Why do some christians treat homosexuals badly and is it a sin?

[Ella Edric]

That doesn't make sense though. There are good reasons why we shouldn't commit other, clear-cut sins besides "God said not to". But with homosexuality, the only reason anyone can ever come up with against it is "because God said not to". I don't think that's good enough. Even the strict laws of Leviticus which seem ridiculous to us now had good reasons when you look at them in context.

Because it is a proven unhealthy life style. Because it doesn't work very well. God knows the hearts and minds of humans and knows what's best for us. It is proven that those who are gay tend to be less healthy than those who are not. They live shorter lives and have more health issues. Plus, man and woman are a great balance for each other. God created men with different minds than women, and same with women. They balance each other out, unlike two males(or two females), who, when coupled together tend to both act very unnatural. God made man and woman to be able to conceive children. You dont see two men or two women able to do that, do you? Thats because God designed it specifically that way. Man and woman.

[shooraijin]

Because it is a proven unhealthy life style.

I'm not unsympathetic to the greater moral point, but speaking as a medical professional, this is not proven.

[Radical Dreamer]

I'm going to ask that we move the thread away from the marriage aspect. That could very easily get political, and like I said earlier, we aren't going to go there. XD I know it hasn't yet, but I'm just trying to keep this thread on track with the original topic. XD

[Ella Edric]

I'm going to ask that we move the thread away from the marriage aspect. That could very easily get political, and like I said earlier, we aren't going to go there. XD I know it hasn't yet, but I'm just trying to keep this thread on track with the original topic. XD

Ok.

[ShiroiHikari]

A groom has sex with his bride. How does that fit into this analogy?

I may seem like I'm being crude or snarky, but I'm serious. This is why I do not like the "God's relationship as marriage" thing.

I'm with you here.

Perhaps, but it does a bit of good, I think, to explain how certain Christians (such as myself) can think the Bible is true and the word of God and still think being LGBT is not a sin. Further, I would hope (and I'm sure Nette was hoping the same when she posted) that perhaps people would stop and examine what they believe.

This is what I was hoping for, yes.

Many people have been misled and harmed by following others unquestioningly. Heaven's Gate, for example, or the whole David Koresh thing. While I'm not saying that believing homosexuality is a sin is on the same level as those, I would hope at least people would stop and examine why they believe it IS a sin, without resorting to "Because the church/God/my parents say so," since that is rarely (if ever) a satisfactory answer.

Agreed.

And as I have said before, much of what Jesus and even God Himself have said are sometimes more than what they appear to be on the surface. As to what's what, that's up to each person to determine for themselves, I think. I'm not going to say who should believe what. But I would hope that by asking for a reason that extends beyond "Because God said so," that even if they can't answer that in the thread, that they would at least give pause to it, and think about it.

Agreed, again. Wow! I'm agreeing with someone on the internet!

[Nate]

Because it is a proven unhealthy life style. Because it doesn't work very well. It is proven that those who are gay tend to be less healthy than those who are not. They live shorter lives and have more health issues.

One, I will echo what shoo said. Since he is a real doctor, I think that should put more weight to his words. These things haven't been proven, and even if they have been, it's because of society treating them poorly. They are bullied, harassed, told they have a sinful lifestyle, that God hates them, that God doesn't hate them but hates how they feel and that they should change...this can lead to massive amounts of stress and self-hatred, and if any "shorter lives" and "health issues" are caused by being gay, it is because they are not given the same love and acceptance that other human beings are given.

I'd also like to point out that statistics can be used to skew anything. It has been proven that minorities are more likely to commit crimes than whites. Does this mean minorities are inherently dangerous or evil? No, because there's a lot more to the issue than just skin color, such as education, the environment in which they grew up, how they were treated by others, their job skills...the list goes on. You can't just look at statistics casually and determine an immediate causal relationship between two things from them.

[LadyRushia]

A groom has sex with his bride. How does that fit into this analogy?

I may seem like I'm being crude or snarky, but I'm serious. This is why I do not like the "God's relationship as marriage" thing.

Further, I don't see how a groom/bride analogy in any way prohibits a same-sex relationship. So the bride would be a man instead, or the groom a woman. So what? What would that matter?

That's why I said it was watered down and that I couldn't explain it well. That explanation was made within a larger context of traditional thought and frames of reference being discussed in the class, which we don't have anymore anyway. I agree with you. It's full of holes these days and I also don't like relationship with God=relationship between a husband and wife.

It was a shot at playing the other side, which I'm really not that good at, but at least I tried, XD.

[Lynna]

Ummm...I did make a post as to why I thought Homosexuality was wrong, but it looks like no one saw it T.T
aw well...
And I do agree that the Christ/Church analogy is WAY over-used. That is on a completely different level in this case, although it definaitly has it's uses.

[Nate]

It was a shot at playing the other side, which I'm really not that good at.

It's cool yo. XD I often fail at playing devil's advocate myself, so I know how it is.

I do like to make bad jokes about it sometimes, like in the thread about feelings and emotions equating to closeness to God, someone made the marriage analogy about the church being Christ's bride, to which I felt the need to respond "I always wanted to be a bride! I hope my wedding dress doesn't make me look fat."

I also feel that this analogy has led to the distasteful trend of writing "love songs" to Jesus which I don't feel comfortable singing. I don't mind singing "I love you Jesus" but singing "I'm in love with you Jesus," yeah, no.

[Adorima]

Homosexuality IS a sin. The Bible is not ambiguous about this. Not in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament (I Corinthians and Revelation for example). Not only in things like rape, but even in just men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women.

Where the church has done wrong, as it has with many other things, is trying to clear it away from OUTSIDE the church. That's not our place. Our place isn't to rid the world of sin, it's to bring people to faith in Jesus, and one result is he cleanses them of sin.

However, IN the church... There's no more excuses. Anyone who follows God and isn't repentant about sin in their lives, particularly ones that aren't ambiguous, are to be cast out from fellowship. That's what happened in I Corinthians, when the guy lived with his step-mom (the understanding he did more than live with her, of course) Granted, this wasn't permanent (II Corinthians brings him BACK into fellowship) but he is only brought back after showing penitence for what he did.

It's also not true to say that Jesus didn't condemn people's sin. People love to quote the Beatitudes, but forget the "don't be-attitudes" that came immediately afterward. There's also his treatment of the rich man who was NOT a religious leader, and his admonition to "go and sin no more" to many people. Jesus, however, understood the proper time and place and voice to use with everyone he dealt with. Those three things are common places we fail.

On the main topic, but separate from what I'd said:

Attraction isn't a choice. Acting on it is.
Disagreement != hate.

Thanks for that Bob. I think you summed up exactly what I wanted to say. Especially the part about there are no more excuses in the Church.
For everyone who thinks that's an exclusionary statement, the requirement is to be a repentant sinner, to have a concrete plan of how to sin less and less.
That's for everyone. Living in a state of sin that you have no plans on amending and still believing you're saved. Well that's simply presumptuous of Jesus' forgiveness. This is the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit (the teacher of truth) that Jesus was talking about.

I think gay people are prejudiced against (by some Christians especially), but if they were to be fair, they shouldn't count prejudice as someone disapproving of their lifestyle, or someone that has something less than warm and fuzzy to tell them. I have been flamed so bad for saying what I believe and it has taken lots of prayer to keep from retaliating and to keep forgiving them, even in my heart. You try to reach out and all you get is snarky comebacks...well it's a little frustrating. So please pray for me everyone.

This is a sticky topic, and I really appreciate everyone's efforts to stay calm and unoffensive. It's very refreshing to see in these debates. Of course, I usually debate on youtube...>.< Which is stupid of me, but I feel the Christian faith needs a voice even on places like that...on places like this though I feel that people are being very open and discussing things that are side-lined due to those volatile conversations.

On another site that I used to post in cosplay.com people profess to be Christian and they go on saying scripture is faulty, open to interpretation and basically fooling/scandalizing the rest of the site into thinking that to be a Christian all you need is to say "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savoir" They forget that people need to live as he lived, or try.

I know this might get thrown into my face when some ill-willed people look it me up on the internet, but I went through a time when I thought I was gay. It was difficult to get through that, and I can't say I don't struggle with tempation anymore. In fact if I wanted to be loud and proud, I'd say I was and am bisexual. But I don't identify as bisexual because Jesus doesn't want us to be proud of our sin. He wants us to be proud of being his children.

I'm sure there are very holy people who are gay. (I know some personally and I can speculate that some biblical figures and saints were gay) but not only did not act on it, they replaced it with complete devotion to God. I wish I could say the same about myself, but I have a plan and I am working on the road of holiness, I assure myself that I'll be ok, because God forgives all repentant sinners.

There's much to be said about the complexities of human sexuality and the mind, and while it's interesting to look at that in detail, let's not forget this teaching from the bible that we walk by faith and not by sight. We don't have to figure the whys and hows of people's psychology for us to do as Jesus taught.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

And please pray for me guys, so that I won't just talk about it, but that I can live a life that pleases God too.

[LadyRushia]

I also feel that this analogy has led to the distasteful trend of writing "love songs" to Jesus which I don't feel comfortable singing. I don't mind singing "I love you Jesus" but singing "I'm in love with you Jesus," yeah, no.

Agreement. Modern worship songs are an entirely different tangent I could go on, but that'd be for a different thread at a different time, XD.

[shooraijin]

I'm sure there are very holy people who are gay. (I know some personally and I can speculate that some biblical figures and saints were gay) but not only did not act on it, they replaced it with complete devotion to God.

I am personally acquainted with a number of out gay Christians who have determined that their Christian walk is best served by remaining abstinent. I am not aware of anyone with a moral beef against that.

[Midori]

Further, I would hope (and I'm sure Nette was hoping the same when she posted) that perhaps people would stop and examine what they believe. Many people have been misled and harmed by following others unquestioningly. Heaven's Gate, for example, or the whole David Koresh thing. While I'm not saying that believing homosexuality is a sin is on the same level as those, I would hope at least people would stop and examine why they believe it IS a sin, without resorting to "Because the church/God/my parents say so," since that is rarely (if ever) a satisfactory answer.

While I do believe homosexuality is improper, it is not because I am blindly following what somebody else told me. To be sure, my family and church believe the same, but we generally try to avoid the issue like the plague, because we know that it can cause a lot of enmity no matter how we settle it. To put it this way: it never even occurred to me until I was a 13 or so that anybody might even have romantic feelings toward members of the same sex. And when I found out, my reaction wasn't "THATS DISGUSTING" it was "Huh, that's weird. I'd better learn some more about human psychology."

Now in contrast, I live and went to college in freaking California, in the Silicon Valley. Just try to go to college in this area and not have "LGBTs should have equal rights" pounded into your head at every opportunity. My college even had a whole month devoted to celebrating them.

So believe me when I say my beliefs are a result of careful thought and not blind following. I refuse to actually go into the reasons for those beliefs, in order to avoid an argument, but I want everyone to know I am following what I truly believe, not something somebody forced on me. I encourage everyone to think the same way.

[Nate]

While I vehemently disagree with you, I am at least glad you have reasons behind the way you believe (despite the fact that I obviously disagree with them). I just feel a majority of people (maybe not even here, but in general) just say "It's wrong 'cuz my pastor told me so and the Bible says so" without devoting any further thought to it. And I think that's a bad thing.

[Htom Sirveaux]

I was always brought up to say "Yes, it's definitely a sin." But after partaking in the discussion in this thread, and being prompted to carefully consider the issue from all angles of either side, my opinion on the matter has gone the way of my political affiliation, to an adamant and resolute "I don't know and I don't care."

[Cognitive Gear]

While I do believe homosexuality is improper, it is not because I am blindly following what somebody else told me. To be sure, my family and church believe the same, but we generally try to avoid the issue like the plague, because we know that it can cause a lot of enmity no matter how we settle it. To put it this way: it never even occurred to me until I was a 13 or so that anybody might even have romantic feelings toward members of the same sex. And when I found out my reaction wasn't "THATS DISGUSTING" it was "Huh, that's weird. I'd better learn some more about human psychology."

Now in contrast, I live and went to college in freaking California, in the Silicon Valley. Just try to go to college in this area and not have "LGBTs should have equal rights" pounded into your head at every opportunity. My college even had a whole month devoted to celebrating them.

So believe me when I say my beliefs are a result of careful thought and not blind following. I refuse to actually go into the reasons for those beliefs, in order to avoid an argument, but I want everyone to know I am following what I truly believe, not something somebody forced on me. I encourage everyone to think the same way.

Interestingly, I also live and have gone to college in California, though it is down in Orange County. My experiences have been quite different, with the opposite political message pounded into my head at every opportunity.

I'm glad that you have put careful thought into this. I think that we would all be better off if everyone did.

[Okami]

Well, we do. That's why we all need Christ. But I really think that making out some sins to be worse than others is a dangerous thing. Obviously, the ill effects that sins have on human beings vary widely, but I think that sin is sin is sin and everyone does it at some point. Saying "Well I commit better sins than you do" is just stupid.

This reminds me of in Crazy Love where Francis Chan is talking about Isaiah 64:6 and how all of our righteous rags are like filthy rags. And his point from there about the literal interpretation of filthy rags to be "menstrual garments." Even if we seem better than those around us...uh, we're not. We're still disgusting. It's all by God's amazing power and grace that He can even stand to be near us!

[Shao Feng-Li]

EDIT: Eh, never mind. There's not much point anyway. It's just an exercise in frustration to me.

[TopazRaven]

This thread seems to go from being civil to falling into heated discussion to civil to heated discussion, etc. Rather interesting to read honestly. I didn't think it would make it to 5 pages. It's nice to see for the most part everyone here can agree to disagree on certain matters without going crazy on each other. Shows how much CAA is growing as a community. I definitly don't agree with a lot of the views here, not going to get into it as I have a tendency to get rude and obnixous (cause I'm uncool like that) and I don't want to ruin the mood of the thread, just know that I do have respect for each and every one of you. Everyone has a reason for their beliefs on this matter after all and likewise everyone's opinion matters.

Yeah...I'm being random. Ignore me. This was me trying out being accepting and respectful of others to try and improve my bad attitude about things. I think it's working!

[Radical Dreamer]

This thread seems to go from being civil to falling into heated discussion to civil to heated discussion, etc. Rather interesting to read honestly. I didn't think it would make it to 5 pages. It's nice to see for the most part everyone here can agree to disagree on certain matters without going crazy on each other. Shows how much CAA is growing as a community. I definitly don't agree with a lot of the views here, not going to get into it as I have a tendency to get rude and obnixous (cause I'm uncool like that) and I don't want to ruin the mood of the thread, just know that I do have respect for each and every one of you. Everyone has a reason for their beliefs on this matter after all and likewise everyone's opinion matters.

Yeah...I'm being random. Ignore me. This was me trying out being accepting and respectful of others to try and improve my bad attitude about things. I think it's working!

Posts like these just make me the happiest person. XD I really appreciate how respectful you guys are being to one another! I <33 you, CAA.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I just wanted to point this out to emphasize the fact that translations of the Bible can't always capture the true essence of the words that were originally there. I'll give the common example of the word "love." In English, we use the word "love" to talk about things we really like, people we want to spend the rest of our lives with, family members, romance, etc. In Greek, there's eros (sexual attraction), storge (family love), philla (brotherly love), and agape (unconditional love). [Source: [url]http://www.greeceindex.com/various/greek_love_words.html][/url] In order to understand what the Bible actually means, it's important to look at the words used in the original languages it was written in as well as historical context.

Right. I understand your point. But what I am saying is that within the historical/exegetical context, there is much more scrutiny than when you simply read it for what it says. In Greek, "androkoites" and "arsenokoites" are two separate words with different meanings. Paul used the one which was does not allude to homosexuality. Now as to what he MEANT is a different story. I am just saying that while Paul's condemnation of homosexuality may seem to be obvious, in reality it is much more vague.

Being OK with someone's sin is hating them in the worse way. Jesus dined with the sinners. He did not tell them that their lifestyles were ok.

Right. But I don't believe that it is a sin. Nor do I believe that the Bible, once really studied at a scholarly level, promotes it as sin either (monogamous only).

[Nate]

Eh, never mind. There's not much point anyway. It's just an exercise in frustration to me.

Whoa, it's like...exactly how I feel but on the opposite side.

Anyway I agree with Ryan. While I wouldn't equate being okay with someone's sin to be hating them exactly, I do think that telling someone that their sin is okay is definitely a bad thing to do. But then see, that's the thing. We don't believe it's a sin, so that statement doesn't really apply to us. We're not okay with their sin, because we don't think they're committing one!

It's like how Jews think eating say, a ham and cheese sandwich is a sin. But I don't think it's a sin. So if I saw Ryan eating a ham and cheese sandwich, I wouldn't say, "Stop that Ryan, you're committing a sin!" because I don't think it is a sin. It'd be pretty silly for me to tell someone to stop something I don't believe is a sin, now wouldn't it? :p

[Bobtheduck]

>implying rape and homosexuality are even remotely the same thing at all with the same repercussions

Sorry for how that may have looked to you, I was responding to someone saying that the only "homosexuality" that was spoken against in the bible was more obvious things like rape, such as in the Angel that visited lot (how the men wanted to rape him) I said that it wasn't only those cases, but men given to "lie in bed" (sexually) with men, and women with women. That had nothing to do with rape, as someone had suggested.

My wife has a greek New Testament and can actually read it (to some extent) I could try to do a full search on everything translated as Homosexuality and actually lay it out, including the words used for every case (not just Paul, but Revelation as well and anywhere else it shows up) because I believe it is about Homosexuality. I doubt every single one of these translators that differ on so many issues would all agree at these points if there wasn't something to it.

[Nate]

I said that it wasn't only those cases, but men given to "lie in bed" (sexually) with men, and women with women.

Fun fact: the Bible never says anything about women lying in bed sexually with women. The only time the Bible comes close to it is in Romans 1 where it says "Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones" in verse 26. But even that doesn't say "with other women." But the Law in the Old Testament never prohibited lesbianism.

I just think that's interesting.

EDIT: I'm gonna edit mine too!

I could try to do a full search on everything translated as Homosexuality

No need. :p Let's see here.

The word translated as "homosexual offenders" in 1 Corinthians (and again in 1 Timothy) is, as Ryan stated, "arsenokoitai." There are no records of this word being used anywhere else in Greek (though we may just not have found them yet, but as far as we know, this word was completely made up by Paul).

First, it definitely cannot be against lesbians. This is because "arsen" in Greek means "man." If Paul was talking about homosexuality in general (i.e. also lesbians) he wouldn't have used a gender-specific term, especially given that Romans mentions "women with unnatural relations" so it's difficult to make the case of "Well even though it MEANS men it really means people in general" because of the specific mention of women in Romans.

The KJV translates the phrase used as "abusers of themselves with mankind" which doesn't necessarily mean homosexuality. In fact that phrase is just kind of weird.

The only other place in the NT that really mentions homosexuality is Jude, in verse 7 where it says "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire" in the NIV.

The word that is translated as "sexual immorality and perversion" (though again, not necessarily including homosexuality, and also in conflict with other verse that state that Sodom and Gomorrah's sin was their lack of hospitality to strangers and insensitivity to the needs of the poor) is in Greek "sarkos heteras" and guess what, we get the English word "heterosexual" from heteras. Interesting. :p

The KJV translates that phrase as "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh." What is "strange flesh?" Well, Jewish folklore says that the women of Sodom had sex with angels. In fact, the Harper Collin's New Revised Standard Version of the Bible has a footnote that says "The Sodomites attempted sexual relations with angels." This would be in keeping with the theme of Jude, that it references weird Jewish folklore that we don't know about in Christianity. Because remember, Jude is also the book that talks about Michael fighting with the devil over the body of Moses (verse 9), and we don't really have any reference for that in the Bible. So it's not a stretch to think that Jude 1:7 also refers to Jewish folklore.

Finally, Romans 1 which I mentioned earlier doesn't use the word "homosexual," so that one doesn't really fit, as it only mentions "unnatural relations" (or "vile affections" in the King James). That verse has its own weird context, but as we're only talking about words translated "homosexual" I'll skip this verse.

And that's pretty much it for words translated "homosexual" in the New Testament. One that at best refers to male homosexuality only, and another that refers to "strange flesh" whatever THAT means. Other than that, you've gotta rely on the Old Testament, which is of course in Hebrew, and never prohibits lesbianism so that's a whole other argument there. :p

I doubt every single one of these translators that differ on so many issues would all agree at these points if there wasn't something to it.

It could be as simple as "Hey there's a word we don't know what it means in Greek. What should we translate it as?" "Well the OT seems to prohibit homosexuality...maybe it means 'homosexuals?'" "Man I don't know sounds good to me sure why not."

That isn't exactly irrefutable proof for me.

[K. Ayato]

Is it possible then that Paul was specifically addressing the current practices of that time? Such as men owning catamites (male slaves used for sexual pleasure)?

[Nate]

Yes, to those of us who don't believe being LGBT is a sin, we think that the verses that refer to "homosexual offenders" or the "unnatural relations" of Romans 1 are referring to pagan practices such as temple prostitutes and orgies (especially the verses in Romans 1, as the context of that chapter is talking about those who have turned to paganism, and not Christians).

[SnoringFrog]

First off, does the multi-quote button work across pages? If so, then I'm really wasting some time with the way I'm typing this post.

I'm going to be honest here: I think homosexuality is a sin.

However, it is no more or less a sin than any other sin any and all of us have committed, and does not excuse disrespect or mistreatment in any form. There is no position of moral superiority in this discussion, nor can there be among us mere mortals. I'm not gay, but I still have my cross to bear, as do we all. Not one among us is not held down by the weight of sin.

This is pretty much how I feel. I'm convinced it's a sin, but it should be treated just the same as any other sin.

Wasn't my choice to be born a sinner either, doesn't stop me from trying to make myself better.

I'm disgusted at you all, You all wanna shake this man's hand just for being a sinner, I have a porn problem, where the hell is my parade?

<modsnip: You have legitimate concerns, but that doesn't excuse being rude.>

Fermy6, my love and respect for you is unconditional. My love and respect for your character and situation frankly is not. As long as something is alterable to the better there is no justification not to be chasing that route, discarding my own hypocrisy in the matter, as I am a terrible role model by any standards. Your level of emotions might not have been your choice, your willingness to sacrifice personally to alter into something new is entirely in your hands however. Is it gonna be done in a day? Of course not, perhaps not even in 20 years. Perhaps you won't succeed at all, but try you should, and research you must. If you dedicate your life to altering according to the teachings of Jesus and the laws of God, then there is nothing wrong with it, and the only guarantee is that it will be filled with hard work, difficult challenges and countless failures.

But it will matter, and it will be worth it.

(Forewarning, most of the next few paragraphs here won't matter to those who don't think homosexuality is a sin, so ya'll can skip over them if you feel like it) I also mostly agree with both of these posts (though with less fervor than Solid had). I don't really agree with the overall congratulatory attitude towards the idea of "coming out." Now, I imagine that someone would say "well I'm only applauding the courage of it, not the homosexual sin part of it", but I'm don't think that really works. I can fully understand that stance and how that would work mentally, but it's due to how it would be perceived by others that I don't think it would work. Congratulations will likely be applied to the entire action by the person receiving them, even if stated as "I applaud your bravery".

If Fermy doesn't mind responding to this next bit, I have a somewhat indirect question that probably won't end up phrased as a question. If he doesn't want to reply then that's cool too. I don't mind either way. I'd assume that, upon admitting one's homosexuality, one would probably find comfort in being applauded for making the decision to come out, and thus would probably find it easier to be open with being homosexual as a whole. With me seeing this as a sin, I would say it's a bad thing to do something that makes it easier for someone to sin. I would liken it so Joe Random saying "well I do Sin-X a lot" (which he may not believe/realize is sin) and the response to that admission being "I'm impressed you were brave enough to put that out there bravo!" and then Joe Random being more open with performing Sin-X because of the acceptance and encouragement from others, even though they meant to applaud only his bravery.

So, while I would applaud the courage displayed in the action of coming out, I wouldn't express that for the reason I just explained. I also don't think this just applies to homosexuality, either (although, I don't think many other sins are treated similarly enough to be of adequate comparison, I'll try to compare though). For instance, say someone comes out about a porn problem, and the reaction given to them is mostly positive in the form of "It probably took a lot to say that, I'm proud of you for that and for trying to get this right" (as I've seen/heard plenty of times). Now, whoever admitted that could find it even easier to sin that way because of "oh, you caught me, well I'm working on it" which would likely be met with understanding, as opposed to the possibly more fervent rebuke without his prior admission of his problem.

That felt really convoluted as I typed it, I hope it makes more sense than I feel it might.

(For those of you who don't think it's a sin, you can pretty much ignore this point, as you're response to it has essentially already been said by Nate in whatever post it was when he mentioned Jews and ham and cheese sandwhiches, so no need to remind me because I understand that my logic fails in your life due to your perspective)

I think it depends on a couple of things. If you're okay with public displays of straight affection, but not gay affection, I'd say at the very least it makes you a bit hypocritical. Sorry, but I think it's the truth.

But if you think it's a sin, then not wanting to be exposed to it would not be any different than not wanting to be around any other form of open sin. I don't like being with people who lie all the time, or who are overtly prideful, blatantly lustful, or known for often killing people that they're with(I think we can all agree on that last one XD). However, I will admit that for me, I don't think my dislike of public gay affection stems from it being sinful, though it the dislike is going to be there it probably should be because I see it as a sin.

So, who's going to be the first to explain to me why being gay is a sin without saying "Because God said so"?

In half-joke half-serious response: because if too many people become homosexual then the earth would have either a serious repopulation problem or a serious adulterly/polygamy problem.

More fully serious: because it is a perversion of the way God originally set things up. That explanation won't fly though because someone (likely Nate, I'd say) will point out that God kinda had to make a woman at that point otherwise the repopulation issue would have popped up very quickly.

This thread seems to go from being civil to falling into heated discussion to civil to heated discussion, etc. Rather interesting to read honestly. I didn't think it would make it to 5 pages. It's nice to see for the most part everyone here can agree to disagree on certain matters without going crazy on each other. Shows how much CAA is growing as a community. I definitly don't agree with a lot of the views here, not going to get into it as I have a tendency to get rude and obnixous (cause I'm uncool like that) and I don't want to ruin the mood of the thread, just know that I do have respect for each and every one of you. Everyone has a reason for their beliefs on this matter after all and likewise everyone's opinion matters.

Yeah...I'm being random. Ignore me. This was me trying out being accepting and respectful of others to try and improve my bad attitude about things. I think it's working!

(Because of how long I've been typing this, it took me a couple minutes to remember why I'd even had this on my list of posts to quote. I really gotta start getting to bed before 6am. ) This isn't to burst your bubble or even contradict you, it's in an odd somewhat jesting attitude that I bet Nate would follow, which is good because this is pretty much directed (indirectly) at him anyways, and anyone else who interprets it correctly. So, if anyone has much reaction to this other than a laugh, then you probably didn't read it as I tried to say it. All that being said:

Nah, it's just because I've learned that I'm going to disagree with Nate on half of everything and so I've already given up on proving any point because I'm not convincing him and so that we don't get anything locked with endless bickering.

Because remember, Jude is also the book that talks about Michael fighting with the devil over the body of Moses (verse 9), and we don't really have any reference for that in the Bible

Actually, we do. It's in Jude 1:9, though I can see how you might not have seen that verse when you said this. (Nate: if you hadn't been the one who posted this, I probably wouldn't have replied this way. Everyone else: don't take this as some serious-jerk-sarcastic reply, this is another thing that I'm assuming (hoping?) Nate will follow my intentions on.

Edit: wow, this post came out a lot longer than I thought it would. Guess that's what I get for replying to a thread of almost 150 replies all in one go.

[Nate]

More fully serious: because it is a perversion of the way God originally set things up. That explanation won't fly though because someone (likely Nate, I'd say) will point out that God kinda had to make a woman at that point otherwise the repopulation issue would have popped up very quickly.

Right, exactly. That doesn't fly with me because the way God originally set things up also required incest to be able to populate the earth. In fact, twice...Adam and Eve (incest necessary if you believe them to be the only two humans on Earth) and Noah's family (incest if you believe in a global flood wiping out everyone except for those six people, I think it was six anyway). Also Lot started a new tribe through incest as well, though it's unlikely God approved of this bit of incest (especially since Lot didn't know what was going on since he was drunk, of course drunkenness is a sin anyway so either way Lot was kind of screwed, pun not intended).

So while it's nice to say "God made man and woman and that's how it's supposed to be!" my response would be "Incest is also how it was supposed to be but guess what? Things changed."

I'd also mention that God made Adam and Eve naked, but last I checked, we all wear clothes...or most of us anyway. But being naked is how we're supposed to be, yes? :p

Actually, we do. It's in Jude 1:9, though I can see how you might not have seen that verse when you said this.

Dude, Jude 1:9 was the verse I was talking about. XD I was mentioning how Jude 1:7 in the KJV says that Sodom and Gomorrah's sin was the people desiring "strange flesh," and that it was probably a reference to Jewish folklore/mythology we as Christians don't know about. I said that this would be consistent with how Jude is, since Jude 1:9 talks about the fight between Michael and the devil over the body of Moses, which we also don't know about because it's probably also some sort of Jewish folklore/mythology.

[Kunoichi]

Just a side note of obvious observation, Nate always writes very long posts (and whether I agree with him or not, well thought out). Sorry *goes back to corner* lol EDIT: Should I put usually here instead of always? May be more accurate. Don't even know why I pointed this out but it tickled me. I'm weird I know.

Back on topic. Something I read earlier by Nate and that I agree with is that people examine should/need to examine why they believe in what they believe in. I have my own personal reasons why I hold certain beliefs. Of course, some of these are going to be backed by the Bible but to be honest, a lot of it has been my experiences as being the reasons, rather than "solely" one thing or the other. Maybe a combination of all these things.

I read a quote once by Randy Alcorn that if a faith was shaken so much that someone lost what they believed in, then it was probably a good thing as that wasn't a strong faith to begin with. (I wish i had the book still to quote this fully and I think I am getting the gist of it across...I hope. I get word-tyed alot when I'm nervous. Posting on these type of threads make me nervous lol)

Anyways, yeah. Going to go back in my cave now Also my social skills stink more than elephant poo so if I said anything rude or something, I apologize ahead of time.

[K. Ayato]

We can sit here and go back and forth on whether or not it's a sin and different translations of the original texts. Doesn't change the fact of what TG and a lot of us do agree on. These people still deserve our love and respect.