-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
OMG It's the second coming!
B/c apparently you don't sin.
Actually, even though I disagree with her, she does make a GREAT DEAL of sense. Modern science has told us that there IS exclusive sexual attractions and often times they cannot be changed. Some groups claim to be able to do so, but, obviously, they are just hate groups in disguise as "help centers" that the American Psychological Association say are false and more harmful and useful.
A
"]hey you want to know something from the Bible most people don't want to hear? there is no marriage or sex in Heaven. here are the scriptures, we will be like God's Angels not being given or taken in marriage.
Matthew 22
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?[c] God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.[/COLOR]
Believers are resurrected after death, everyone else has to wait for the second coming to be judged and given their new bodies or be casted into Hell. Guess what? they wait in Hell. My basis for this statement?
Jesus spoke to Moses and Elijah on the mountain. They were resurrected and alive, not dead spirits. Elijah was taken up in a chariot of fire to Heaven, but Moses died a man outside the borders of the promise land. In the wilderness.
Hey guys this world is the wilderness, Heaven is our promise land.
Matthew 22
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?[c] God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.[/COLOR]
Believers are resurrected after death, everyone else has to wait for the second coming to be judged and given their new bodies or be casted into Hell. Guess what? they wait in Hell. My basis for this statement?
Jesus spoke to Moses and Elijah on the mountain. They were resurrected and alive, not dead spirits. Elijah was taken up in a chariot of fire to Heaven, but Moses died a man outside the borders of the promise land. In the wilderness.
Hey guys this world is the wilderness, Heaven is our promise land.
I know I'm going to regret posting my point of view on this, but I never understood why homosexuality is a sin. Of all the sins out there that was the one that made no sense to me. I mean lying, killing, stealing, cheating, they all have one thing in common, they have the potential to cause hurt and damage and there's pretty much never a good reason to do either of them. You can love someone of the opposite gender, marry them, and have a relationship with them, and it's okay, but doing the exact same thing with the same sex is a crime against nature? Yeah they can't reproduce but aside from the fact that the world's not in danger of being underpopulated anytime soon, there's still enough strait people out there that keeping the world populated is very unlikely to ever become an issue. Yeah they are prone to STD's, but so are strait people. And yeah chances are if you are Christian, you cringe at the sight of homosexuality, but I don't think that's a natural gut instinct but rather a case of classical conditioning from constantly being taught that the lifestyle is wrong so naturally we react accordingly. But honestly if God one day said that homosexuality was okay, I don't see humanity crumbling into oblivion like it would if stealing suddenly became okay, or lying became okay, or murdering became okay. I'm not saying the life style is right or wrong, I'm just saying I don't understand why it has to be wrong. I can't come up with any logical reason for it to be wrong. If one person loves another then why would their gender matter? Again, I'm not saying they are right, I just don't understand why they're wrong, if that makes sense.
R
It is obvious rebellion because it is an outright denial of purpose. You clearly see that God ordained a purpose and it is an obvious and straightforward act of witchcraft in God's eyes. Because rebellion is witchcraft. Your understanding is darkened by sin, but God makes his word clear to people who ACTUALLY seek him and his righteousness. Not people who lean to their own understanding. God will judge disobedience. Repentance is needed in this case. And then obedience to Jesus Christ. That will condemn a person, if they have not obeyed Jesus.
M
Morality is fixed, whether or not anyone actually gets hurt. For instance, I've told lies by which no one was hurt, yet I was still wrong to lie. To be very black and white about it, morality is indifferent about whether or not anyone actually 'gets hurt' (though it may affect the magnitude of the crime). When it comes to homosexual acts, you pretty much hit the nail on the head when you remarked about it being a 'crime against nature'. I don't think I'd be overstating it to say that Natural Law underpins our whole system of morality; lying, cheating, stealing and murder are all violations of Natural Law, ego they are immoral. In the same vein, homosexuality is a deviance against normality, or what is natural, and when expressed sexually it undermines the sanctity of marriage and the nature of the sexual act itself which is primarily procreative.
S
I just spent half an hour reading various posts and considering different opinions and viewpoints. The guy that I most agree with is Porter... I believe we are called to love above all else and let God be the judge of his church. Jesus is the author and Perfector of our faith.
Just as an aside.... why are we so focused on Gay people. Why don't we (the church) go after greedy people, gluttonious people, and all the others that Paul mentions in the same paragraph as homosexuality?
Just as an aside.... why are we so focused on Gay people. Why don't we (the church) go after greedy people, gluttonious people, and all the others that Paul mentions in the same paragraph as homosexuality?
W
if a lie would of saved someone would you do i. the whole morality is never black and white if you saw a man steall food you think he is a sinner a bad man and needs to go to jail then what if i told you he stole to feed his children is he still a bad man? now whats ironic about the crime against nature is that its wel know that animal of the same sex of sex with each other now animal being a part of nature and following that rule are they also sinning
K
I'm Bisexual and I love who God puts in front of me to love regardless of their gender. If you don't "believe in gay marriage" then don't marry someone of the same sex as you. To me it's as simple as that. Morality is about reducing the harm you do to people, that's why I see people saying that sexuality is unnatural (to be honest and a ok I'm going to be a bit harsh) it's because they don't understand that God is about love not hate. If he was willing to send his only son so that we can go to heaven how is that same God someone who would not like what he created? There is a lot of scientific evidence out there that shows that human sexuality is on a continuum. I just can't believe that a God that is worthy of my worship would be so mean. Also if it would hurt someone, or I had to in order to save a life I would lie. That's because I couldn't live knowing that I could have done something so easy and a person would still be here but I didn't and they are dead because of me. God would want us to do what we must to preserve the life he made, not flush it away just based on our stubborn principles. We must do what we can to love and to help everyone, to be the bright light that glorifies his light. 
M
I don't know.
Actually it's still black and white in the sense that, in any given situation, an action is either moral or it is not. Of course the surrounding circumstances have an influence. In your example, the man would be right to take food if he had to to feed his family, since their right to live trumps the bread owner's right to a fair profit. So I stand by my 'black and white' comment, but add that there is often a complex of factors to consider before making a moral judgement.
First, animals cannot sin. Second, I think you misunderstand what I mean by 'nature' and 'natural law'. What I mean is that any given thing has an ordained purpose, and if that purpose is subverted or frustrated then it is unnatural. Just because an animal may do it does not make it natural or right for humans to do it. But this should be obvious since we humans are, after all, endowed with the faculty of reason.
Actually it's still black and white in the sense that, in any given situation, an action is either moral or it is not. Of course the surrounding circumstances have an influence. In your example, the man would be right to take food if he had to to feed his family, since their right to live trumps the bread owner's right to a fair profit. So I stand by my 'black and white' comment, but add that there is often a complex of factors to consider before making a moral judgement.
First, animals cannot sin. Second, I think you misunderstand what I mean by 'nature' and 'natural law'. What I mean is that any given thing has an ordained purpose, and if that purpose is subverted or frustrated then it is unnatural. Just because an animal may do it does not make it natural or right for humans to do it. But this should be obvious since we humans are, after all, endowed with the faculty of reason.
A
we must all bear fruit, here's the road map to the spiritual path it take steps to have each one
we begin with faith but our faith must grow into virtue....godliness is very far along the path and hard to obtain. Impossible with out God's divine grace
2 Peter 1:5-8
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
we begin with faith but our faith must grow into virtue....godliness is very far along the path and hard to obtain. Impossible with out God's divine grace
2 Peter 1:5-8
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
Being gay is tottaly OK. people are born that way, I mean if they werent why would some cry and actually kill themseleves because theyre so ashamed? I mean even if it is a "sin", everyone sins, (i dont care who you are you have sinned,) so technically youre just "as bad" as them (though i dont believe gays bad at all). I do have a problem with people when they say that God doest love them or they are a "disgrace to God" or whatever because theyre gay, I honestly think God will have a bigger problem with gay-haters than the gays themselves. I also believe that whether straight gay haters believe its a sin because its a choice it doesnt matter, because if it honestly isnt a choice like they say it isnt then God will know that and understand, and when a gay meets a gayhater in heaven they can be like IN YO' FACE>
M
To me that sounds absurdly insular.
That is harsh, and to my mind, completely unfounded if you don't mind me saying so.
Not sure what you're getting at here. No amount of sin could make God love anyone any less, but that doesn't give us a licence to sin, does it?
This is a curious thing to say. It may well be that human sexuality is being expressed in different and ever varying ways, but this speaks nothing to the morality of such practices. But let's keep this simple and stick to Natural Law; can you find a biologist who seriously believes that sex is not primarily for procreation?
Again, not sure where you're going with this one. We live in a fallen world where evil happens. Some may have physical deficiencies, others may have disorded desires. We all have our cross to bear.
I don't think anyone would blame you.
God would want us to do everything moral to to preserve life but the end doesn't justify the means.
Agreed. Though my understanding of 'love and help' also includes calling a spade a spade when it comes to questions of ethics.
That is harsh, and to my mind, completely unfounded if you don't mind me saying so.
Not sure what you're getting at here. No amount of sin could make God love anyone any less, but that doesn't give us a licence to sin, does it?
This is a curious thing to say. It may well be that human sexuality is being expressed in different and ever varying ways, but this speaks nothing to the morality of such practices. But let's keep this simple and stick to Natural Law; can you find a biologist who seriously believes that sex is not primarily for procreation?
Again, not sure where you're going with this one. We live in a fallen world where evil happens. Some may have physical deficiencies, others may have disorded desires. We all have our cross to bear.
I don't think anyone would blame you.
God would want us to do everything moral to to preserve life but the end doesn't justify the means.
We must do what we can to love and to help everyone, to be the bright light that glorifies his light.
That's actually a great question, and was kinda fun to research, so here's what I found, and really when it comes to any scientific issue, there is pretty much never one that all scientists agree on unanimously, they usually all have their differing views on the matter based on their own studies, and this happens to be one of those issues.
Taken from here:
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
Taken from here: Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate | Page 2 of 2
Biologists seem to be divided on this, from what I've read (and I wish my boyfriend was here to give me more insight on this since he's actually majoring in biology right now). The first article I quoted gives examples of multiple species who practice sexual activity with both genders to form bonds, deter violence, and debateably for fun. Other scientists use the bonobo monkeys as an example because they are wildly sexually active with each other regardless of gender, and they seem to be more driven by desire rather than just to reproduce. But there's debate that animals really get anything out of sex and if they pursue it because they actually get pleasure from it. Others still say that reproduction is the main reason they mate, so it does get divided, but there are a number of biologists out there who do believe that sex is not just for reproduction and that it really varies from species to species.
And moving off of animals and on to humans, I should point out that many doctors recommend orgasms for a number of medical reasons, so when it comes to humans sex isn't just for procreation either.
An article on that as well: Not just good, but good for you - Health - Sexual health - Sexploration - msnbc.com
Whether sex for humans is primarily for procreation or recreation... I think there's more than enough evidence out there that humans use sex primarily for recreation, be they married or not. What sex SHOULD be primarily for on the other hand is probably going to be debated till the end of days since there's even division in the Christian faith on whether it should be for reproduction only, or if sex with your spouse whenever you feel like it is okay too.
Wikipedia has a great article though on animal sexual patterns, and while I normally don't recommend Wikipedia to anyone since anyone can edit it, the links they provide at the bottom as citations have legitimate pages of studies done by biologists and other scientists that express views on both sides based on their own studies, so I recommend checking it out just to look at the pages that were cited.
Animal sexual behaviour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Taken from here:
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
Taken from here: Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate | Page 2 of 2
Biologists seem to be divided on this, from what I've read (and I wish my boyfriend was here to give me more insight on this since he's actually majoring in biology right now). The first article I quoted gives examples of multiple species who practice sexual activity with both genders to form bonds, deter violence, and debateably for fun. Other scientists use the bonobo monkeys as an example because they are wildly sexually active with each other regardless of gender, and they seem to be more driven by desire rather than just to reproduce. But there's debate that animals really get anything out of sex and if they pursue it because they actually get pleasure from it. Others still say that reproduction is the main reason they mate, so it does get divided, but there are a number of biologists out there who do believe that sex is not just for reproduction and that it really varies from species to species.
And moving off of animals and on to humans, I should point out that many doctors recommend orgasms for a number of medical reasons, so when it comes to humans sex isn't just for procreation either.
An article on that as well: Not just good, but good for you - Health - Sexual health - Sexploration - msnbc.com
Whether sex for humans is primarily for procreation or recreation... I think there's more than enough evidence out there that humans use sex primarily for recreation, be they married or not. What sex SHOULD be primarily for on the other hand is probably going to be debated till the end of days since there's even division in the Christian faith on whether it should be for reproduction only, or if sex with your spouse whenever you feel like it is okay too.
Wikipedia has a great article though on animal sexual patterns, and while I normally don't recommend Wikipedia to anyone since anyone can edit it, the links they provide at the bottom as citations have legitimate pages of studies done by biologists and other scientists that express views on both sides based on their own studies, so I recommend checking it out just to look at the pages that were cited.
Animal sexual behaviour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
M
Thanks for your post Vikki. And there I was thinking that I had asked a rhetorical question...shows how long it's been since I read biology.
However, the main problem is that theologians and biologists use the word 'natural' to mean different things. Biologists (or indeed anyone from the field of natural philosophy) will conclude that anything they observe in nature = natural. But a theologian uses the word 'natural' in a different sense. He looks at a thing and asks 'what is its intended purpose?'
But despite the accounts of animal homosexuality, I'm sure even the biologists would be forced to concede that the main reason that sex exists is procreation. Yes, they may argue that sex is used for other purposes, even that homosexuality has apparent benefits, and that these acts are 'natural' (in their definition of the word), but the reason sex exists at all and the reason that those sodomite monkeys are even here today is because of the primary function of sex, that is procreation.
Would it interest you to know that it is only relatively recently that this has become a topic of debate in Christendom? Longstanding Christian tradition had always affirmed the primacy of procreation when it comes to sex. This universal belief was only seriously undermined as recently as the '20s (or thereabouts, I think) when the Anglican Church decided that artificial contraception was moral in some cases. I speculate that it is the rise in the acceptability of birth control among Christians that has led to our present state where it is no longer taken as read that sex is primarily for procreation, which has obvious implications when it comes to the present debates over homosexuality.
Just one further note, so as to avoid misundertandings: I have tried to be careful to always refer to procreation as the primary function of the sexual faculty (as opposed to only). Of course sex has other purposes (it is unitive, it is pleasurable etc.) but the Natural Law argument posits that these things are subservient to the procreative aspect. In this way, there is nothing immoral about having sex for pleasure, just as long as one is open to the possibility of procreation. Sexual acts, which by their nature are infertile, or positive actions taken or intentions to negate the possibility of reproduction (such as artificial contraception) would all be contrary to Natural Law, since they are subverting or frustrating the primary end of the sexual faculty.
However, the main problem is that theologians and biologists use the word 'natural' to mean different things. Biologists (or indeed anyone from the field of natural philosophy) will conclude that anything they observe in nature = natural. But a theologian uses the word 'natural' in a different sense. He looks at a thing and asks 'what is its intended purpose?'
But despite the accounts of animal homosexuality, I'm sure even the biologists would be forced to concede that the main reason that sex exists is procreation. Yes, they may argue that sex is used for other purposes, even that homosexuality has apparent benefits, and that these acts are 'natural' (in their definition of the word), but the reason sex exists at all and the reason that those sodomite monkeys are even here today is because of the primary function of sex, that is procreation.
Would it interest you to know that it is only relatively recently that this has become a topic of debate in Christendom? Longstanding Christian tradition had always affirmed the primacy of procreation when it comes to sex. This universal belief was only seriously undermined as recently as the '20s (or thereabouts, I think) when the Anglican Church decided that artificial contraception was moral in some cases. I speculate that it is the rise in the acceptability of birth control among Christians that has led to our present state where it is no longer taken as read that sex is primarily for procreation, which has obvious implications when it comes to the present debates over homosexuality.
Just one further note, so as to avoid misundertandings: I have tried to be careful to always refer to procreation as the primary function of the sexual faculty (as opposed to only). Of course sex has other purposes (it is unitive, it is pleasurable etc.) but the Natural Law argument posits that these things are subservient to the procreative aspect. In this way, there is nothing immoral about having sex for pleasure, just as long as one is open to the possibility of procreation. Sexual acts, which by their nature are infertile, or positive actions taken or intentions to negate the possibility of reproduction (such as artificial contraception) would all be contrary to Natural Law, since they are subverting or frustrating the primary end of the sexual faculty.
I had assumed the debate on sex being for procreation vs recreation had been going on a lot longer. Mind you the main knowledge I have on the matter comes from 21 years of Baptist and Non-denomination church upbringing, which have both taught that as long as you're married and you're only doing it with your spouse, go nuts. However other denominations teach that you should only have sex with your spouse if you are trying to create another life. But considering contraceptives have only recently become much more effective, and even have provided ways to avoid conception without killing off an already fertilized egg, I guess that makes sense for the debates to be more recent than I had assumed. I do still think it'll more than likely be a never ending argument.
I know there are some Christians that have written articles speculating that even the rules of sex being kept within marriage were written primarily for that time period because since there was pretty much no forms of contraception around, it was difficult to prevent an unwanted/unexpected life, but now that we have contraception at our disposal the rules have changed. I don't really agree on their stance however mainly for the verse that states that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It seems to contradict their argument it they're claiming to be basing the Bible for their beliefs.
I know there are some Christians that have written articles speculating that even the rules of sex being kept within marriage were written primarily for that time period because since there was pretty much no forms of contraception around, it was difficult to prevent an unwanted/unexpected life, but now that we have contraception at our disposal the rules have changed. I don't really agree on their stance however mainly for the verse that states that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It seems to contradict their argument it they're claiming to be basing the Bible for their beliefs.
A
i think it has more to do with starving the flesh so that it may not sin. Love is beautiful and from God, but I know people who are addicted to sex and they worship on the altar of their sexuality. they think and breath sex. they don't worship God or think of things to help the world. they think of how they can get their next fix, their next sex fling. to them its a drug. for them they have to cut it off and be celibate for a while
If you are a recovering alcoholic then watching other drink is hard, because it tempts you to drink and get drunk again.
These sex addicts are the same way. they have to avoid it so they can think of things beyond sex and the lust of their bodis
If you are not addicted to sex or alcohol then its ok to do both within reason and according to the boundaries God has set: marriage and not unto drunkenness where the demonic influences when you step off the path of righteousness are stronger and will cause you to destroy yourself. like those who are addicted to drugs destroy their lives.
If you are a recovering alcoholic then watching other drink is hard, because it tempts you to drink and get drunk again.
These sex addicts are the same way. they have to avoid it so they can think of things beyond sex and the lust of their bodis
If you are not addicted to sex or alcohol then its ok to do both within reason and according to the boundaries God has set: marriage and not unto drunkenness where the demonic influences when you step off the path of righteousness are stronger and will cause you to destroy yourself. like those who are addicted to drugs destroy their lives.