Is homosexuality harmful?

[Audie]

Sure he can, and did. The Bible doesn't come right out and use the word "hate" (I don't think any translator of the Bible would dare use the word), but God does show his anger at what he did in the following verses, which I think could be reasonably interpreted as a expressing hatred. He hated having created the human race, and so much so that he decided to kill all the innocent animals as well. This isn't mere dislike or loathing. It's out and out angry hatred.

Genesis 6:5-7
"The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

Those innocent animals became tainted because of fallen angels,but also the bloodline and possibly genetically altered.

Just kind of make it up as you go along. How convenient. Unless, of course, you have some kind of evidence.

This has been known biblically,maybe not the genetically altered part,but blood tainting has been known.It comes down to choosing to believe God's word or not. Read Genesis 6:2 and try to believe it as you read it.An example is giants that the OT talks about,like David and Goliath. This kept happening even after Noah's flood too.God's word is revealed more true as time goes on and more is revealed.

Like the fact that scientists can and have produced half-breeds and are trying to create cyborgs,etc. Since Jesus said it will be as in the days of Noah when he returns and we can see scientists altering life genetically,it is like a new revelation being revealed.

Nah! Nah! Nah! YOU SAID:

........................................"Those innocent animals became tainted because of fallen angels, . . ."

And none of what you've said supports it, which just goes to show that you "Just kind of make it up as you go along. How convenient."

Even if I didn't have evidence I'd believe God's word over man,because man has been wrong so many times throughout history,plus I was saved and it changed me and my whole perspective. You suddenly think differently than you did. If you want proof God is real? Get saved and be born again and you'll suddenly know the truth.

So god never said it, did he, nor is it in the Bible. You just kind of made it up as you went along didn't you. "Shame on you."

He does make things up, but I think he is sincere in believing that he is not
doing that.

The way it works, near as I can tell, is that if he has a grain of sand, hd
can call it a beach; "I am not making it up; behold the sand!"

Then too, there is the SEDI ploy; same evidence, different evidence.

But there is more-because all them scientidts are blinded by evolution perspective,
while he is gifted by god with inerrant bible readin', he is incapable of being wrong.

So how could he think he makes it up as he goes along?

[RickD]

So,

As long as we're not "habitual" sinners, we will be saved? So we either have to stop sinning, or it's off to hell with us?

Wow,

You guys and your works gospel sure put burdens on people.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

I do not believe in a works-based Gospel.

Jesus told people to stop sinning.

John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Everyone sins everyday. If Christ personally warned us to sin no more, we would still sin. However, I would hope as Christians since we sin every day, that we ask God for forgiveness every day as well. I certainly do. I am sure that Paul let the Corinthians know that as well. If we do, God is faithful to forgive our sins, no matter how great or how minor and does not want to hear about them again. That is why prayer is so important. Prayer is a daily part of my life. And if we ask for forgiveness and know that God has been faithful to forgive us, then He is indeed a faithful husband.

I certainly do believe that Christ died for sinners. But I also believe in a God who claims that sinners will not enter the kingdom of God. That is what Paul wrote. I also believe the same God will allow any sinner who repents to enter.

How can a person who is either not a Christian or a Christian who is a sinner or a habitual sinner who does not repent, enter the kingdom? They can't do it by works or merit. The answer is they don't. I do not know of any passage in Scripture that claims that non-Christians and unrepentant sinners enter the kingdom of God. If they do, is there some clause hidden within Scripture I am missing to the contrary? And if that is the case, why doesn't everyone just do what they want to because they are all going to make it to the kingdom, regardless of lack of any kind of Christian-based morality or faith in Christ.

Matthew 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

Matthew 7:14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

I thank God that even though I may commit spiritual adultery, God is the faithful husband who will never divorce us.

God already is a divorcee. He divorced Israel a long time ago.

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Granted, He does plan to marry again in the future.

No sarcasm intended.

It all depends on your definition of "repent". What is the definition that you are using?

Well I do not believe that Biblical repentance is the same as the dictionary definition, which is to feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin or to view or think of an action or omission with deep regret or remorse, even though I believe if a person is convicted by the Spirit, they will come to regret a wrong action.

I would define repentance as having a completely different view, a change of mind from the one you originally held when you were not morally convicted, on how you perceive an action as morally right or wrong. Non-believers generally hold to subjective moral principles. What they think or feel about how they specifically perceive something is right or wrong. And it varies from person to person. Whereas believers do not make up moral principles based on our own fancies. We hold to objective standards of morality as defined by Scripture because we believe those moral standards originate from a perfect Moral Law Giver.

In simplest form it would be to turn from evil, and to turn to the good.

The sense of "regret" is common to New Testament uses. A son "changed his mind" about doing his father's bidding ( Matt 21:29 ). Judas Iscariot was "seized with remorse" after betraying Jesus ( Matt 27:3 ). Paul did not "regret" the sorrow caused by his severe letter to Corinth ( 2 Cor 7:8 ); instead, the pain brought "repentance" that leads to salvation, and leaves no "regret" (v. 9-10).

Ok. You seem to be using the correct meaning of "repent". But your quote here seems to be saying different:

katabole wrote:
The true harm of all sin is that people who sin and who do not repent, do not enter the Kingdom of God. They can however, enter the Kingdom if they repent. Christ forgives sin. Paul reminded the Corinthians that some of them used to be habitual sinners but truly changed the way they viewed sin when they became believers in Christ:

Maybe it's just the way you worded it, but it seemed like you were saying that people who don't repent, or forsake sin, can't be saved.

[Katabole]

Maybe it's just the way you worded it, but it seemed like you were saying that people who don't repent, or forsake sin, can't be saved.

Sorry, I should have worded that a bit differently.

Mark 6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Mark 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

The apostles preached repentance from unbelief. Not repentance from sins. In verse 11 of that chapter, Sodom and Gomorrha is briefly mentioned. The reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were so sinful and reprobate was because of their unbelief.

In John 3:16, Jesus says, "...that whosoever believes in him should not perish...". He does not say that whoever stops sinning should not perish. If He had said that, the entire human race would be condemned, regardless of what happened on the cross.

I do understand that repentance is absolutely necessary to be saved. But it is repentance from unbelief. Not sin. In 1 Cor 6 and Gal 5, Paul is addressing the unrighteous. The person who says they believe in Christ but have no desire to honor Christ are demonstrating with their actions that their words are false. They do not believe in Christ. They are unrighteous. Therefore, the sins Paul describes, results from their unbelief and Paul says that those people do not enter the kingdom.

I cannot say I trust Christ and then go out and do the opposite of what He says. What kind of trust is that? To trust, to have faith in someone means that you believe that what they tell you is true and if you believe they are true, your life will reflect that belief.

If we should sin and die before we ask for forgiveness, we have confidence as believers, that our salvation is not based on our righteousness, but on His righteousness. That is an incredible blessing and a tremendous gift. We have no fear of condemnation (Romans 8:1). He has already brought us into the kingdom of His Son (Colossians 1:13-14).

Do you have to give up your sins to be saved? No. Just your unbelief.

I hope that helps clarify my position.

[B. W.]

Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride
Arrogance
Adultery
Blasphemy
Carnality
Wearing clothes of the opposite sex
Dressing immodestly
Condemnation
Boasting
Cursing
Deceit
Fornication
Despising one's neighbor
Drinking
Extortion
Faultfinding
Tattling
Foolishness
Fortune telling
Gambling
Denying Jesus
Mischief
Hate
Idolatry
Impudence
Killing a mother bird in the nest
Not being kind
Laziness
lying
Malice
Slander
Occult
Impatience
Tattoos
Rioting
Selfishness
Sex with a prostitute
Vanity
Witchcraft
etc.
homosexuality
etc.

Wow, this list Sounds like the city where I live, in fact the country - no actually the entire world!

Isn't it such a wonderful place when these sorts of things rule?

And with all the "etc.s" no less

Ad you defend these as rights?


-
-
-

[RickD]

katabole wrote:
The apostles preached repentance from unbelief. Not repentance from sins. In verse 11 of that chapter, Sodom and Gomorrha is briefly mentioned. The reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were so sinful and reprobate was because of their unbelief.

I think the underlined is crucial to understanding what biblical repentance is, regarding salvation.


Thanks for clarifying.

[abelcainsbrother]

Sure he can, and did. The Bible doesn't come right out and use the word "hate" (I don't think any translator of the Bible would dare use the word), but God does show his anger at what he did in the following verses, which I think could be reasonably interpreted as a expressing hatred. He hated having created the human race, and so much so that he decided to kill all the innocent animals as well. This isn't mere dislike or loathing. It's out and out angry hatred.

Genesis 6:5-7
"The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

Those innocent animals became tainted because of fallen angels,but also the bloodline and possibly genetically altered.

Just kind of make it up as you go along. How convenient. Unless, of course, you have some kind of evidence.

This has been known biblically,maybe not the genetically altered part,but blood tainting has been known.It comes down to choosing to believe God's word or not. Read Genesis 6:2 and try to believe it as you read it.An example is giants that the OT talks about,like David and Goliath. This kept happening even after Noah's flood too.God's word is revealed more true as time goes on and more is revealed.

Like the fact that scientists can and have produced half-breeds and are trying to create cyborgs,etc. Since Jesus said it will be as in the days of Noah when he returns and we can see scientists altering life genetically,it is like a new revelation being revealed.

Nah! Nah! Nah! YOU SAID:

........................................"Those innocent animals became tainted because of fallen angels, . . ."

And none of what you've said supports it, which just goes to show that you "Just kind of make it up as you go along. How convenient."

Even if I didn't have evidence I'd believe God's word over man,because man has been wrong so many times throughout history,plus I was saved and it changed me and my whole perspective. You suddenly think differently than you did. If you want proof God is real? Get saved and be born again and you'll suddenly know the truth.

So god never said it, did he, nor is it in the Bible. You just kind of made it up as you went along didn't you. "Shame on you."

I didn't make it up I gave you scripture that shows that fallen angels through women produced half breeds Nephelim. You just don't want to think it happened to animals too,but it did. This is why God flooded the earth,it was to kill off the half-breeds to protect the humans and animals genetically so that Jesus could be born and his creation could be preserved. You seem to want to hold on to this idea that God is hateful and just killed off all those innocent people and animals in the flood,but you just lack proper bible teaching without the proper context.

[PaulSacramento]

I won't even bother with the silly over population thing ( the issue is population density and not over population by the way).

I will address this, however,m because it shows that you don't actually read what you are posting:

IT'S "AGAINST NATURAL LAW"
That's interesting because natural law has seen to it that "1,500 animal species practice homosexuality."
source
Now, if you want to claim that humans are exempt from natural law then go for it. I await your argument.

No, no species practice homosexuality, which is the exclusive actr of sex with the same gender.
As per the article:

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

It amazes me how people try to pass of bisexuality with homosexuality.
Homosexuality is sex with the same gender while bisexuality is sex with BOTH genders or, as some have put it, "sex with however is available", LOL.

No species is exclusively homosexual and species that engage in BISEXUAL activity for fun ( or whatever) are not homosexuals.

No matter how mush the media try to show that homosexuality is natural the reality is that, for any species that reproduces heterosexually, homosexuality is NOT natural and that, at best, bisexuality is.

Now, if you don't know the difference between bisexual and homosexual ( like the person that wrote the article you cited) that is another story.

[IceMobster]

IT'S "AGAINST NATURAL LAW"
That's interesting because natural law has seen to it that "1,500 animal species practice homosexuality."
source
Now, if you want to claim that humans are exempt from natural law then go for it. I await your argument.

Certain animal species eat their young. Are we, then, supposed to do the same?

Just because certain animals do it, doesn't make it normal/natural for humans.

[PaulSacramento]

IT'S "AGAINST NATURAL LAW"
That's interesting because natural law has seen to it that "1,500 animal species practice homosexuality."
source
Now, if you want to claim that humans are exempt from natural law then go for it. I await your argument.

Certain animal species eat their young. Are we, then, supposed to do the same?

Just because certain animals do it, doesn't make it normal/natural for humans.

Deviant behavior is still deviant even if present in nature.

Billions of species and 1500 engage in bisexual acts.
Yep, that makes it normal and natural.

Simple fact is that, for humans, homosexuality is not natural.
Biologically speaking or otherwise.

[RickD]

IT'S "AGAINST NATURAL LAW"
That's interesting because natural law has seen to it that "1,500 animal species practice homosexuality."
source
Now, if you want to claim that humans are exempt from natural law then go for it. I await your argument.

Certain animal species eat their young. Are we, then, supposed to do the same?

Just because certain animals do it, doesn't make it normal/natural for humans.

Great point, RiceLobster!

[Jac3510]

The point is that Audacity, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a first grader trying to lecture on Calculus. He's committing the naturalistic fallacy while we're talking about natural law. Pointing out patterns in "nature" has absolutely nothing to do with a thing's nature. In other words, he doesn't know what the word "natural" means in the phrase "natural law." He foolishly and ignorantly thinks it has something to do with the first and second definitions of "nature" rather with reference to a thing's essence, intrinsic qualities, capacities, perfections, etc. That's why Ice's point is so on point. No one is saying we look to "nature" to determine or discover morality. We're saying we look at a thing's nature to determine it. That some non-human species acts in some way says absolutely nothing about what is consistent with the human nature.

[Audacity]

IT'S "AGAINST NATURAL LAW"
That's interesting because natural law has seen to it that "1,500 animal species practice homosexuality."
source
Now, if you want to claim that humans are exempt from natural law then go for it. I await your argument.

Certain animal species eat their young. Are we, then, supposed to do the same?

Just because certain animals do it, doesn't make it normal/natural for humans.

Your analogy is daffy.
That other animals practice homosexuality is not a "supposed to" implication. So it's hardly incumbent on humans that they are supposed to practice homosexuality. It's simply a natural predilection some humans have just like it's natural predilection some other animals have.

[Audacity]

I will address this, however,m because it shows that you don't actually read what you are posting:

IT'S "AGAINST NATURAL LAW"
That's interesting because natural law has seen to it that "1,500 animal species practice homosexuality."
source
Now, if you want to claim that humans are exempt from natural law then go for it. I await your argument.

No, no species practice homosexuality, which is the exclusive actr of sex with the same gender.
As per the article:

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

It amazes me how people try to pass of bisexuality with homosexuality.

Obviously the terms we use have clouded your perception. There are three main pieces of Biblical scripture that allude to same-sex sexual behavior'

Leviticus 18:22 (ERV)
22 “Men, you must not have sexual relations with another man as with a woman. That is a terrible sin!

Leviticus 20:13 (ERV)
13 “If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death. They are responsible for their own death.

Romans 1:24, 26-27 (ERV)
24 People wanted only to do evil. So God left them and let them go their sinful way.
26 Because people did those things, God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. Women stopped having natural sex with men and started having sex with other women. 27 In the same way, men stopped having natural sex with women and began wanting each other all the time. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they received the punishment for those wrongs.​


None of them use the term "homosexuality" or any other single, identifying term because they evidently had none, so they had to go out of their way and describe the act using several words. However, we do not. So we, Christians and non-Christians alike, choose to call what's described in these verses, "homosexuality," regardless of the fact that while today it almost always describes someone whose committed to same-sex sex, and not bi-sexuality, in the Bible all it may refer to is a one time act. Like so many words in the English language, meaning often depends on context. That's why dictionary definitions often seem to go on and on. So in the context of God's abhorrence of men having sexual relations with another man as with a woman, "homosexuality" not only covers those men committed to only having sex with other men, but also any man who may have an experimental, one-time sexual fling with another man. I'm a bit surprised this has to be pointed out, but I hope it helps. Just keep in mind: Context, context, context. "Hard" can not only mean "difficult," but "solid, firm, and resistant to pressure" as well.

[Audacity]

Deviant behavior is still deviant even if present in nature.

Yup. Just like left-handedness. Only about 10% of the people in the world are left-handed.
(About 1.6% of adults identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identify as bisexual. source)

Billions of species and 1500 engage in bisexual acts.
Yep, that makes it normal and natural.

Yup. No less normal and natural than left-handedness.

Simple fact is that, for humans, homosexuality is not natural.
Biologically speaking or otherwise.

And just what is your definition of "natural"? Kind of important here.

[tunde1992]

To be fair to audacity, the world natural has probably been repeated so much most people are simply confused , hear natural and assume it means something opposite to man made or perhaps what animals do in the wild, like audacity seems to, or perhaps they think it means something genetic,so many more mistakes, they seem like widesprear errors.