Christian Views on Homosexuality

[BigBarry]

Smartt is an Idiott.

 

[rdean]

Evolution is just a theory.

It has never be observed by any scientist in nature or in any lab.

Then why are there flu shots every year and new vaccines? How come malaria and other diseases are becoming more resistance to medicine? Why do we develop cancer? Why are there different breeds of dogs, horses and cats? Why is corn today so different from maize of centuries ago? Why do you look different from me? And how come scientists have observed evolution in fruit flies in laboratories?

Adapting or mutating to the environment is not evolution.

Even if a bacteria mutates to become resistant to a drug.

It hasn't evolved. It's still a bacteria.

You can breed a horse or a dog to exibit certain physical characteristics; shorter legs, different colors, etc.

But they will still remain a horse or dog.

No scientist has ever breed or evolved a cat into a dog. Or a fish into a bird.

Evolution is quack science being passed off as legitimate science.

What about a donkey and a horse? Are they both horses? They breed. Oh, no, here comes the retarded, "They are the same kind".

 

[BigBarry]

Evolution is quack science being passed off as legitimate science.

Sunni believes that allah made men out of clay!
Why do you even argue with this hand asswiper?

 

[rdean]

I just don't understand how these people will look at the science of evolution, which has hundreds of thousands of hours of research behind it from some of the most brilliant people ever born and say it's not true.

Yet,

Will look at a religion invented by primative desert people from the Middle East who didn't know to wash after wiping, who wrote stories like "Noah's Ark", and without a shred of evidence, insist it's all true. What's worse, they want it "TAUGHT" as an alternative to science.

They have to be insane. What other possible explanation could it be?

Worse,

they don't even like the Middle East. They just supported a Messianic president who went there and leveled a country and supported the genocide of the Christian religion within that country.

Seriously, they have to be insane.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Adapting or mutating to the environment is not evolution.

Actually that's exactly what evolution is.

Even if a bacteria mutates to become resistant to a drug.
It hasn't evolved. It's still a bacteria.

Yes, a bacteria that has evolved.

You can breed a horse or a dog to exibit certain physical characteristics; shorter legs, different colors, etc. But they will still remain a horse or dog.

Yes a horse or dog that has evolved.

No scientist has ever breed or evolved a cat into a dog. Or a fish into a bird.

That's because it takes millions of years for a species to evolve into another. But if small incremental changes happen, and we all know they do, and continue to happen over millions of years then wouldn't it make sense that eventually those changes, which are cumulative, would result in an organism that is no longer identifiable as the original species? Its only logical that it would.

Evolution is quack science being passed off as legitimate science.

Obviously, Sunni Man, you aren't very knowledgeable in the fields of medicine, biology, zoology, anthropology, paleontology, criminology, genetics, and a few other -ologies besides because all of those fields of science rely on evolution in order to make sense. In fact, those fields of science rely on the current theories that explain evolution in order for their studies and research to make any sense using real world data.

 

[Sunni Man]

No scientist has EVER observed evolution.

It is just a quack theory based on pseudo scientific nonsense.

 

[rdean]

No scientist has EVER observed evolution.

It is just a quack theory based on pseudo scientific nonsense.

There is not a single, reputable medical doctor that doesn't believe in evolution. Tell me you don't waste your time on those quacks when a faith healer works just as well.

 

[Sunni Man]

No scientist has EVER observed evolution.

It is just a quack theory based on pseudo scientific nonsense.

There is not a single, reputable medical doctor that doesn't believe in evolution. Tell me you don't waste your time on those quacks when a faith healer works just as well.

Incorrect

Just google MD's and PhD's against evolution.

There are plenty to choose from.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No scientist has EVER observed evolution.

It is just a quack theory based on pseudo scientific nonsense.

There is not a single, reputable medical doctor that doesn't believe in evolution. Tell me you don't waste your time on those quacks when a faith healer works just as well.

Incorrect

Just google MD's and PhD's against evolution.

There are plenty to choose from.

I just did that Sunni and didn't find any. What I found instead were lots of sites dedicated to the study of evolution.

 

[Sunni Man]

Here, this took about 30 seconds to find:


The Case Against Evolution

Many excellent books detail scientific findings and conclusions that compellingly demonstrate the impossibility of evolution as an explanation for the variety of life on earth. It's also helpful to remember that evolution cannot offer an explanation for the origin of our magnificent universe; evolution seeks to explain only how life proliferated in a universe that already existed.

If you would like to dig more deeply into the case against evolution, we recommend the following books, many written by people with science backgrounds:

•Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe, Ph.D., associate professor of biochemistry, Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, 1996. Demonstrates that the minute building blocks of life—cells and their myriad components—are far too complex for their codependent parts and processes to have evolved without an outside, intelligent design at work.

•Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, Alister McGrath, professor of historical theology, Oxford University, 2005. Professor McGrath, a former atheist himself who holds a Ph.D. in molecular biophysics, takes on the assumptions of popular evolutionary proponent Richard Dawkins and the atheistic worldview he promotes.

What Darwin Didn't Know, Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., 2004. Dr. Simmons dissects the theory of evolution from the perspective of a medical doctor, giving compelling reasons why evolution cannot explain many aspects of the human body. As he notes in the introduction, if Darwin's Origin of Species were submitted to a scientific publisher today, it would likely be rejected due to the author's woefully incomplete understanding of cellular biochemistry, physiology, genetics and other branches of science that deal with the human body.

•Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William Dembski, 2004. Dembski, who holds Ph.D.s in mathematics and philosophy, brings together essays from intellectuals of various fields who not only explain the scientific weaknesses of Darwinism, but contend that the best scientific evidence actually argues against Darwinian evolution.

•Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, edited by William Dembski, 1998. A collection of academic writings from the fields of physics, astrophysics, biology, anthropology, mechanical engineering and mathematics that challenge Darwinism and offer evidence supporting intelligent design in the universe.

•Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., senior research fellow, University of Otago, New Zealand, 1996. A molecular biologist, Denton examines features of the natural world that mutation and natural selection cannot explain and shows the impossibility of transitional forms required for Darwinian evolution to have taken place.

•The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Francis Hitching, 1982. Points out many of the problems in the traditional view of evolution.

•Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson, professor of law, University of California, Berkeley, 1993. Shows that the weight of scientific evidence argues convincingly against the theory of evolution.

•Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education, Phillip Johnson, 1995. Discusses the cultural implications of belief in evolution—that is, that the philosophy behind Darwinian evolution has become in effect the dominant established religion in many societies.

•Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Phillip Johnson, 1997. Written specifically for older students and their parents and teachers to prepare them for the antireligion bias inherent in most advanced education.

•Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law & Culture, Phillip Johnson, 1998. Compilation of essays ranging from evolution and culture to law and religion.

•Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, Lee Spetner, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1998. Demonstrates that a fundamental premise of neo-Darwinism—that random mutation created the kinds of variations that allowed macroevolution to take place—is fatally flawed and could never have happened as Darwinists claim.

•Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Yale University and University of California, Berkeley, 2000. A post-doctoral biologist documents that the most-used examples Darwinists call on to support evolution are fraudulent or misleading.

•The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., 2006. Dr. Wells shows that the best scientific evidence, far from supporting Darwinism, actually supports intelligent design.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

sunni, how do you think bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics?
why do you think you have the remnants of a third eyelid in the corner of your eye?
why do you have a strip of muscle in your upper ear that's not connected to anything that would allow it to work?
why is the majority of your DNA not translated into any protein?
why is it your DNA so closely matches other mammals?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Here, this took about 30 seconds to find:


The Case Against Evolution

Many excellent books detail scientific findings and conclusions that compellingly demonstrate the impossibility of evolution as an explanation for the variety of life on earth. It's also helpful to remember that evolution cannot offer an explanation for the origin of our magnificent universe; evolution seeks to explain only how life proliferated in a universe that already existed.

If you would like to dig more deeply into the case against evolution, we recommend the following books, many written by people with science backgrounds:

•Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe, Ph.D., associate professor of biochemistry, Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, 1996. Demonstrates that the minute building blocks of life—cells and their myriad components—are far too complex for their codependent parts and processes to have evolved without an outside, intelligent design at work.

•Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, Alister McGrath, professor of historical theology, Oxford University, 2005. Professor McGrath, a former atheist himself who holds a Ph.D. in molecular biophysics, takes on the assumptions of popular evolutionary proponent Richard Dawkins and the atheistic worldview he promotes.

What Darwin Didn't Know, Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., 2004. Dr. Simmons dissects the theory of evolution from the perspective of a medical doctor, giving compelling reasons why evolution cannot explain many aspects of the human body. As he notes in the introduction, if Darwin's Origin of Species were submitted to a scientific publisher today, it would likely be rejected due to the author's woefully incomplete understanding of cellular biochemistry, physiology, genetics and other branches of science that deal with the human body.

•Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William Dembski, 2004. Dembski, who holds Ph.D.s in mathematics and philosophy, brings together essays from intellectuals of various fields who not only explain the scientific weaknesses of Darwinism, but contend that the best scientific evidence actually argues against Darwinian evolution.

•Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, edited by William Dembski, 1998. A collection of academic writings from the fields of physics, astrophysics, biology, anthropology, mechanical engineering and mathematics that challenge Darwinism and offer evidence supporting intelligent design in the universe.

•Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., senior research fellow, University of Otago, New Zealand, 1996. A molecular biologist, Denton examines features of the natural world that mutation and natural selection cannot explain and shows the impossibility of transitional forms required for Darwinian evolution to have taken place.

•The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Francis Hitching, 1982. Points out many of the problems in the traditional view of evolution.

•Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson, professor of law, University of California, Berkeley, 1993. Shows that the weight of scientific evidence argues convincingly against the theory of evolution.

•Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education, Phillip Johnson, 1995. Discusses the cultural implications of belief in evolution—that is, that the philosophy behind Darwinian evolution has become in effect the dominant established religion in many societies.

•Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Phillip Johnson, 1997. Written specifically for older students and their parents and teachers to prepare them for the antireligion bias inherent in most advanced education.

•Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law & Culture, Phillip Johnson, 1998. Compilation of essays ranging from evolution and culture to law and religion.

•Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, Lee Spetner, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1998. Demonstrates that a fundamental premise of neo-Darwinism—that random mutation created the kinds of variations that allowed macroevolution to take place—is fatally flawed and could never have happened as Darwinists claim.

•Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Yale University and University of California, Berkeley, 2000. A post-doctoral biologist documents that the most-used examples Darwinists call on to support evolution are fraudulent or misleading.

•The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., 2006. Dr. Wells shows that the best scientific evidence, far from supporting Darwinism, actually supports intelligent design.

A list of books written by people who keep their scientific research objective and free of religious bias - I'm sure. Why aren't these peer reviewed? Why aren't these accepted by the scientific community? Why, in 10 years, will all of these books have faded into obscurity?

 

[BigBarry]

Sunni, which book written by a scientist endorses your concept of allah making muslims with clay?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Smartt........might wanna take your gay bias somewhere else.

By the way, might wanna give this a read.......

David and Jonathan

There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.

Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.

Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.

This narrative far outweighs the two trivial aspersions against same-sex love in Leviticus. The bigots who use the Bible to assault gays are apparently blind to it.

LGBT Texts

 

[Sunni Man]

Hey Smartt........might wanna take your gay bias somewhere else.

By the way, might wanna give this a read.......

David and Jonathan

There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.

Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.

Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.

This narrative far outweighs the two trivial aspersions against same-sex love in Leviticus. The bigots who use the Bible to assault gays are apparently blind to it.

LGBT Texts

What a weak argument from a faggot organization ABS.

These perverts will try and claim everything as somehow homo, just to further their sick agenda and nasty lifestyle.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Smartt........might wanna take your gay bias somewhere else.

By the way, might wanna give this a read.......

David and Jonathan

There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.

Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.

Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.

This narrative far outweighs the two trivial aspersions against same-sex love in Leviticus. The bigots who use the Bible to assault gays are apparently blind to it.

LGBT Texts

What a weak argument from a faggot organization ABS.

These perverts will try and claim everything as somehow homo, just to further their sick agenda and nasty lifestyle.

"Faggot organization"? Might wanna check the website again Sunnidiot, as it is a SCHOLAR SITE for religions from all over the world. Even your fucked up theology is in there.

Go ahead........pull something up that proves Sacred Texts Archives is a "faggot organization".

Prove your assertion douche.

 

[Sunni Man]

They list LGBT as a contriuitor.

Doesn't get much more faggot than those perverts.

 

[ABikerSailor]

They list LGBT as a contriuitor.

Doesn't get much more faggot than those perverts.

That's not a contributor idiot. It's an acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transgendered, which is a TERM, not a contributor.

But........I'd expect as much from an idiot such as yourself.

 

[logical4u]

Yes, yet another gay marriage thread! If you're not interested, by all means pass this one up.

These are some questions I have for any Christian really, but specifically any Christian who is against gay marriage (which is many, I would assume).

I understand that the Bible has a few passages which condemn homosexuality as a sin, one in particular describing it as an "abomination." There can be no debate that in the Christian religion, homosexuality is considered a sin. There CAN be debate as to whether the fact that something is considered a sin in a particular religion should be cause to make it illegal, but that's not what I want to focus on in this thread.

What I DO want to focus on here are the specific verses in the Bible which condemn homosexuality. These verses are found in the Old Testament.

I have heard conflicting opinions from Christians on how important the books of the Old Testament are to Christianity. There are obvious differences between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, and I have heard many Christians account for this by saying something to the effect that God's word changed with the coming of Jesus. It was no longer so much about the practices and strict behavioral outlines put forth in the Old Testament as it was about accepting Jesus' sacrifice and believing in him, as stressed in the New Testament.

So, it seems that to many Christians the New Testament is much more important than the Old. However, I'm sure there would be many (and I would be inclined to agree with them) who would say that whether or not the New Testament is more important to Christians, the Old Testament cannot be disregarded completely. It contains countless important and fascinating stories and accounts that Christians still cherish, and countless laws and commandments that Christians still abide by.

So, it does make sense to me that, even to Christians, the Old Testament should still have authority. So verses such as these...

Leviticus 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.".


Leviticus 20:13 - "If there is a man who lies with a man as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

...should not be forgotten by Christians just because they are found in the Old Testament.

Of course, as we all know, these two verses most definitely have NOT been forgotten by Christians.

If Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 carry as much weight as they do in the Christian community, the Old Testament obviously cannot and should not be disregarded. So why are verses such as these...


Leviticus 18:19 - "Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity."

Leviticus 20:18 - "If there is a man who lies with a menstrous woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow, and she has exposed the flow of her blood; thus both of them shall be cut off from among their people."

...not regarded as highly as the ones forbidding homosexual sex? These two verses are both within just a few verses as the two which forbid homosexuality, and yet you don't often hear Christians preaching about the evils of having sex with a woman while she's on her period. But shouldn't the fact that sex with a menstruating woman is right next to same-sex relations on God's list of immoral sexual acts make doing so just as immoral as homosexuality?.

It is immoral, some of the more orthodox Christian churches believe this. It is not questioned as much as homosexuality, so it probably doesn't get much attention.

Here are several more Old Testament verses...

Leviticus 20:10 - "If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife...the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 - "If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods'...you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people."

This was before the New Covenant. Explain later.

Deuteronomy 14:8 - "And the pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses."

This was before the New Covenant. Explain later.

Deuteronomy 14:22 - "You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, whic comes out of the field every year."

Deuteronomy 22:11 - "You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together."

I have no idea, it may have been repulsive to the Lord in His temple (stuff was burned and it may not smell good) or it may have been for sanitary reasons.

Deuteronomy 22:22 - "If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die; the man who lay with the woman, and the woman."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."

This was before the New Covenant. Explain later.

Deuteronomy 23:1 - "No one who is emasculated, or has his male organ cut off, shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

In my humble (unscholared opinion) this is because the Lord came among the people and sat in the temple (the congregation). He was very specific about the types of people (free of blemishes) and pure of body, heart, and mind. The Lord was known to instantly kill those that displeased Him. It is possible that this "law" was to discourage this form of punishment (or to avoid getting this type of punishment), because it would be emotionally hard not to be able to be in the presence of the Lord.

Deuteronomy 23:2 - "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

This was before the New Covenant. Explain later.

Deuteronomy 23:19-20 - "You shall not charge interest to your countrymen; interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest. You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countryman you shall not charge interest."

This was probably an economic plan to boost the wealth of the Hebrews and their nation(s). They were a relatively small ethnic group, amongst hostile neighbors (some things never change).

...that you don't often see Christians abiding by or seeming to give much thought to at all.

So my question is this: the verses in Leviticus which condemn homosexuality are no more holy than the other Levitical laws against immoral sexual acts, or any of the other Levitical laws for that matter...or any of the other verses throughout the Old Testament.

So why is the fact that homosexuality is considered a sin clung to so fervently by so many Christians, when the fact that having sex with a woman on her period, wearing clothes made of both linen and wool, charging interest to your countrymen, eating pork, and being an illegitimate child are all considered sins of the same caliber by the same Biblical standards? Are these of God's laws not as important as the one that forbids homosexuality?

Okay, again, the way I comprehend it: these laws were made under the old covenant (before Yeshua died for any man that wanted Him as their Savior). The people in the OT were held accountable for the sins of their fathers (some families were cursed by the Lord, Himself). This meant if they committed sin, all their children were punished for that sin. (I believe some of them were strictly for sanitary reasons, and the lack of facilities.)

In Jerimiah, it says that in the New Covenant, the Lord will be written onto mens' hearts, and there will be no need for religious instruction (you will know from the time of self-awareness that there is a Glorious Lord).

Then Yeshua came (the New Covenant). At that time, Yeshua tried to explain the laws in simpler terms: do not give yourself to lewdness and perversity (this would be homosexuality and promiscuity), treat your wife as a treasure, a man shall leave his home and take a wife (no need to define wife here), and the two shall become one. He took it farther: Love the Lord G*d before all else (try to please Him) and Love your neighbor as yourself.

When the adultress was brought before Him to be stoned, He told them that the one (among them) that had NO sin could throw the first stone.
[I think this is the part that is lost on homosexuals that argue they are loved by Yeshua (and therefore, not sinning)]
At THAT point Yeshua spoke to the woman (the sinner) and told her to go AND SIN NO MORE.

Yeshua did not tell us that we could sin as we pleased and be forgiven. He told us that our sins could and would be forgiven if we believed in Him and tried to live His way. He taught that people from all backgrounds and professions had the chance to repent and become better people [the Roman officer, the Canaanite (cursed by the Lord, Himself) woman, the thief on the cross, the tax collector, the prostitute].

I'd appreciate if there is anyone here who would be able to clarify to me what it is about the Biblical laws forbidding same-sex relations that elevate them above other Biblical laws put forth in the same books of the Bible by the same God.

Sinning is against G*d, and it does not matter what your sin is. There have only been two people (some later discussion) that lived that did not sin, and neither walk among us today. Many homosexuals have declared that they do not sin by having same-sex partners. This is not true. It is a sin.

Everyone alive today sins. The reason homosexuals feel "persecuted" might be because all the rest of us that are committing sins are not banging drum declaring our "purity". We do not say that the sins we have done "are not sins".

It is the duty of Christians to point out another's sin (hopefully, while they are trying to live according to the Lord). They cannot judge homosexuals, they cannot send them to hell (unless explicitly given those powers by the Holy Spirit, and chances are if they received those gifts, they would be used for healing, not hurting).

All Christians can do is:
let homosexuals know that they are sinning
let them know that only by repenting and the grace given by G*d, can they overcome their sinful ways
let them know that Yeshua died for us sinners that want to be with Him and His Father
It is possible to be forgiven your sins (know matter what they are)
when you are judged (by Yeshua), you (as everyone else) will be punished for the sins committed while here
If you want Yeshua and try to please Him, you will join Him for eternity, Halleluiah, Halleluiah

 

[BigBarry]

Christian Views on Homosexuality?

christians like to view homos doing it.