Christian bronies: meet, greet, and mingle!

[Misty Rose 3,216]

In Mass last week, the Priest said that we are all called upon to do good, and not just be good. Not just choose not to do bad, but to go that extra mile and help those in need.

Well then someone I know is seriously breaking that principle

 

But nevermind that...his loss.

I have a couple of questions:

 

How many of you here view homosexuality as a sin?

 

What exactly is wrong about a man showing genuine love towards another man?

 

When the Bible mentions homosexuality, it always seems to describe it within the context of fortification and sexual impurity. In addition, the King James Version makes no mention of homosexuality (the word is not even explicitly used). It still says that a man shall not lie with another man as he does with a woman, but only in the book of Leviticus. When the book of Leviticus was written the old covenant still governed the believers' way of life. There are about 600 rules laid out in the book that we don't ever give second thoughts about—except the one specifically referring to homosexuals apparently. It seems there is this constant association of gays and lustful fornication in various interpretations of the Bible throughout the common church. I don't think it is right to portray homosexuals as such. I've had a number of friends from the LBGT community and they didn't seen to fit the sexually disgusting stereotypes that the local churches have labeled them with.

 

So what are your thoughts? I would appreciate hearing your thoughts and opinions on this matter

Here's a verse from Romans actually. "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I have a couple of questions:

 

How many of you here view homosexuality as a sin?

 

What exactly is wrong about a man showing genuine love towards another man?

 

When the Bible mentions homosexuality, it always seems to describe it within the context of fortification and sexual impurity. In addition, the King James Version makes no mention of homosexuality (the word is not even explicitly used). It still says that a man shall not lie with another man as he does with a woman, but only in the book of Leviticus. When the book of Leviticus was written the old covenant still governed the believers' way of life. There are about 600 rules laid out in the book that we don't ever give second thoughts about—except the one specifically referring to homosexuals apparently. It seems there is this constant association of gays and lustful fornication in various interpretations of the Bible throughout the common church. I don't think it is right to portray homosexuals as such. I've had a number of friends from the LBGT community and they didn't seen to fit the sexually disgusting stereotypes that the local churches have labeled them with.

 

So what are your thoughts? I would appreciate hearing your thoughts and opinions on this matter

 

No, I was not raised to consider it a sin. If it's a choice, then it's not a choice that is harmful. If it's natural, then how can it be a sin if it's not a choice in the first place?

 

Nothing, so long as it is genuine love.

 

Gay lust is just as much of a sin as straight lust.

[Misty Rose 3,216]

No, I was not raised to consider it a sin. If it's a choice, then it's not a choice that is harmful. If it's natural, then how can it be a sin if it's not a choice in the first place?

 

Nothing, so long as it is genuine love.

 

Gay lust is just as much of a sin as straight lust.

We here's the problem though, if it is actual genuine love then they will want to get married...and what comes after that already launches them into serious sin Edited February 24, 2015 by Pink Mist

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

 

In context, that sounds more like a punishment than a sin. Like God struck them with "gayness" or something. I would think being with someone not of your orientation would be pretty horrific. I mean, can you imagine what gay men had to go through when forced to "prove" they were straight?

 

Either way, I don't think it's the orientation as much as the massive orgy that's meant to be "bad."

We here's the problem though, if it is actual genuine love then they will want to get married...and what comes after that already launches them into serious sin

 

What do you mean? Gay marriage is legal now. What happens after that is their business. If their love is genuine though, it's not a sin.

[Misty Rose 3,216]

In context, that sounds more like a punishment than a sin. Like God struck them with "gayness" or something. I would think being with someone not of your orientation would be pretty horrific. I mean, can you imagine what gay men had to go through when forced to "prove" they were straight?

 

Either way, I don't think it's the orientation as much as the massive orgy that's meant to be "bad."

 

 

What do you mean? Gay marriage is legal now. What happens after that is their business. If their love is genuine though, it's not a sin.

I meant the no man shall lay with another man part....that's the sin right there. Even if gay marriage is legal by men's law, it isn't legal in God's law. Edited February 24, 2015 by Pink Mist

[Dsanders 5,747]

Well then someone I know is seriously breaking that principle

But nevermind that...his loss.

 

Here's a verse from Romans actually. "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

All I can say in response to that is that I've heard from certain sources regarding this topic that that passage is not to be interpreted literally. There is more meaning to the passage and I'll have to do more research before I can say anything else. Paul was trying to make a point basically in regards to the spiritual discrepancy that was taking place within the churches at the time.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I meant the no man shall lay with another man part....that's the sin right there. Even if gay marriage is legal by men's law, it isn't legal in God's law.

 

That part is pretty definitive. It's also wrong.

 

I don't believe that God would cast so many as naturally homosexual just to damn them to Hell. That is not the Divine I worship. I was brought up believing in a God of infinite love, and I refuse to accept that such love, given and receive is the work of evil just because it won't result in a child.

 

What of infertile women? Is there love to their husband evil?

[Misty Rose 3,216]

All I can say in response to that is that I've heard from certain sources regarding this topic that that passage is not to be interpreted literally. There is more meaning to the passage and I'll have to do more research before I can say anything else. Paul was trying to make a point basically in regards to the spiritual discrepancy that was taking place within the churches at the time.

But he did mention the things men did among each other, although the people you and I both know in the LGBT community aren't that liberally sexual, like I said in my previous post, if they choose to marry and become one with their partner like any other couple would then....yeah the Bible strictly says no to that

[Dsanders 5,747]

I meant the no man shall lay with another man part....that's the sin right there. Even if gay marriage is legal by men's law, it isn't legal in God's law.

That is only mentioned in Leviticus though. That was when the old covenant of God was still dictating the Jews way of life. There are more than 600 laws that we don't even have to follow by strictly. Eating shrimp and pork was considered an abominable act in the book of Leviticus along with countless other things.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Dsanders

[Misty Rose 3,216]

That part is pretty definitive. It's also wrong.

 

I don't believe that God would cast so many as naturally homosexual just to damn them to Hell. That is not the Divine I worship. I was brought up believing in a God of infinite love, and I refuse to accept that such love, given and receive is the work of evil just because it won't result in a child.

 

What of infertile women? Is there love to their husband evil?

I don't think he'll damn them to Hell because they can't just change their sexual orientation by force, and I'm not saying it's wrong because it won't produce a child. I only mention that because that's the part the Bible actually talks about.

That is only mentioned in Leviticus though. That was when the old covenant of God was still dictating the Jews way of life. There are more than 600 laws that we don't even to follow by strictly. Eating shrimp and pork was considered an abominable act in the book of Leviticus along with countless other things.

Food is different than sex dude You really think God would simply become that loose with his laws?

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

I don't think he'll damn them to Hell because they can't just change their sexual orientation by force, and I'm not saying it's wrong because it won't produce a child. I only mention that because that's the part the Bible actually talks about.

 

Well as said elsewhere, the Bible is not meant to be taken stone literally.

 

 

 

Food is different than sex dude You really think God would simply become that loose with his laws?

 

"Love thy neighbor as thyself." Already seems pretty loose in the first place. True it's something hard to live by, but the rule itself is not so exacting.

 

Again, I was raised to believe God is a being of love, not laws.

[Misty Rose 3,216]

Well as said elsewhere, the Bible is not meant to be taken stone literally.

 

 

"Love thy neighbor as thyself." Already seems pretty loose in the first place. True it's something hard to live by, but the rule itself is not so exacting.

 

Again, I was raised to believe God is a being of love, not laws.

That doesn't mean you should believe that God is all too loving to not also be a little strict.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

That doesn't mean you should believe that God is all too loving to not also be a little strict.

 

Emphasis on little. It's only the truly vile, the truly unrepentant, that deserve the Inferno. I have faith in God's justice.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Dsanders 5,747]

I don't think he'll damn them to Hell because they can't just change their sexual orientation by force, and I'm not saying it's wrong because it won't produce a child. I only mention that because that's the part the Bible actually talks about.

 

Food is different than sex dude You really think God would simply become that loose with his laws?

Please reread the book and realize there is so much more to its ridiculous archaic nature other than its laws regarding food.

 

Leviticus 27:1-4

"The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels"

 

^According to Leviticus, you are worth less than man.

 

Leviticus 21:16-23

Basically disabilities used to be shunned by God ...

 

Leviticus 19:28

Tattoos are prohibited ...

 

I can go on.

[Misty Rose 3,216]

That is only mentioned in Leviticus though. That was when the old covenant of God was still dictating the Jews way of life. There are more than 600 laws that we don't even have to follow by strictly. Eating shrimp and pork was considered an abominable act in the book of Leviticus along with countless other things.

Here's a little challenge question for you then bub. According to your logic not all the laws back then are to be strictly kept now. I also agree but here's the challenge.

 

How is it that sex before marriage counts as fornication even when the two people genuinely love each other? How is it that it's considered a very clear sin, yet according to you homosexuality when it comes to intercourse and other things is not?

 

Both laws regarding these topics are found in Leviticus and elsewhere in the Bible, but why is only one of them a strict sin?

 

By the way I'm not being mean, just curious

Please reread the book and realize there is so much more to its ridiculous archaic nature other than its laws regarding food.

 

Leviticus 27:1-4

"The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels"

 

^According to Leviticus, you are worth less than man.

 

Leviticus 21:16-23

Basically disabilities used to be shunned by God ...

 

Leviticus 19:28

Tattoos are prohibited ...

 

I can go on.

And believe me my friend I need no lesson on the laws of Leviticus, believe me I went through enough of them with my mother -_- Edited February 24, 2015 by Pink Mist

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Please reread the book and realize there is so much more to its ridiculous archaic nature other than its laws regarding food.

 

Leviticus 27:1-4

"The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels"

 

^According to Leviticus, you are worth less than man.

 

Leviticus 21:16-23

Basically disabilities used to be shunned by God ...

 

Leviticus 19:28

Tattoos are prohibited ...

 

I can go on.

 

Exactly. What meaning to be pulled from the Bible is what truly matters, divined by those conscious, studied, and wise enough to know what God wishes us to take from the document and what should be left to the conscience He gave us.   

[Tanos 179]

That part is pretty definitive. It's also wrong.

 

I don't believe that God would cast so many as naturally homosexual just to damn them to Hell. That is not the Divine I worship. I was brought up believing in a God of infinite love, and I refuse to accept that such love, given and receive is the work of evil just because it won't result in a child.

 

What of infertile women? Is there love to their husband evil?

People made their own choices and God knew that they would choose it, but that does not mean God made their choices for them. Edited February 24, 2015 by Tanos

[Steel Accord 6,660]

God is all loving, but he is also all powerful. People made their own choices and God knew that they would choose it, but that does not mean God made their choices for them.

 

I agree. That is the nature of the Divine's gift of free will after all.

[Misty Rose 3,216]

Emphasis on little. It's only the truly vile, the truly unrepentant, that deserve the Inferno. I have faith in God's justice.

Well I respect your opinion No one knows for sure how Heaven and Hell work but we all as Christians believe in a loving and righteous God.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Well I respect your opinion No one knows for sure how Heaven and Hell work but we all as Christians believe in a loving and righteous God.

 

For lack of a better term, Amen.

 

Why though, Ms. Mist, do you choose to interpret the Divine as a being more strict rather than more loving? Isn't such an intelligence beyond the laws of man and thus all the impunities of it?

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,161]

For lack of a better term, Amen.

 

Why though, Ms. Mist, do you choose to interpret the Divine as a being more strict rather than more loving? Isn't such an intelligence beyond the laws of man and thus all the impunities of it?

 

It partly depends, at least for some people, what we grew up in. I also likely grew up and am still around a fairly strict reading of the word, and we're taught that happiness is not the point of the gospel.

 

Granted my own faith is suspect and that partially stems from how I was brought up in it, so take it for what you will.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

It partly depends, at least for some people, what we grew up in. I also likely grew up and am still around a fairly strict reading of the word, and we're taught that happiness is not the point of the gospel.

 

Granted my own faith is suspect and that partially stems from how I was brought up in it, so take it for what you will.

 

If happiness wasn't the ultimate point of faith, that we might achieve a greater meaning of the universe through the Divine's plan and be rewarded thus, then I would have no reason to have such faith.

 

I don't mean to come off as harsh when I say this, merely a polite rebuttal to the notion that the Divine is some petty referee marking down our sins rather than closer to being the archetype of sapient endeavor and contentment.

[Virgil 685]

I like leaving things to those far wiser than myself; so I will leave the Westminster Shorter Catechism here with Scripture proofs and then some words from the Danish Gadfly:

 

"Man's chief end is to glorify God (1 Cor. 10:31), and to enjoy him for ever (Ps. 73:25-26)."

 

“The matter is quite simple. The bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.” Soren Kierkegaard

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I like leaving things to those far wiser than myself; so I will leave the Westminster Shorter Catechism here with Scripture proofs and then some words from the Danish Gadfly:

 

"Man's chief end is to glorify God (1 Cor. 10:31), and to enjoy him for ever (Ps. 73:25-26)."

 

“The matter is quite simple. The bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.” Soren Kierkegaard

 

Much respect as I have for Kierkgaard, I must respectfully disagree. There are portions of the Bible that if taken at face value are flat out wrong. Interpretation and scholarship are not meant to protect us from our duty, but to suss out the actual intent of the Word of God. The spirit, rather than the letter.

[Misty Rose 3,216]

Please reread the book and realize there is so much more to its ridiculous archaic nature other than its laws regarding food.

 

Leviticus 27:1-4

"The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels"

 

^According to Leviticus, you are worth less than man.

 

Leviticus 21:16-23

Basically disabilities used to be shunned by God ...

 

Leviticus 19:28

Tattoos are prohibited ...

 

I can go on.

I'm guessing you have no counter argument "pal"?

For lack of a better term, Amen.

 

Why though, Ms. Mist, do you choose to interpret the Divine as a being more strict rather than more loving? Isn't such an intelligence beyond the laws of man and thus all the impunities of it?

And that's simply due to my upbringing, many years across many churches and denominations have given me very confusing and different perspectives