and then it transformed into woman that is promiscuous. Some words tend to become more derogatory and pejorative in meaning, but what was the meaning in a context 2000 years ago? Surely it is not identical. In that respect, I have learned about the meanings of certain words and phrases that are in the Bible that do not mean the same thing that they used to mean. Take Shakespeare for instance, his works were only written a few centuries ago, but the meanings of words are totally different from what they are now. Most individuals take on the bible with a superficial sense, they read, and take on a simplistic interpretation of the words, and they also are fueled by their predispositions to issues such as homosexuality. They were told it was wrong and then they read through the lines with preconceived notions.
I want to join! :D I haven't been on this site in so many months, but I plan to be active again since I found this group! :D This really surprised me! :) I'm so glad there is Christian unity on the forums. ^__^ I'm a protestant Christian. Christianity is indeed a relationship with God. Not a religion. :)
I'd like to join the discussion, but I won't bother quote any of those posts above. Too many to mention.
Homosexuality is in my opinion, immoral. The Bible clearly states that it is NOT accepted by God. I will not bother posting verses, because you should know this yourself (and I can't be bothered getting them.... soz). As to what you said b4, the Bible was NOT written only for the context of 2000 years ago! God is omniscient, meaning all knowing. He would have made the prophets write the Bible so that its meaning is clear all across the centuries. Also, homosexuality is NOT beneficial to society! It is gay people who spread HIV/AIDS the most, as well as other STDs. I have nothing against gay people, I just think that its a sin to be gay.
I'd like to join the discussion, but I won't bother quote any of those posts above. Too many to mention.
Homosexuality is in my opinion, immoral. The Bible clearly states that it is NOT accepted by God. I will not bother posting verses, because you should know this yourself (and I can't be bothered getting them.... soz). As to what you said b4, the Bible was NOT written only for the context of 2000 years ago! God is omniscient, meaning all knowing. He would have made the prophets write the Bible so that its meaning is clear all across the centuries. Also, homosexuality is NOT beneficial to society! It is gay people who spread HIV/AIDS the most, as well as other STDs. I have nothing against gay people, I just think that its a sin to be gay.
False; 90%+ of HIV/AIDS is contracted by heterosexual people (CDC), and it is false to say homosexuality is a sin in the new testament. Beyond that, all STD are spread more so by heterosexuals, but that is no reason to condemn them. Obviously we are over-populated, and there are millions of orphaned children in the world. The only reason why some gay people have been "promiscuous" is because they cannot get married. If you were told that you were sinful, god hated you, and that you could not be married, I find it less likely that you will settle down with one person. Also, the change of the meaning of words throughout time is undeniable, the word for sexually perverted has now been twisted into homosexual. Read the above posts about the verses that have been presumed otherwise. So if you read the bible word for word, you are likely to get a different interpretation than what it was written to be. That is why you need to study the origin of words, the alternate versions, previous versions, and the previous customs in order to understand the intents of a scripture written 2,000 years ago.
Disregard my dropping out messages. I kind of got mad when I read some of the messages in here, but I'm over it. Anyway, here's some healthy debate on homosexuality:
FrostPhoenix: You say that you have nothing against gay people, yet at the same time you say it is immoral to be gay, and I guarantee any gay person who reads that would be offended. It also offends me because my best friend is gay and my aunt is a lesbian. I am not going to call them immoral and disown them simply because they're gay. I'm also not going to tell them "God doesn't like the way you are, you're going to Hell," because I don't believe that. Think about it: Do you really think God would condemn someone for having a natural attraction to the same sex which He gave them? I don't think so. And, yes, I do believe that God puts those types of attractions on us at birth. As I've been told before, God has a plan for everyone. Though no religious leader has told me this before (that's why I don't agree with any particular branch of Christianity), I believe that God's plan for those people is to attempt to change the views of those around them. What if you have a child in the future that turns out gay? I would hope that you would not condemn or disown them or try to "cure" them through a reform camp or therapy.
Also, your saying that HIV/AIDS is spread through more homosexuals... Well, just read -ty-'s post. While it was originally believed that HIV/AIDS was directly linked to being gay, it has since been proven false. I would think that it is spread equally among homosexuals as it is among heterosexuals.
And you saying they would not be beneficial to society: I can name one undeniable way they would be beneficial. There are countless orphaned children out there, and they need loving homes. Homosexual couples, or even single homosexual people, could provide the loving homes that these children desperately need. Also, just FYI, I think gays should be allowed to get married.
Disregard my dropping out messages. I kind of got mad when I read some of the messages in here, but I'm over it. Anyway, here's some healthy debate on homosexuality:
FrostPhoenix: You say that you have nothing against gay people, yet at the same time you say it is immoral to be gay, and I guarantee any gay person who reads that would be offended. It also offends me because my best friend is gay and my aunt is a lesbian. I am not going to call them immoral and disown them simply because they're gay. I'm also not going to tell them "God doesn't like the way you are, you're going to Hell," because I don't believe that. Think about it: Do you really think God would condemn someone for having a natural attraction to the same sex which He gave them? I don't think so. And, yes, I do believe that God puts those types of attractions on us at birth. As I've been told before, God has a plan for everyone. Though no religious leader has told me this before (that's why I don't agree with any particular branch of Christianity), I believe that God's plan for those people is to attempt to change the views of those around them. What if you have a child in the future that turns out gay? I would hope that you would not condemn or disown them or try to "cure" them through a reform camp or therapy.
Also, your saying that HIV/AIDS is spread through more homosexuals... Well, just read -ty-'s post. While it was originally believed that HIV/AIDS was directly linked to being gay, it has since been proven false. I would think that it is spread equally among homosexuals as it is among heterosexuals.
And you saying they would not be beneficial to society: I can name one undeniable way they would be beneficial. There are countless orphaned children out there, and they need loving homes. Homosexual couples, or even single homosexual people, could provide the loving homes that these children desperately need. Also, just FYI, I think gays should be allowed to get married.
I know what you mean. It is one thing to disagree, but his comment was... a bit over the top, to say the least. It is interesting what you say about having friends and relatives that are gay; according to Gallup polls, the more gay people that are in your life, the more likely you are to support gay rights if you are heterosexual. Therefore, I think many people who are against gay rights do a lot of stereotyping, because they are not close enough to a gay person to actually realize that most of them are just like heterosexual people, except for the fact that they are attracted to the same gender; gay people are painfully normal, lol. I was about to go on a big angry rant myself, but I too realized it is not productive and not worth my time.
Basically, God makes gays. God doesn't condemn his creations for being created, unless he is condemning himself. lol.
Since this previous discussion seems to have died, I'm going to ask a question to the group.
What is your opinion of the fact that there are so many different denominations of Christianity? Do you think there is one denomination that is the "correct" denomination? Or do you think that denominations don't matter and all that matters is that you have accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior and have a relationship with God?
I personally believe that all these denominations are actually somewhat ridiculous, especially in the sense that if you, for example, put a Catholic priest and a Protestant priest in the same room, they will never come to an agreement. Like I said before, I'm non-denominational. All that matters is that I have accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior, and that I have a relationship with God.
What is your opinion of the fact that there are so many different denominations of Christianity? Do you think there is one denomination that is the "correct" denomination? Or do you think that denominations don't matter and all that matters is that you have accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior and have a relationship with God?
I just see denomenations as residual institutions formed to garner more power over another denomination. Think about it. Especially a few centuries ago, the churches played a major role in government and society; whomever had the most followers had the most power to tell others what is right and what is wrong. It's a common belief among Mormons that their denomination is the only one that will find salvation. You can see how the original followers feared damnation and became Mormons. I do not want to single out one sect, because this is a common occurrence among the many denominations. That is why I love God, just not the institutions with convoluted messages. I am not saying it is bad to be a part of a congregation, I am simply saying the fight for power among the different sects is kinda sacrilegious. So no, I think that it doesn't really matter what sect you choose to be affiliated with as long as you live your life upholding morals and being considerate of others.
In my opinion, denominations are bringing us farther apart. Jesus wanted christians to be united, instead we are using christianity itself to drive ourselves farther apart. All of the denominations have good parts and bad parts, we have to decide ourselves what is the truth. And generally, you know when you made the right decision. Or if you made the wrong decision.
In my opinion, denominations are bringing us farther apart. Jesus wanted christians to be united, instead we are using christianity itself to drive ourselves farther apart. All of the denominations have good parts and bad parts, we have to decide ourselves what is the truth. And generally, you know when you made the right decision. Or if you made the wrong decision.
A agree for the most part. I think that people truly believe that they are "right". But what happens when two different groups have fundamental differences in ideology, and they both believe that they are correct? Whose to say which one is right, and which one is wrong? But yes, even if we have some dissenting opinions and interpretations we should not segregate our selves into different groups.
What I meant with deciding what is true for yourselves is by reading the Bible and growing in your relationship with God. You generally know by the holy spirit if what you decided is what God wants.
My personal belief is that the bible was written in a context 2000 years ago. What would it be like if the revelation were established in a modern sense? I think that Christians, have learned to look to their own relationship to God to arrive to great revelations. For instance, slavery. Slavery was very necessary for society to fumigation; therefore, the bible included verses like "slaves obey you masters, whether they be kind or cruel." So maybe it was the right thing to have that contract for labor back then in order for our society to progress. However, in the world we live in today, or even a few centuries back, the need for slaves has dwindled; we have created a moderately stable faith-based economy. In the 1850's, I believe that many Christians began contemplating the morality of slavery, and had a revelation of sorts to demolish it. So can the acceptance of gay people follow suit? Being homosexual 2000 years ago was not practical; society needed to procreate rapidly in order to survive. But as we have all seen; China and India are suffering from over-population. Also, millions of children are in need of parents. Think about, more and more we hear about gay people thriving; not only do they not procreate, but they also adopt children in need of homes. So homosexuality is also going through a modern revelation; it is VERY beneficial to have gay people in our society. Therefore, why not encourage gay couples to adopt children and establish marriages?
To be 100% honest, I'm against homosexuality. But that doesn't mean that they should be denied their rights! Yeah, sure, they're gay. BUT THEY'RE HUMAN‼ The only right that I believe should be taken away is marriage. Should one not be allowed to adopt a child just because they lied when they were six? No! So why shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to adopt?
I feel it's wrong for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be together because that's not how God designed us. God designed marriage to be an act of being together with Him in creation. Homosexual couples don't, er, create.
I know homosexuality is a touchy subject, so I'm terribly sorry if I ever sound blunt.
