Former Gay Christian Educator Fights Homosexuality Issues at Schools

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
coemgen said:
Hey Dredsox, thanks for the response to my post. (And I'm sorry to hear about your freind as well. :hug: )
And actually the Bible is clear about homosexuality — 1 Corinthains 6:9,10 says "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prositutes nor homosexual offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God."

Interesting the 2 versions I have in my household don't read that way. It just talks about those who abuse sex and those that abuse themselves. Fact is that the actual word "homosexual" was never even used until last century. Interpretation can be tricky sometimes...
 
Macfistowannabe said:
The reason I discuss this issue often is to get a different perspective. I believe very strongly that you don't know your own views until you hear everyone else's. I'm not trying to shove an agenda down anyone's throat, I'm trying to ask realistic, valid questions.

You speak one way yet you act the other. You've avoided almost all questions asked of you. People have shown you facts and you accuse them of being charged only of their feelings, and you simply haven't shown any reason why homosexuals should be changed except for your interpretations of the Bible, which you admit may or may not be human doctrine. You can understand why people are upset with you. You say you have no agenda and speak very innocently about wanting the other perspective but you have dismissed almost everyone who doesn't share your opinion. Even when they have facts and life experience that you don't pocess. So instead of preaching to everyone to open their minds maybe you should step back read everything everyone has said, and try to use your own advice to form your own educated opinion.
 
coemgen said:
Hey Dredsox, thanks for the response to my post. (And I'm sorry to hear about your freind as well. :hug: )
And actually the Bible is clear about homosexuality — 1 Corinthains 6:9,10 says "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prositutes nor homosexual offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God."
To me, and I'm open to others' input and discussion about this verse, homosexual "offenders" are those who actually have homosexual sex or, as you mentioned, lustful thoughts (yes, you're right, Jesus did say to have lust in your heart after a woman is committing adultery). I'm not sure though if a guy simply being attracted to another guy is a sin, and I guess that was what I wanted to say in my last post. I think there's a diffence between me simply admiring God's creation and saying, "Yeah, that woman is cute," verses me thinking about another woman and me in bed. You know? So I don't know if a man being attracted to a man and having thoughts that aren't necessarily out of lust, is a sin. Does that make sense? Or am I just rambling and spliting hairs? Again, this is just my attempt to understand God's word. Obviously, he has the final say on this matter, not me. :)
Interestingly, after reading that verse again to put it in this post, I read the next one, which reads: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
What would you say that means? (I'm seriously wondering, not trying to piss you off or anything.)
Also, I wasn't saying everyone who grows up with abuse or a broken home or whatever has the potential to be gay. I do know that a good amount of people who are gay have had sexually abusive childhoods though.

Excellent post, but I am really not looking to derail this thread with a debate over scriptures and what they mean. I would only say this, I have read the passage you are referring to MANY different ways, so I would say to you, what does the original Greek words say, and how does it compare to the translations you are looking at.

I do not have the luxury of time right now to get into it. Maybe another thread, and another time. I would prefer to give that discussion the proper time and effort.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Interesting the 2 versions I have in my household don't read that way. It just talks about those who abuse sex and those that abuse themselves. Fact is that the actual word "homosexual" was never even used until last century. Interpretation can be tricky sometimes...

You raise an excellent point about not resting conclusions or doctrine on one English translation of Scripture.

Here are different translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9 -

NIV - Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders


NASB - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,


NLT - Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals


KJV - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


ESV - Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality


NKJV - Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites


ASV - Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,


YLT - have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites


Darby Translation - Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men


NLV - Do you not know that sinful men will have no place in the holy nation of God? Do not be fooled. A person who does sex sins, or who worships false gods, or who is not faithful in marriage, or men who act like women, or people who do sex sins with their own sex, will have no place in the holy nation of God.
 
I don't know the original greek text, but what the different versions say says a lot. First of all, the King James Version is regarded as the worst translation out there. That's no news. The NIV is the most widley accepted version and most often used translation. Does that make it right on in this case? I can't answer that yet. But, to look at every other version except the KJV, it says to me that they're all coming up something similar if they all include the word, or a reference, to homosexuality. And although the word homosexuality may have not existed at the time of the original manuscripts, I'm sure the concept of it did.
 
Another thing I find interesting in the different translations is that so many deal with just the male aspect of it. Apparently to most translations lesbians are free to go on with what they are doing...typical males.:wink:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


You speak one way yet you act the other. You've avoided almost all questions asked of you. People have shown you facts and you accuse them of being charged only of their feelings, and you simply haven't shown any reason why homosexuals should be changed except for your interpretations of the Bible, which you admit may or may not be human doctrine. You can understand why people are upset with you. You say you have no agenda and speak very innocently about wanting the other perspective but you have dismissed almost everyone who doesn't share your opinion. Even when they have facts and life experience that you don't pocess. So instead of preaching to everyone to open their minds maybe you should step back read everything everyone has said, and try to use your own advice to form your own educated opinion.
I'm getting a little tired of this kind of crap. I don't see how I'm dismissing any facts. All I've said is that it hasn't been proven that homosexuality is hereditary or inborne. I'm not slamming a single person here for any of their differences with me. Let's give the backstabbing a little break for a change.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
All I've said is that it hasn't been proven that homosexuality is hereditary or inborne.

Do you need scientific evidence to know that you were born the way you are?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Another thing I find interesting in the different translations is that so many deal with just the male aspect of it. Apparently to most translations lesbians are free to go on with what they are doing...typical males.:wink:

Took the words right outta my mouth!
 
Macfistowannabe said:
I'm getting a little tired of this kind of crap. I don't see how I'm dismissing any facts. All I've said is that it hasn't been proven that homosexuality is hereditary or inborne. I'm not slamming a single person here for any of their differences with me. Let's give the backstabbing a little break for a change.


as for the nature vs. nurture, research is going on all the time, and the general agreement is that while there is not (as of yet) a "gay gene," there appears to be a strong genetic component to homosexuality. also, the fact that (most) homosexuals do not reproduce should further indicate that there is some genetic potential within all human beings, and it's far more compliacated than hair color.

the important thing to realize is that it's almost irrelevant, the nature vs. nurture: it is 100% involuntary. no one decides to be gay, no particular method of rearing children produces more or less homosexuals. nature seems to have a way of producing roughly 5-10% of its population gay.

this then begs the question, what are homosexuals for? if they keep popping up everywhere, in all societies, throughout history, yet they (mostly don't reproduce), what is their "purpose" (if you will)?

that's another topic for debate, in another thread.
 
joyfulgirl said:


Do you need scientific evidence to know that you were born the way you are?
It's a controversial topic, and I don't see how anyone can be ABSOLUTE of their views. I'm not entirely absolute on anything, but I'm considering it to be a coin toss that could go either way about what is inborne and what isn't.
 
Irvine511 said:
no one decides to be gay, no particular method of rearing children produces more or less homosexuals. nature seems to have a way of producing roughly 5-10% of its population gay.

this then begs the question, what are homosexuals for? if they keep popping up everywhere, in all societies, throughout history, yet they (mostly don't reproduce), what is their "purpose" (if you will)?

that's another topic for debate, in another thread.
You present something I could agree with, people don't just decide "am I going to be a heterosexual or not." I remember in kindergarten when I was attracted to girls in a non-hormone related way. I don't know how to explain why, I don't think anyone can at this point in time. At that age, you don't really talk about who you're attracted to, and I managed to keep it to myself until I hit my pre-teens. A lot of things are a mystery to me, and sexuality is definately one of them.

I don't know how to answer your question exactly, I'm probably going to guess that people can relate to it if they have an urge or a condition they have no control over. I'm hearing impaired, often feel embarrassed about it, but I try to use it to relate to someone who has a different condition. It's probably made me more sensative about those who are paralized, those who are completely deaf, or anything of a kind.
 
I am absolutely positive that I am not gay and no amount of therapy would be able to make me gay.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
I'm getting a little tired of this kind of crap. I don't see how I'm dismissing any facts. All I've said is that it hasn't been proven that homosexuality is hereditary or inborne. I'm not slamming a single person here for any of their differences with me. Let's give the backstabbing a little break for a change.

No in fact you dismissed much of what Dreadsox was presenting to you and then wrote it off as being personal. You've done the same with me and makes it extremely hard to keep right with the discussion. Maybe it's your wording, I don't know. But no backstabbing here.
 
Dreadsox said:
I am absolutely positive that I am not gay and no amount of therapy would be able to make me gay.

are you sure?

darn.

what am i going to tell the guys at the monthly "Pushing the Radical Homosexual Agenda/Homosexual Recruitment" Strategy Meetings?!?!?!
 
Irvine511 said:


are you sure?

darn.

what am i going to tell the guys at the monthly "Pushing the Radical Homosexual Agenda/Homosexual Recruitment" Strategy Meetings?!?!?!

I am so sorry to disappoint you:wink:

I am orally fixated.....but .....sorry just not on the male organ.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


No in fact you dismissed much of what Dreadsox was presenting to you and then wrote it off as being personal. You've done the same with me and makes it extremely hard to keep right with the discussion. Maybe it's your wording, I don't know. But no backstabbing here.
I acknoweledged his source, the APA, as claiming that it's not a mental disorder. What more do you want me to say? I'm not out to judge you. I'm not out here to pick any fights.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Interesting the 2 versions I have in my household don't read that way. It just talks about those who abuse sex and those that abuse themselves. Fact is that the actual word "homosexual" was never even used until last century. Interpretation can be tricky sometimes...

My cousin was using my class Bible to look up this very passage to prove/confirm the Bible spoke out against homosexuals. My edition reads "sexual perverts" which she found hilariously funny. "Oh, it doesn't *say* homosexuals," she said. And then in the next breath "What does 'fornicators' mean?" (She's well into her 30's, by the way.)

And I had to think, nice. She and her congregation are interpreting the Bible, with the intent to condemn others with it, and they don't even understand the Big Words. :|
 
Macfistowannabe said:
I acknoweledged his source, the APA, as claiming that it's not a mental disorder. What more do you want me to say? I'm not out to judge you. I'm not out here to pick any fights.

Change your picture in your avatar:wink: You look so devilish.:madspit:
 
Back
Top Bottom