What would you say if..

DunkinLover wrote: What would you say if your child approached you and told you he/she was a homosexual? Besides always loving your child, there is a matter of reaction of shock, support, anger, encouragement, etc etc. I'm just curious to see what other parents would say in this situation..?

My2Beauties replied: I'd be shocked but love my child nomatter what their sexual preference is. You can't help how you're born and I believe gay/lesbian people are born homosexuals.

moped replied: Truly I wouldn't be bothered, I want them to be very very happy in life. I might ask if they plan to have children somehow - I want grand children some day!!!

momofone replied: I think I would be a little disappointed but i also believe they are born that way as well and would support them.

PrairieMom replied: I would be sad, but not heart broken. I would also be supportive.

DVFlyer replied: Depends on how old the child was.... If I thought they were old enough to know what it meant, I'd approach it differently than if I didn't.

Either way, they would know that I was fine with the decisions they make as long as it made them happy and wasn't dangerous etc.

My3LilMonkeys replied: My reaction would depend on their age/maturity level but I would not be bothered by it. As long as they are happy in their life they can be whatever they want.

ZandersMama replied: I would give them a hug and keep making supper/whatever i was doing at the time. It really wouldnt fizz me, although i would feel really bad for the crap they will have to go through from society.

A&A'smommy replied: HONESTLY!!!! I would be hurt and sad, I would love them no matter what but I would NEVER condone what they are doing or tell them its ok because its NOT its a choice and its a sin and its a lifestyle I will not allow in my house (my kid is welcome whenever). Just like pre-marital sex, drugs or excess drinking/partying.

msoulz replied:
Ditto. It would make me sad only because it would make his or her life harder.

Shelley replied: Probably depends on the age of the child. I understand that teens & pre-teens often feel a bit of confusion or just the desire to experiment.

If the child were old enough to know for sure I'd be disappointed & a little worried, because of my spiritual beliefs, but at the same time, "hate the sin, love the sinner." Sexual orientation would never make the child lose their place in my heart.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: isn't homosexuality scientifically proven to be a difference in the brain that you're born with?

I could never judge my child for something he/she'd be born with.

Nina J replied: I don't know what I would do. Be supportive and accepting. I'd love my child no matter what.

IMO, there are way more concerning things that my child could be.

Jason's Papa replied: I'd be bummed because i'm looking forward to my son bringing home cute girls!

Seriously though, i'd be fine with it.

boyohboyohboy replied:
ditto...
It goes against what we do believe in.
I am not sure that I always believe in the "scientific studies" and frankly along the way, there always seems to be excuses for what ever we decide at the time we want to be considered "ok" behavior or ways of thinking..we have become a society that twists facts and beliefs into what ever we are into at the moment..to justifiy our acts, and make things ok for us in our minds,so ease our conscious.
right and wrong has become blurred in many peoples lives, and that is part of what is wrong with this world today..

that is JMHO.

TheOaf66 replied: ^ I agree with them and I leave it at that

jcc64 replied: I believe science, by it's very nature, cannot be twisted and distorted to support beliefs. Science is based on provable facts, not conjecture or opinion.

Whether or not my child is "born" homosexual would be beside the point in my mind. It is my job to support my children and provide for them a haven from the judgments, bigotries, and harsh realities of the outside world. Life is short, and to destroy or damage the parent /child relationship over religious dogma is a sacrifice I'd never be willing to make.

ZandersMama replied:
I would post links, because I know that anyone can find a link to support anything. However, I don't believe anyone would choose to be a homosexual. Why would anyone choose a life where they would be treated badly by the majority of society? Why would a person kill themselves because they are gay, if it was a choice?

Calimama replied:
I agree.

My religion is MY religion, not my childs if she chooses.I love and accept my daughter no matter who she brings home, girl, guy, monkey. It doesn't matter. That little girl is everything to me.

cameragirl21 replied: science, in its nature, cannot be twisted. A scientific theory comes about from supposition by one or multiple scientists and then a rather exhaustive series of studies are conducted that prove it, if the theory becomes a fact, beyond a shadow of a doubt. So if something is categorized as scientific fact, it is a fact and can be proven. Science is, in itself, very precise and exact and for something to be considered scientific fact, it MUST have the same outcome every time THE SAME experiment is carried out.
For instance, in chemistry, if you take one part of sodium (Na) and mix it with one part of chlorine (Cl), you will get table salt (NaCl) everytime, without a doubt.
As for homosexuality, studies find that it is something people are born with. For instance, they say that boys become gay because the mother's hormones cross the placental barrier in utero. I can't remember what the assertion is with girls. It's possible about the different brains too, as Rocky said.
Here is the thing, though, while science is almost certain it's something people are born with, Idk if it can be considered scientific fact only because there is no true way to test it. In order to determine it for certain, you'd have to study the sexual habits of newborns and children and compare them to the sexual habits these same people have as grownups and because newborns and children have no sexual habits there is no way to determine with certainty.
What IS certain is that many gay men are effeminate and many gay women are so masculine (like kd lang, for instance) that it is obviously a matter of biology. No person can purposely alter their voice or their look that much. So science has found it to be most probably, based on the information we have that homosexuality is in fact, not a preference but something people are born with and not something people can control. The other side of it is that people who are gay describe a strong attraction to the same gender as opposed to the opposite gender. Simply put, think back to when you were a teenager, you KNEW who you wanted to kiss, boy or girl. For gay people, they usually describe wanting to kiss the same gender and the ones who don't say they chose the opposite gender out of peer pressure, etc.
So bottom line, it is almost a certainty that people are born gay but not something that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt, for obvious reasons.
I think it's rather unfair to assume it would be a choice because most people say they would choose to be straight because society is much more forgiving to straight people...gay people can't even get married legally and imo that is a violation of their civil rights.
I know this is long and some will at my long windedness but I just wanted to clarify that because while getting my degree in psychology, this is a subject we studied in detail because it is the cornerstone of some people's need for therapy which imo just proves it's not a choice on their part.
As for me, of course I'd be disappointed because I think all any parent wants for his/her child is to live the best life ever and that is hard to do when you are what many would call "deviant" which imo is a very unfair description. Am I "deviant" because I was born with dark hair in a slavic country where most people are blonde? Or if I were born with blue eyes, would I be deviant if both of my parents are dark eyed? These are things we have to ask ourselves when we judge people for something they were, in all likelihood born with. I am as straight as they come but I am rather sensitive to this subject because I was born in a country that my family had to risk everything (including our lives) to leave because as people who were born Jewish, we were considered deviant and undesirable. And if you think it's not a fair comparison, ask yourself what some people think of those were born black. We are born the way we're born and we can't help it. Some are born with psychological diseases and they'd much rather be emotionally well than not but they can't help it either. Furthermore, I knew a woman who had identical twin sisters who were gay and I figure that just enhances the theory that people are born this way because they are genetically identical and if one were gay and the other not, it would truly put the being born gay theory to test.
That said, I think it's an announcement that even the most understanding of parents will take with a few sleepless nights and some struggle because it's not an easy thing to live with and up until fairly recently, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the DSM, just to give you an idea.
I think if it were me, I'd accept it after an initial shock but tbh, I think if my child were gay I'd probably notice it long before s/he did because you can see in some children that it is budding.
In our society, it's hard to be different no matter in which way you are different. I think the best thing we can do as adults is guide children to a more mutual understanding of those who are different and find the beauty in our differences instead of categorizing them as "not like us" which is why so many struggle to begin with.
Sorry for the long post but it is vintage Jennifer.

My2Beauties replied: Good post Jen, good explanation.

DillsMommy replied:
That's how I feel too. I wouldn't exactly be excited about it, but my love for my children would never change--no matter what. On the plus side--I'd always be the most important female in his life...

DunkinLover replied: Hard to think about right? but yea It seems mostly everyone is on the same page...

A&A'smommy replied: quite frankly the whole "scientific" part of it is bull!!!

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
That made me LOL!!!

Seriously, science, bull.

Let's take science class out of schools, since it violates so many christian beliefs, while we're at it.

We're all entitled to our beliefs, of course.. and while you can choose to not believe science, it doesn't change that science is still fact, it's what makes the difference between theory and reality. You can just choose not to believe them.

I hope for your sakes, those of you who believe that being gay is a choice, that your children turn out straight as they come, so they won't have to endure your dissaproval of their "choice", and become one of those people that when the kids are grown and the parents are dead, that suddenly divorce their spouse and come out, living the life they'd always wished they'd had but didn't over fear of being disowned because of who they are.

ZandersMama replied:
you said everything i didnt have the words to say

cameragirl21 replied: Jess, why are you so sure the science behind being born gay is bull? I'm not trying to debate or change your opinion but I'm just wondering what would make someone so dismissive the science behind it?
Just to give the moms here an idea, much of what you do is pure science. For instance, if you've had a cesarean, that is pure science, as determined by a need that arose from women who died in childbirth or who lost their children in childbirth or both because there was no way to remove the baby from the mother's body vaginally. So clearly scientists saw that an alternative way had to be found and this too came after supposition, theory and a great deal of testing. Today, a cesarean is simple because it's become so common but it was a new procedure at some point and many in the scientific and medical community likely raised an eyebrow at the very idea of it.
Also, your prenatal care is pure science as determined by what a woman's body needs to keep both her and the baby in good health. I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone here just how much toll pregnancy takes on a woman's body so something needed to be done to ensure the health of both.
Did you require a fetal monitor when you were in labor? Again, science, as determined by the need to know more about the situation in utero when complications arise in labor.
We in the USA (and Canada and by and large the modernized world) have the lowest rate of infant mortality in the world thanks to the three above things I mentioned, which are here for us thanks to scientists.
Also, reproduction in an of itself is a very exact science in that you can predict with 100% certainty what will happen when a viable egg meets a viable sperm. I understand that many here are very religious but I'm sure you'd agree that it takes more than God to become pg...it requires the science of reproduction.
The vaccinations that your kids get are due to years and years of scientific study and research. Just to give you an idea, a vaccine is either live and attenuated or killed. A killed vaccine is a virus killed so that it's harmless injected in your child's body so that the body is tricked into thinking it's been invaded by the actual virus and develops an immunity to it. That is why you may notice a slight fever in some kids in response to vaccines as it's the body's natural reaction to any invader.
A live, attenuated vaccine is actual live virus injected into your child but it's been attenuated, meaning the harmful part is removed. Think of it as a mosquito without a stinger. It's still alive, doing its thing but it can't harm you anymore. Again, the body responds to the invader and builds an immunity.
These are just some of the things that we have thanks to science. I only mention it because for those who are quick to dismiss it, just picture the complications of creating a vaccine using actual virus and yet ensuring that the child doesn't become ill with that virus. You don't really believe it's just some scientist's twisted idea that he decided to publish in textbooks as fact, do you? It's been tested ad nauseum before it becomes available to the public.
Just a few things to think about before you dismiss the words of scientists. Adn btw, scientists are challenged all the time, that is how we generally learn new things in the field of science but they are usually challenged with an alternate theory, based on science as opposed to someone just dismissing their findings as bull.
Not trying to pick on anyone, btw, but I think this board is first and foremost about learning and we can't learn if the information isn't put in front of us. If you choose not to believe it, that's your choice but I see no harm in putting it out there to give anyone who wants to learn or consider it the opportunity.
Just to make it clear, my point here is that no scientist would claim someone is born gay unless there is grounded and provable information, based on science, upon which s/he could base such an idea. It is so NOT just his opinion that he put forward in order to make the church angry.

DVFlyer replied: In my experience, asking someone, who doesn't believe in science, to believe in science won't happen. Also, trying to have someone who doesn't believe in science show facts to back up their belief based opinions won't happen either.

And vice versa, asking someone who believes in science to explain something that happens, but can't be explained scientifically, is a tough row to hoe.

Personal beliefs that are very strong can almost never be changed. They are what allow a person to maintain control over their life. They use their beliefs to guide their actions.

While I do not know (but think to be true) if being homosexual is something chemical in our systems, the people who say it is a "choice" are technically correct. But only to the point that everything in life is a choice. i.e. being heterosexual and choosing a mate of the opposite sex is a choice too.

The "choice" argument seems to be only a redirection of the debate since those who make that argument typically do not have any evidence to back up their claims.

boyohboyohboy replied: regardless of how people "become" gay, I dont know that anyone said that they would ignore or harm or disown their child. It was only stated that it wouldnt be something that would be condoned in the parents home, same as other issues that are felt to be wrong. each person makes up their own mind as to what is right and what is wrong.
If my son brought home a man, as a partner in life, they can stay for dinner, they can stay a part of my life, can they sleep in the same room. NO, now neither can my son who brings home a girl be allowed to sleep in the same room until they are married.
I certainly do right now teach my kids and take them to church and hope and pray that they will accept Jesus and be saved as we are. I will spend every last breath I have encouraging that to happen. Forcing it? NO.

I will also spend every last breath I have teaching them what our faith tells us is right, as well as any one who comes to my home.

but at the same time, I do think that some people are just prone to be killers, there are people born with no conscious, there have been some really bad people in the world, they made a choice, but I do also think that they were born with something wrong in them...do I condon that? NO, same as I dont condon this..
I know there will be reprocusssions here for compairing homosexuals to seriel killers, but my point was only that it seems that choices are made and some degree of malfunction can be a born inheritence..do dont go off on a point that homosexuals are not seriel killers......

also, I dont consider my faith and practices "pushing religious dogma on my kids"
I wouldnt say a person has much faith if they didnt allow their religious views to determine the relationships in their lives, I mean how faithful are you if everytime something disagrees with your faith no matter how close you are to the person that you change your perspective because its your child...

I think that most of the religions that I am familiar with do speak of Love and tolerance, but it doesnt have to acceptance.. and it doesnt have to be love them as homosexuals or not love them at all..

A&A'smommy replied: Its not that I don't "believe" in science but I DO believe that a lot of scientist come up with theories to support what they believe.

Jason's Papa replied: I remember hearing a few weeks back that researchers have discovered some genetic markers unique to gay people. They gave a short list and the one that stuck in my head was that their hair tends to swirl in a counterclockwise direction where a straight person's hair will swirl clockwise.

No idea where this research is from, i just heard the report on it.

My2Beauties replied:
Now that made me LOL I just think that is funnt because now I'm going to look at everyone's head and if it's counterclockwise and they say they're straight I'm gonna start wondering

punkeemunkee'smom replied:
I am not doubting that you heard that but that has got to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard....so are cyclones really just a hurricanes gay cousin?

My2Beauties replied:
OMG I am ROFLMBO Abbie - hilarious!!

TheOaf66 replied:

TheOaf66 replied:
so next time I meet someone it will be like:

" so you like football, cool...what kind of food you like...nice, oh and which way does your hair swirl

5littleladies replied: Stacy pretty much summed up what I would have said. I have a brother who is gay and we love him to death-He is at our house nearly every day, he babysits my girls, he gets no rejection from us whatsoever, however, he does know that we don't agree with his lifestyle. Was he born gay? Maybe. I believe that everyone was born with a sin nature and has a choice to do what is right or to do what is wrong so if that means some people are "born gay", so be it.

There are people who believe that pedophilia is genetic. If that were proven to be true would that condone their behavior?




I couldn't agree more.

If my child were to tell me she was gay we would be disappointed, but we would love her unconditionally.

A&A'smommy replied:
thank you I was wondering where that came from also!!

punkeemunkee'smom replied:
O I am right there with ya...checkin head swirls from now on!

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
I never said you would disown your child, I said I hope that your child, if gay, didn't grow up with the fear of being disowned and live a lie until you're out of the picture.



JessyAnn - the thing about theories.. theories are not science. They are Theories. Science is the irrefutable proof in regards to the theory, whether it confirms or dissolves it - science is what makes the theory Fact or not.

boyohboyohboy replied:
Yep, I mean one week we are told that science says dont put paper towels in the microwave because the dyes can give you cancer, and then the next week, its you better use paper towels because the foam plates will kill you...

science changes constantly..

for every scientist that proofs something one way, there are three more that prove it to be another....

I dont think the OP had anything to do with how someone got this way.it was just how were you going to deal with it....

DVFlyer replied:
This is very true.... everywhere, not just science.

Someone religious gets into a car accident and survives, therefore God saved them. i.e. a theory to support what they believe.

The difference is science is open to being wrong. If one scientist says the earth is flat, and another scientist comes along and offers proof that it's round, it is incumbent on the first scientist to apply his flat theory to disprove the other scientist. If he can't, he must submit to his theory being wrong.

FWIW- We are dancing around a religion v.s. science argument in a very well-mannered way, I think. Good job, all.

Jason's Papa replied:

Jason's Papa replied:

Actually the reason the hair swirl thing stuck in my head was because Jason has a very distinct cowlick/swirl at his hairline and i made a mental note to remember to check it out when i got home.

This is his swirl. Clockwise!

Jason's Papa replied: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/0...ty-genetics-usa

TheOaf66 replied:
there you go you're in the clear

Hillbilly Housewife replied: We're talking about the same thing.....

cameragirl21 replied: just want to point out that there is a difference between scientific theory and scientific fact. A theory is a scientist's hypothesis based on his scientific observations. In order to become scientific fact, it has to be proven thru a series of experiments and the key to this, as I described in an earlier post is that the results have to be exactly the same in each experiment in order to call it scientific fact.
What Stacy is describing about the paper towels in the microwave is scientific theory, based on their observations but has not been proven or disproven yet.
Pedophiles are born the way they are, there's no question, we see pedophilia in children. I'm curious, though, would you compare pedophilia to homosexuality in terms of how "wrong" they are?
And btw, I'm not assuming anyone would, nor am I calling out 5littleladies, just curious about how some here feel about that.
The reason I ask is, as I understand it, a sin is a sin, there is no degree of better sin vs worse sin. For instance, in the 10 Commandments, take these the two sins--Thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not tell a lie (not sure how that one is worded but that is the idea) but ultimately they are both considered a sin of equal degree, one is no worse than the other even though we would consider murder more serious than lying, right? Btw, as far as I know, this is true in Judaism and may not be the case in other religions so it's possible that Christianity considers a different heirarchy of sins, Idk.
And of course serial killers are born psychopaths...ted bundy showed distinct signs of being a psychopath when he was a toddler. There are three main behavior characteristics in children that point to becoming a psychopath later in life. And of course it's not the same as being gay and I realize that no one here said it was.
The thing is, we are all born with something, most likely, that we can't help. Like I have bad asthma which I wasn't born with, I was diagnosed as a child but some babies are born with asthma and of course those of us with asthma don't want it but have to live with it and society has to accommodate us to a certain degree.
What qualifies as a sin, though? Incidentally, and I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that the bible distinctly states that homosexuality among males is wrong but says nothing about lesbians. I think the idea being part of the whole, "be fruitful and multiply" thing where men are expected to spread their seed and women, gay or straight can become impregnated as long as any lesbian crosses to the other side for just one night, she too can be fruitful. For men, in a biblical sense, they must get married.

A&A'smommy replied: yes I know was a theory is geez I'm just going to stay out of these posts because I can't seem to say anything without everyone jumping on my post and saying I'm wrong I went to school guys

boyohboyohboy replied:
oh no! dont do that, I feel I am in the minority if you do!!

cameragirl21 replied: I'm not saying you're wrong, Jessy, it's just that scientists have gone beyond theory in saying that people are born gay, it's definitely a matter of biology.
Incidentally, I spoke with a scientist about this last night, and she is a chemist, so this is not her field of expertise but she knows better than I would how theories are proven and she said my assertion that it's impossible to prove that people are born gay is not necessarily correct. That scientists have other ways of proving it beyond a doubt than testing newborn and children's behavioral patterns.
I have a degree in psychology and chemistry but I will defer to someone who has a PhD in chemistry to know more than I would in terms of how science can be proven.
And my friend the scientist says that she is certain, as a scientist, that people are born gay. Again, that doesn't make it so as she's never worked in that field but just bringing new info to the table.
I think what Rocky and I are trying to point out is that scientific theories can be dismissed if someone has evidence or something to suggest the contrary but science is ultimately based on facts, not theories and is therefore not so easily dismissed.

Danalana replied:
I agree. Of course I would love my child, no matter what...but I wouldn't condone it.
I don't believe we are just born homosexuals, but I won't get into what I do believe in this thread. Gah, we just try to justify everything, don't we? Serial killers (no, I'm NOT comparing homosexuals to serial killers!) kill because they didn't get enough hugs...oh, and they also have this area of the brain that is red or something like that. I think it gets to a point when we over-tolerate things. I can love people and show them respect without compromising what I believe, just because that's the way society is turning. I have a very good friend who is a lesbian, and I love her dearly...always will. She knows where I stand on the issue, and it doesn't hurt our relationship. No matter how many scientific "studies" we do, there are some things that are always going to be wrong. Before you know, it NOTHING is going to be wrong...it will all have slipped into a gray area. Why are people afraid to just call things black or white? There's not always a gray area.

And, just to clarify, I am NOT one of those people who would stand with a sign declaring, "God hates fags!" That angers more than anything I have never believed that, and I never will. BUT, He doesn't just turn a blind eye to things that are sin...it will be dealt with.

I know this won't be a popular answer, but that's the great part of this board...I, usually in the minority on moral/ethical issues, still get to express my beliefs.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Exactly, Jennifer.

I'm saying that theory is based on science.

Theories can be proven to be true, or false.

Science is the method of obtaining FACT. ((sorry - my original comment here was "Science is FACT", but really it's the concrete results that are fact, not science itself. Oops, typed too fast!))

Theory is a conclusion based on the interpretation of the methods of science used.

You can disprove a proven theory with science, even though the science has already proven it - because scientific methods evolve, and new methods can discover new information. Which is why theories are constantly changing.

When you disprove a theory, you don't disprove the science behind it - you disprove the conclusion that was based on the interpretation of the science.

It's always a personal choice to believe the theory or not, but concrete results of science are fact, no matter what, whether you choose to believe them or not.

5littleladies replied:
In the eyes of God, neither is worse than the other. That is hard to fathom, I know, but either one is going to cost a person eternity with God. There are no small sins or large sins, they are just sins.

ZandersMama replied: I should really just back away from this thread but im wondering what it is based on that this is a sin.

For everyone who thinks being gay is a choice, why on earth would anyone make a choice that guarentees predijuce and shame? why do people hide it for their whole lives and people dont find out until after they have died that they had another life. Why would someone choose a life that they have to hide in fear of people finding out? because many do. many hide the person they are in love with for fear of public reaction from society. is that a life anyone would choose?

cameragirl21 replied: so Jennifer, you believe then, that your brother is going to hell even though he is saved, or so I presume based on your religious beliefs that I imagine you and he grew up with?
Do you think he can help being gay, in other words, do you believe he chooses to be gay? What do you think would be the right thing for your brother to do?
Also, if this is the case, is it true, then, that you've never told a lie? I mean, do you tell your kids that there is a Santa Claus? If so, isn't that a lie?
Again, not trying to call you out, your opinions always interest me even though they're about 180 degrees from my own, predictably, in every case.
Just curious how you see it and btw, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with how you see it, even if I see it differently.

ZandersMama replied:
The God I know and love and worship would not deny his love and eternal life over who you are in love with.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
I think Pedophilia is wrong, as opposed to homosexuality - because it involves another person who is not of consensual age.

It's not unlike the women who "go for older men"... it's just one's illegal due to the age of majority, and one's not. Everyone has a preference, it's whether that preference is undermining / hurtful / abusive of the other partner in the act.

I think Pedophiles are born with it, yes, and that they cannot and should not be reprimanded for having PRIVATE THOUGHTS. However, that said, should those pedophiles ACT on their private thoughts, either by pictures, video, or the physical act....then it's on like donkey kong. Private thoughts aren't violating someone else's life. Acting on them...is.

How "God deals with it" is a belief that is "to each their own". The God I knew growing up forgives all sins if there is repent. Who someone loves shouldn't be a sin.. isn't love the greatest gift of them all?

If gay people should go to Hell for being gay... so should everyone who tells their kids there is a Santa Claus. Or anyone who has stopped a friendship because they couldn't forgive an action..... or are only some of the sins wrong?

cameragirl21 replied:
ITA

A&A'smommy replied: ok I couldn't stop myself (that and I'm bored)

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

IF they repent, ask God into their hearts and turn away from their sins then they will go to heaven.

cameragirl21 replied: ok, Jess, then is it fair to say that a person can live his life as a homosexual and then repent on his death bed and all will be well? Not knocking it, just trying to understand, obviously your religious beliefs are very different from mine so I am merely trying to understand where you're coming from.
If that is the case, then it seems fair that homosexuals who are also Christians can live their lives the way they were born and then figure they'll repent when the time comes and if that is the case then there is no danger (as far as their soul is concerned) in what they are doing, right?
Again, if it looks like I'm trying to give you a hard time, I'm not, I don't always express myself well in writing vs speaking but I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Incidentally, from my perspective as far as religion is concerned, and btw, I don't consider homosexuality to be a sin at all, nor do I base my opinions on the subject on relgion but in Judaism, homosexuality is, as far as I know, a sin (among men only I think) to Orthodox Jews but not so to reform or conservative Jews. However, Jews don't believe in hell so Idk what the meaning is in terms of eternity, it's just considered wrong in the here and now. Orthodox Jews believe in a type of purgatory hell, that is temporary but non Orthodox Jews don't believe such a place exists at all. So I was told by a handful of rabbis, anyway.
That likely is why homosexuals chose to have their gay pride parade in Jerusalem, which btw, got a bunch of ultra Orthodox Jews all in a tizzy.

boyohboyohboy replied:
very nicely said Dana..

boyohboyohboy replied:
maybe because its wrong????

A&A'smommy replied: No a homosexual cannot be homosexual and be a christian. But yes you can be on your death bed and if you truly mean it, can become saved and go to heaven thats not to say that you wont be judged for your sins (everyone will when they go before Jesus). But you also cannot plan out your sins and then turn around and ask forgiveness

Jason's Papa replied: Wow i'm glad i'm an atheist! Life is much more simple!

boyohboyohboy replied:
If I may also speak to this....
I do tell my kids there is a santa, is it a lie..well I do believe that all the people who do kind things, for nothing in return, and help others are "santa" I dont know if there ever in all of history was someone called clause, but I do believe in the idea that there are "gifts" that people are given and help the less fortunate with..

I also do believe that each person is going to be judged by a higher power that I cant even begin to know all about...I also think each individual case is going to be judged differently..
Is God going to condem each person to a life time Hell that murdered? Only He knows, and are all the people who choose to be gay going to hell? Only He knows..

A&A'smommy replied:
actually their was a St. Nicholos here is a link if you get a chance to read it, pretty neat!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

cameragirl21 replied: ok, Stacy, I like your answer because I think it's fair to admit that none of us truly understands God in terms of how He'll judge us and because perhaps some lies are ok while others are not which precisely how the occupation of lawyer came to be--all things can be interpreted in different ways and the person who can argue it best will usually convince the judge his/her interpretation is correct.
And I hope I don't sound condescending because I really do like your answer, I appreciate when someone with strong beliefs admits s/he doesn't know for sure but can only surmise based on his/her faith and knowledge of scripture, etc.
Here is my next question if someone is willing to answer--it is my understanding that what makes one a Christian is salvation, in other words, asking Jesus to be his/her lord and savior, right? I realize that Catholics have some different beliefs, at least I think they do.
So if one can't be a homosexual and a Christian, what happens when a child becomes saved but grows up to be gay...can one lose his salvation? I was under the impression that once one is saved then that's that, there's no going back. I'm just curious, I don't proclaim to understand Christianity so it's nice to learn. I was just thinking about what an opportunity a forum like this is to learn about other people that we likely would never get to know well IRL.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
NOOOO.

(this is going to be a vicious circle, I can feel it.)

Why would you repent about loving someone? Would you feel such regret about loving someone that you would self-reproach your whole life with this person, just to make sure not to head off to Purgatory? Is contrition by attrition really something you should be proud of?

Is refusing to repent for loving someone not sacrificing yourself and your place in god's heaven for your love? Is altruism not the ultimate act that redeems you in the eyes of God?

Wouldn't, then, having not repented brought you to Heaven by means of altruism, whereas repenting would have made your life a lie, thus bringing you back to one of the original sins? and having to repent the lie you lived, if you truly repented the homosexual acts??



My head hurts.

ZandersMama replied:
I don't believe that is for you to decide, I think that is up to God. And as I said above, the God I know is love.

A&A'smommy replied:
you know I'm not even completely sure about that....different denominations believe different things like baptist (in the south they are somewhat different everywhere) believe once saved always saved but that you can become backslidden which means if you don't ask for forgiveness before you die you can go to hell (i'm still slightly confused), and penecostal (assemblies of God) believe that if you stray from God then you aren't a christian anymore, they don't believe in once saved always saved and thats basicly what methodist believe (United Methodist).

cameragirl21 replied: I'm not saying they should repent, Rocky, as I don't think homosexuality is a sin at all. Just trying to reconcile how one can be a Christian and a homosexual. Here in Miami, there are churches just for gay people so obviously they do believe in Christianity. So if it is a sin in their religion then how do they reconcile it?
For instance, 5littleladies obviously loves her brother but isn't there some way in her mind, based on her beliefs that he could still get to heaven?
I personally don't believe in hell at all so it doesn't matter to me. And it's a good thing too because I'm sure some would consider me a sinner.

A&A'smommy replied:
Ok but according to God it is wrong.

ZandersMama replied:
huh?

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
There WAS. As in, he doesn't exist, he's not going to leave presents for the kids, won't come regardless of whether you're good or not... etc etc... lol

Why are some lies ok, but others are not?

Why are some sexual acts ok, but others are not?

Why do we feel badly for a thief who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family and want to punish a thief who steals a tv?

Why?

because we have COMPASSION.

Without compassion.. there is no love....without love.. there is no hope.. and hope is what keeps the faith.

Compassion is what allows us to be able to repent. The hope that we will be forgiven for our sins and allowed to join Jesus in God's heaven. Compassion is what makes God forgive.

Calimama replied:
Or maybe it's because people judge them and treat them like outcasts? IMO nobody can say whats is wrong and what is right.

Have you guys NEVER sinned?? EVER? Why is it easy to say you (general you) won't allow that behavior in your house and that they are "wrong", when you're (general you) are no better yourself. Isn't that kinda hypocritical? I really don't understand. I believe in God, but I also don't believe in judgments.

A&A'smommy replied:
Yes I meant to mention those churches most of them have twisted what the bible says about homosexuality into their own words to make it OK for them there are LOTS of those kinds of churches.
And actually I'm a sinner too I just pray for God's forgiveness and pray to ask him to help me to continue to live for him and I do what I can to prevent sins like I don't curse ect...

Danalana replied: Some of you wonder how we can "judge" homosexuality as a sin. Well, I don't think the Bible verses Jess put up leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. We ALL sin...Lord knows, I have to repent a lot. The difference is that people who engage in a lifestyle are choosing to stay in it.
What's next?
"Sir, I don't personally choose to have sexual relations with my children, but I understand that you feel it's who you are. It's not a choice for you to make, since you were born this way. Hey, I know! We'll piddle around here in the science lab and see if we can't do some studies...it's probably just a glich in your brain. perfectly normal!"

ZandersMama replied: i am backing out of this thread. i am finding alot of things said in here very offensive and i am going to say something i regret. i love you all, lets agree to disagree.

ETA, because it has to be said, a woman and another woman who are in love having sex is very differant then having sex with your child.

alright im done

Calimama replied:
Sex with a child is a crime. Being gay is not. There is no comparison there.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
No, according to your interpretation and the interpretation of the religious leaders you follow, it is wrong.



Different versions of the bible all over the world.

PrairieMom replied: I believe that this is one of those issues where we all just have to agree to disagree, We can talk in circles forever but we aren't going to be able to change anyone's minds. its pointless.

A&A'smommy replied: OK I'm done!!! Bye guys

stella6979 replied:
So very true.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
To be fair, in several US States, the act of ... well... you know... what gay men tend to do... is still illegal, even between a man and a wife.

Then again, so's eating ice cream on a Sunday on Bank Street is illegal, and you WILL get a ticket if you're caught by a by-law officer.

Danalana replied: All I'm saying is, if you DO claim to believe in God and the Bible, how can you dispute what is written very clearly?
I made the analogy I did because it's ridiculous...just as a lot of the other arguements. I know incest is a crime...did you know that sodomy is a crime also? Why is that?

Calimama replied:
Omg. I'd move.

But yeah you're right. I forgot about those silly laws.

cameragirl21 replied:
I personally believe, as a Jew who is somewhat observant but very liberal minded and with a great deal of respect for science, that biblical text exists for us to base our morals and values and how we perceive right from wrong. It is however, imo, not absolute and remember it was written in a much more simple, rather backward time in history when people were worshipping trees and dropping imperfect newborn babies off of cliffs. I do believe many things are open to interpretation. For starters, it speaks of homosexuality in Corinthians, which btw is NT so I have not studied it in detail, but it doesn't clearly define what homosexuality is...is it possible they had a different definition back then.
For instance, the bible says that Sarah gave birth to Isaac when she was 99 in a time when people rarely lived past 40 or so....do you really believe she was 99 and had him way past menopause or miraculously never went into menopause or do you think it may be possible that they kept time differently back then?
As for a man lying down with another man in Leviticus, what if it is a reference to bearing fruit and multiplying and what if it simply is an allegory to a man's need to reproduce?
We don't have these answers and I believe it's unfair to say anything is abolute based on the bible, we can only interpret it based on our own understanding.

punkeemunkee'smom replied:
The Bible...The story of Sodom...the scriptures that say it is unholy for a man to lay with another man.

Calimama replied:
K what if they don't have sex? Is being Gay still a sin then?

Just curious..

Kentuckychick replied:
It also very clearly states that it is not our job to judge others or to say what is right or wrong. When we die we will all go before God and it will be God's decision. I bet there's not one person here who hasn't sinned...

As for the original question -- I would absolutely accept my child if they came to me and told me they were homosexual. Unlike others here, I have seen friends go through the struggle of being homosexual and I don't believe it is a choice AT ALL. No one would choose to be something so dested in this world.

I would be sad and disappointed for the life I'm sure I'd planned for my child... but their own happiness would restore mine.

Unlike serial killers and pedofiles (which try to claim you're not likening them to those... you are), there is a HUGE difference. They aren't hurting ANYONE. Their relationships aren't hurting you or I at all. Serial Killers and Pedofiles hurt people. That is why their sins are deplorable and must be stopped.

Watch this new movie coming out "Prayers for Bobby".... see what happens when a mother feels the way some of you do about homosexuality. She lost a son forever and now she'll never forgive herself.

Danalana replied:
Denise, I know someone who has had trouble with those thoughts at times, but it non-practicing. From what I have read, it is not a sin to struggle with thoughts, but we do have to take them captive.

Calimama replied:
Thank you for answering!!

PrairieMom replied:
exodus 20 13
You shall not kill

Danalana replied:
I don't believe it can be judging, though, when it clearly states it in the Bible. How is it judging? I don't walk up to gay people and tell them they're going to Hell.
Bottom line is that we all sin. But when we choose to stay in it, we are making a choice.

Kentuckychick replied:

PrairieMom replied:
yeahh.. I got sucked in. Done fighting ladies! love ya all, but I'm outta here!

Danalana replied: There is one issue I would love to address. One of the bigest arguements from homosexuals is "How could God send me to Hell if He is a God of Love?" It's sad, because I do underestand what they're saying. The answer is that God doesn't want ANYBODY in Hell, BUT He--who is without sin--can not be joined WITH sin. If He had just wanted to randomly send people to Hell, he wouldn't have sacrificed His son...it's really pretty much cut and dried. However, if you don't believe in God, it wouldn't matter to you anyway.

boyohboyohboy replied: me too I am out, I dont think that minds are going to be changed here today..

Danalana replied: I'm in, I'm in!!

I'm pretty sure we're going nowhere though.
I wondered what big thing we could debate about after the political threads started to die down

My2Beauties replied:
It also says he who casts the first stone...well you know the rest. Look I'm not going to go into detail, everyone knows what I believe, but there are tons of different versions of the bible and tons of different pastors who will interpret it a different way. I had a girlfriend who was biracial, her boyfriend was white. He was going to the seminary to study religion and we all got into a heated debate one night about a scripture because he totally took it a completely different way. I don't the exact scripture but it said something to the effect that a man shall not date outside of his race but it used a weird word (they used holy words, thee, thou, shalt, blah blah blah) so it blatantly said something about not dating outside your race, he took it as not dating outside of your religion (a christian being with a jew for instance) but myself and my other girlfriend took it as meaning you cannot date outside of your race. He was justifying what it said because he was dating a bi-racial woman...he was twisting it around. His teacher at the seminary who knew his girlfriend ( so he says) even told him that it meant not to date or marry or whatever outside religion, to me it blatantly meant race....so different strokes for different folks, different people take things different ways. This is why I don't believe in one thing, if you see how many of our different religions came about (History class in college) it would blow your mind. I just can't wrap my head around centering my whole life around a book. I understand murder is wrong, I understand rape is wrong, I understand that pedophilia is dead wrong, because it's not consensual, it's a crime. Two gay men are consensual - that's the difference. If a gay man rapes another gay man or another straight man for that matter that's rape, it's wrong because it wasn't consensual!!! Ok, It got long sorry! I don't understand how a person can wake up and say oh by the way I'm gay I like men/women I want to be made fun of, shunned by the world, hide my true feelings, and treated different than everyone else. Why do you think most gay men are so feminine??? It makes sense that it's scientific.

LovinMama replied: So I've been sitting back and reading over all of the responses to this, and I must say I'm a little sad. While there have been some really positive comments, I'm amazed at the negative views of some. I think everyone should read the book Prayers for Bobby. It's an amazing story about a gay son, who comes out to his mother. The mother then chooses not to accept him, as many of you have suggested would be the case in your lives. Needless to say, something happens to make the mother reevaluate her decisions and views on people, and life. Check it out, and then post your feelings on this very topic after you've read it.. i think there's a movie, too - but I haven't seen it so I can only vouch for the book.

cameragirl21 replied:
ITA and that's the last thing I'm going to say on this topic.

boyohboyohboy replied:
not one person here said that they would not accept their CHILD, it was said that the behavior or action would not be accepted...

Danalana replied: I agree. I don't even dislike gay people, for pete's sake! I've had some good friends who were gay.
LeaAnn, if you really believe your faith, that's why you "base your life around a book". That is the essence of it.
I agree that life isn't easy for gay people. I don't support harrassment of any kind, and I find it sad. I wouldn't cast my child away and have nothing more to do with him/her. But, just because I my love some people who are homosexual, doeesn't mean that I will stop believing the way I do. The Word of God doesn't change. No matter what we believe, there will be a final word, and it won't be ours.
Surprisingly, even out new liberal president doesn't support gay marriage. Why is that? Seriously, I don't know. I know that he supports civil union rights, but why not gay marriage? I doubt his voters whould have turned on him, since so many of them are also liberal. Just wondering if anybody here knows.

PrairieMom replied:
next breast feeding, then CIO, then spanking.

msoulz replied: My 2 cents . . .

choice or not, born or learned, IMHO a person's sexual preference does not harm other people so why do other people feel they need to judge or condemn or approve of it? That is WAY different from a person w/o conscience, e.g. the serial killer example. Why should anyone care what others neighbors are doing in their bedrooms?

Danalana replied: That's the point....somebody ASKED how we would feel or what we would say. I don't go around proclaiming my beliefs about it, but I will if asked.

luvmykids replied:
Very well said, Dana.

The only other thing I have to add is I'm sure glad I was gone all day today

Danalana replied: Haha...I wish I HAD been! I actually hate arguing. I guess some things just do it for me.

Nina J replied: IMO, no one can say with 100% certainty that they know who will go to Heaven and who won't. Yes, the Bible give advice. But no one here has died. No one here has met a dead homosexual. So until you have, you cannot say with 100% certainty who God will accept and who He won't.

I personally believe God will accept homosexuals. I cannot see God turning away a kind person, who never has a bad word against anyone, who helps others, etc. because he loves another man.

Then again, I am not homosexual. I don't understand the people who protest homosexuality publicly. Not anyone here, I would be shocked to learn someone here was cruel to another person based on sexual preference. But the people who, like someone else said, hold up signs saying God hates Homosexuals's, I don't get them. I don't understand why they feel the need to do that. What does a complete strangers sexual orientation have to do with them. Do they think God will deny them because a complete stranger to the person was homosexual? Do they think standing up with a derogatory sign in public, looking like a fool, will make them more favourable in the eyes of their Lord?

I personally feel accepting others, helping others, etc. is much more productive. And learning from your experiences. I have learnt accepting others and being kind, as oppossed to standing up and declaring your hatred for people you do not know, is much nicer. Although I have never stood up and said I hated someone publicly, so I don't know where I learnt this, lol. (Again, I am saying this in reference to the public anti-Gays who demonstrate, not anyone here).

msoulz replied:
It has been my experience in life that those who feel they are closest to the Lord are the most intolerant and the first to let everyone else know about it. But that is just my experience and as you said, not directed toward anyone here. This is an awesome idea and opinion sharing place where we can learn from each other.

TheOaf66 replied:


These threads crack me up

Ok some points to address but before I do first a disclaimer: Everything I put here is based on my own interepretations and beliefs, if you do not agree with it ok, I am not personally attacking you just putting in my input and I apologize in advance if you are offended by anything that I say


1. If you are saved that is not your 1 way ticket to heaven. It is an ongoing relationship you have with Christ. The bible says those who "believe in me" will go to heaven. YOu can't say you do and then lead an "intentional" sinful life.

It is like marriage vows, you cant stand on the alter and say your vows and then go on cheating on your spouse...would that still be called married? Just because you say it in the beginning does not make it a golden ticket. You have to HONOR the words.

2. We are all sinners, no one can dispute that. No one sin is worse then the other, sin is sin regardless. But having read the bible myself, I know the guidelines set forth by God and by deliberately going against what the word states is against God. So homosexuality is a sin, by leading that lifestyle you are going against God...which is why you cannot be both homosexual and Christian. If you do not repent for your sins and continue along the same path then you are not keeping up the relationship with Christ, you are doing it under false pretenses.

3. We should ban ALL religious debates on here because there is to much diversity and it is a lot of my ideas are right and when it comes to biblical issues a lot of it is interpretation.

4. With the original question...would I disown the boys no, but they will know all through their lives that is is morally, spiritually, and for me physically wrong. That is what my family and I believe and if somone disagrees well "to each his own". I don't believe being "gay" is something you're born with, a lot of times it is plain old confusion and sometimes it is pop culture pressure from the outside.

5. As for the debate over the impact of the sin, everyone will find out come rapture I guess

jcc64 replied: The most disturbing thing I've read on here today is this:


For people who are calling for a literal interpretation of the Bible, that is a very disturbing statement to me. I have 2 thoughts on the matter:
1. It certainly explains how some people justified their decision to impale Matthew Shepphard, someone else's beloved child, on a fence until he slowly bled to death, alone. I guess "his blood was on his own head" according to the good book.
2. How can this be possibly be reconciled with the 10 commandments?! It's a direct contradiction of "Thou Shalt Not Kill!", is it not? or "Do unto others..."

Boo&BugsMom replied: Oh boy...I'm just going to say this.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Yes I do think it's a sin. The Bible clearly lays out the roles of man and WIFE throughout it's entire text. It's NOT judging...judging means that you are saying it will land them in hell. I don't think it's anymore a sin than any other sin...lying, stealing...those are choices people make that make their life harder aren't they? So when you ask, why would a person choose a life that's hard...aren't a LOT of choices we make in life make life harder to live? Don't think being a Christian is easy peasy...people mock you too. This is why I relish in the forgiveness of Christ, Our Savior...he has forgiven all of our sins, big and small. Taking text from the Old Testament needs to be paralleled with the New Testament in order to get the true Biblical truths...so if someone is going to quote Christian scripture, please quote is accurately with parallels from the NT. When Jesus came, it changed a heck of a lot.

Sure I would be dissapointed, and I would probably feel that I didn't do something right to guide my child in a Godly fashion. But, I love my children no matter what because God loves them no matter what. Getting into Heaven isn't based on your deeds/sins (enter Jesus), it's what is in your heart.

luvmykids replied:
It's the context of this specific verse vs the 10 commandments.....I'll try to keep this brief, and explain it as simply as I can: Before Christ came, there was no redemption for sin, only punishment. The consequences varied, from requiring a sacrifice of some kind to being put to death. After Christ is when forgiveness from God became possible.

I know many people feel the Bible contradicts itself, or that some areas are open to interpretation and some should be taken literally....I understand that completely but it's hard to explain the context of any one verse without going much, much deeper.

"Do unto others", "Judge not lest ye be judged", "Thou shalt not kill"....they have all become popular catch phrase type verses that really can't be held next to each other, if that makes any sense.

Kaitlin'smom replied: wow so this is what I get to come back to after being home sick the last 2 days.

I am only going to adress the original question. It would not bother me one bit, so as long as its HER choise and SHE is happy I will support her.

A&A'smommy replied: is this STILL going???

Jeanne thats why I quoted that one from the NT also, back in the old testament days if you broke a law (any law) you were put to death. After Jesus came back it wasn't like that anymore he DIED for us and then came back as the ONLY way to heaven. I was just showing that even AFTER Jesus came back homosexuality was still a sin. (for some reason I hear a LOT that all the laws in the OT wasn't valid after Jesus died).

The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (so saying that homosexuality is a sin is not judging just repeating what our God has told us in his word)It us teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When a person continues in sin and disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Read Romans 1:24-27 its VERY specific


Dana don't feel bad I HATE to argue too.. I had this SAME debate (because I was telling her about this thread) with my best friend yesterday.

jcc64 replied: Thanks for the clarification, Jessy Ann, I am certainly no biblical scholar!
So help me out here, the Old Testament is pre-Jesus and for lack of a better word, sort of "old school?" Do I have that right? So nobody is running around advocating for bloodshed, then? Or are there some sects that do adhere to the Old Testament teachings as well?

Boo&BugsMom replied:
According the The Word, God calls us to tell our brothers and sisters when they have sinned. As parents, don't we do that when our children are naughty? God is Our Father...no different. It's not an intolerance, it's about standing up for God's Word and what he proclaims as just (with some it may be an intolerance, I can't vouch for every person). However, God also calls us to love one another as he loves us. Of course there are going to be believers who claim they are holier than thou and their crap don't stink...and that is SO a pet peeve of mine because then I have to work twice as hard to turn around their damage. I have met many people in my life who have turned people away from Christ because of their actions, and it makes me sad. But, we are all still sinners. Flawed, and we all have our own flaws.

Jeanne...yes, you pretty much explained it and I think you have it.

A&A'smommy replied:
let me be a bit more specific

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, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
That is a list of sinful desires something everyone is born with and most Christians will struggle with none are perfect and no one will live the perfect life only Christ did that. If a Christian struggles with gay thoughts then that doesn't necessarily make that person gay, if a person struggles with thoughts of wanting to be drunk all the time does that make that person an alcoholic. See what i'm getting at? If a Christian commits a homosexual sin but desires for God to truly forgive them and move on with their life then that doesn't make them gay either. Just because a person lies occasionally doesn't make them a liar as long as they desire NOT to sin and ask God to forgive them and help them to move on, no sin is greater than any other sin. But you CANNOT plan to on sleeping with another person of the same sex whenever please (whether it be the same person or not)

A&A'smommy replied:
OH NO please don't get me wrong!!!!! Thats why I posted both verses!!

Boo&BugsMom replied:
This is new to me. Thank you for it, I'm going to study up on it and see what I come up with. I have been lacking a lot in my Biblical studying lately, and I really need to be more on top of things.

A&A'smommy replied:
I have too google helps though when you are wanting to look up something a little more specific or gotquestions.or thats where I got a LOT of my information on this subject and it helps me word it better!!

Boo&BugsMom replied:
REPENTING is what you're getting at right? Repenting, meaning asking for forgiveness, admitting you are doing wrong, and trying to change it. For the most part I completely agree. Not that I don't argee. I need to do some more reading and studying.

Danalana replied: As far as understanding the Bible goes, you can't just read it apart from God and understand it. And still, there are things that we will never completely understand. BUT, without the Holy Spirit in your heart, the scriptures won't make sense...it will seem like contradiction. Especially if you just read the old testament. As was previously stated, Jesus died so that people were no longer under the law (death). He came so that there would be redemption. And someone stated that they believed God would accept homosexuals if they were "good". Sadly (but wonderfully, at the same time), salvation is not because of anything we can do or earn. it is because of grace THROUGH faith. Without that, you can be as good as gold, and it won't matter.
Anyway, I really just wanted to address the scripture about homosexuals being put to death...there was no redemption for sin before Jesus. There was no other way to be forgiven. Old testament...New testament....they're both pretty clear in that it is an abomination. I don't know about you, but it's hard to make "abomination" sound like something that is approved of.
I truly was going to stay out of it, but NOW we are having a Biblical debate

A&A'smommy replied:
seriously gotquestions.org is VERY helpful I always go back and read my bible and seems to help a LOT!!!

Thanks Dana I agree it does seem to contradict itself until you have the the holy spirit guiding you!!!

jcc64 replied: So Jessy, I'm getting it wrong? Jennie said I was on the right track with the Old Testament / New Testament thing. Help me understand the distinction so I'm not misconstruing your intentions.

A&A'smommy replied:
In the OT Jesus was not born and if you went against the law then you were put to death, in the NT Jesus was born and died for our sins when he died everyone was given choices and chances but still the only way to heaven is Jesus.

My reason for posting both is NOT because I believe someone should be put to death for sleeping with someone of the same sex but because I was comparing the fact that the laws didn't change as far as what is a sin. Homosexuality is still considered a sin from beginning of time and even after Jesus died for us, but now we don't have to die for our sins.


So yes to answer your question you are on the right track.. I get a little long winded when it comes to the bible I want to make sure I"m understood.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
New to me as well, as the term "homosexual" was a term coined in 1869 by Karl Maria Kertbeny.

1869 is a fair bit of time for a word to be invented after the word had already been in the bible for centuries.

Danalana replied: I think I am getting a brain hemorrhage!
Honestly, I don't know that it would matter if Jesus himself came down and audible said to every person, "Homosexuality is a sin. Continuing in that lifestyle ultimately results in death." People would still argue

*sigh* My 9-year old nephew has gotten into the phase where he wants to argue about everything. If somebody says something, he wants to contradict it...it's exhausting, and he's only 9!

Danalana replied:
I think I will invent a word....let's see....
how about "cheese"?

Hillbilly Housewife replied: lol Dana!



I think it's great that everyone can discuss this and not have a freak out.

FWIW - I don't care what anyone believes in, really, because bottom line is nobody will actually know until they die.. at which point it's too late to say "ha ha, told ya!"

I just enjoy talking about the differences in what we believe, and why. I don't see it as arguing, rather expanding my horizons.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
It's not new to me as in it being a sin. The passage is a new one to me as a whole is what I was getting at. I had never heard it interpreted that way. I want to look it up to see what the passage says verbatum because each person can get their own interpretation. Even though the Bible doesn't say the term 'homosexual', it still does talk about the same sex being together.

DANA...AMEN sister!

A&A'smommy replied:
9Know 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,

King James version a revised translation in 1611

The last verse was from the NIV

Hillbilly Housewife replied:


To each his own interpretations, but I see nothing about homosexuality.

Danalana replied: There is a place in Romans where God finally gave up on this city of people...it says that he finally gave them over to a reperbate (spelling?) mind. Among the things they were doing...Men lying with men and women lying with women. As far as I know, that is homosexuality. If I need to, I can find the exact verse.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
And this would be a perfect example of why the Bible needs to be studied as a whole. And along with that...the history of that time needs to be studied with it as well so get the most clear understanding.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Even so, Jennie, the Bible will always be subject to interpretation, and people will always dissagree on something.

Glad we can disagree so nicely, though

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Absolutely...that is why there are so many different versions and many different denomonations just within the Christian church itself. And that is one reason why I am not getting too much into the "debate" part.

Danalana replied: Rocky, here is the scripture I was referring to (the term in the King James version is "reprobate mind", but I am quoting from the New International Version...it's just in today's terminology).

Romans 1 18-32

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

I understand that some things could be interpreted differently, but this doesn't seem too open for interpretation. It can't get much clearer. Oh, and this was the city of Rome, obviously I knew it was on Romans and couldn't remember the city?

Hillbilly Housewife replied: I agree that this part:



plain as day refferences to homosexual acts.

I'd love to see the original, though, not in today's terminology, to see what the actual wording was that was interpreted to come out to this. I'd like to see what it was before it was modified.

Danalana replied: Coming up! King James Version....

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And 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.


I like using the King James AND athe Amplified or NIV, jsut because I like seeing the easier version to go along with it. On the other hand, i also like seeing the original translation.

cameragirl21 replied: one thing I want to clarify is that the OT is the Torah, the Jewish bible and while Judaism allows for the death penalty, back then the form of it was stoning and it was only allowed once every 70 years so homosexuals were not put to death during the OT times. A sin was not necessarily punishable by death. Incidentally, in Israel, the death penalty is legal but no one has been executed since Eichmann in 1961. Obviously they don't do stoning anymore.
However, the OT is very violent, certainly, as God told the Jews to kill all Amalekites, including their men, women, children, and all their livestock. Amalekites were Jews' enemies. The Jews refused to do it, we are not killers by nature and as a result, we've had scores of enemies who've tried to annihilate us since time immemorial--the assyrians, babylonians, ancient egyptians, persians, romans, nazis, etc...nearly all our holidays are a celebration of our escaping our own genocide--Hannukah, Passover, Purim, and I'm sure there may be others but those are the major ones. There are many scholars who say that all of Jews' enemies are descendants of Amalek.
That said, there are some rabbinical scholars who argue that Palestinians are modern day Amalek and therefore should be, well, killed off. This was hard for me to even type, much less say out loud because as much as I really don't care for Palestinians, the idea of my people committing genocide on them is just unthinkable. A rabbi here and there may believe it's the will of God but in practice we will never do it. As such, we will have enemies till the Messianic Era is upon us.
Jeanne, I know you have little interest in the bible but there are some aspects that are not without interest, even for someone who has little interest in it. For instance, the bible predicts that Jews will be returned to their homeland (Israel) from which they were banished when the Romans conquered it (AD 70) and that the temple will be rebuilt. Obviously, this prophecy has been fulfilled when modern Israel came into being in 1948. Interestingly, the mosque that Muslims built over the ruins of the destroyed Jewish temple is already starting to fall apart because Muslims are tunneling under it, trying to destroy any evidence of Jewish history there so as to solidy their claims to the land and in so doing, are so weakening its foundation that it's literally falling apart. Once its down, the temple will be rebuilt and we will likely see that in our lifetime. The bible also predicts that Jews are protected by God (as a people, not each individual Jew) and will always survive which is precisely what's happened during and since biblical times--every attempt at genocide failed even though the Jews were the weaker party. The bible says that no one can destroy Israel upon the ingathering of Jews there which has also been true--every attack has left Jews outnumbered and with inferior weapons (till recently when the US got involved and sent weapons) and still, they always won. The bible also says that God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse her. Notice how the US is Israel's really only true friend and as the world is falling into a recession and all sorts of problems arise all over the world, the US has retained superpower status and remains the most major of players while other countries, like the USSR for instance, that helped arabs fight Israel in 73 lost their superpower status and collapsed...there is no USSR anymore.
Furthermore, this battle started with Isaac (the forefather of Jews) and Ishmael (the forefather of arabs), both of whom were the sons of Abraham. The bible says that Ishmael would be an @$$ of a man who would always be a thorn in Ishmael's side, which we are seeing to this day, no?
Not trying to turn this into a Jew fest, just pointing out that no matter how little regard you have for religion and the bible in particular, there are aspects of it that are coming true and that are hard to deny as simple coincidence. Just some food for thought when you consider your opinions/beliefs on these things.

Danalana replied: Jennifer, you are right about America and Israel (not saying you weren't about the other stuff). I believe the reason God has continued to bless this nation is BECAUSE of its stance with Israel. I just pray that our authorities continue to have the sense to stand with them...after all, they are God's chosen.

Insanemomof3 replied:
Ok so what you are saying is that Me, being with a woman, I am going to hell because of it? I do NOT believe that. Wow, I am just as bad as a pedophile. That makes me sad to know that people think like that. That hurts.

Insanemomof3 replied:
Wow, not only am I as bad as a pedophile but NOW I am not a Christian too. That is awesome that you guys can sit there and judge homosexuals and decide who is going to heaven and who isn't. That is for God to judge I thought.

A&A'smommy replied:
no one said that the person is bad, homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. If you have a chance take the time to read the rest of of this thread

A&A'smommy replied:
You need to read the rest of the thread before quoting someone.

Danalana replied: Denise, I think it is incredible merciful that God doesn't "grade" sins. Nobody thinks of you as a pedophile. The reason all sin might as well be the same is that God can't be in the same place as sin. That's why, when Jesus was dying on the cross, God had to turn away from him. He had taken on our sin, and God had to turn away.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Honey, you're on my myspace, aren't you? take a look at my profile.

It makes me sad, too.

Insanemomof3 replied: Well, I used be believe it was wrong, but then things happened in my life to change my mind. If my kids are gay, then I just hope that they are happy in life and I will support them until the day I die. That is REALLY what is right.

Danalana replied:
Denise, I would never just judge somebody and tell them they are going to Hell. If you are a Christian, though, you know that the scriptures posted above are in the Bible. We aren't judging at all....that would be like we were making it up. I don't want to make anybody feel bad. The original post was asking how we would respond if one of our kids told us they were homosexual. There were a few who would not support it, and of course were attacked. That is why we have this debate going on. Only you know your heart and what is there...all I can go by is my faith and what I believe to be the Word of God. You (and everybody else) have to work out your own thing.

Danalana replied:
I would love mine endlessly, regardless. BUT, if you believe something to be wrong, you don't support it. Think of something YOU believe is wrong...would you support one of your kids if they ended up participating in that?

DunkinLover replied: That's the point though, isn't it. You're NOT supporting your child if you condemn a lifestyle that is not chosen. Homosexuals are gay, because they're gay. The didn't choose to be gay, and even if they did - so what. I honestly think everyone in here should watch the Prayers for Bobby movie tomorrow and think really hard about this topic... just look at what the mother goes through, and imagine in. Here's the trailer and an interview with Sigourney Weaver (she's playing the mom):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vAfBXW1e6U

http://weblogs.cw11.com/news/local/morning...y_w_1.html#more

If it interests you then check it out tomorrow night at 9 on lifetime. I hope everyone's day isn't as stressful as this topic!

Danalana replied: I have seen the commercials for that movie and am not without sympathy. Again, if your child made choices that YOU deemed wrong or harmful to them overall, you would not support it. It could be anything. But, if it were something that you really believed, you wouldn't say "Oh, how wonderful!" You can love people and not tell them that what they are doing is right.

TLCDad replied:
With that logic, then you would say your not supporting your child if they rob a bank because you think it is wrong.

You can support and love your child and still disagree with their actions and choices.

And yes, to me any type of homosexual or gay lifestyle is a choice just like marrying 3 wifes is a choice or other immoral acts. I do not agree or condone it but does not mean I hate the person either and I would be happy to witness why I can not morally agree or accept the actions/choice if they asked. God and Jesus teaches us to witness but not to over judge.

And as for science stating that "they are born with it, I do not agree logically or scientifically as most homosexuals go "both" ways. It is a choice, just like it is a choice to sleep around.

Danalana replied:
So what? Because you, as the parent, believes it is morally wrong. Maybe you can support your child if they make choices that you believe are wrong...I don't think most can. Loving and supporting are different things. It's wonderful when the 2 can come togeteher, but it can't always. I feel terrible for gay people who are harrassed and tormented, and don't support that one bit. But the fact that they have to live a hard life doesn't change anything. Following Christ isn't an easy life. BEING Christ wasn't an easy life. As far as I know, lots and lots of us have had a difficult road to hoe at different times.

Insanemomof3 replied: I think that supporting robbing a bank, and being homosexual is TOTALLY different. Robbing a bank in fact IS a choice, not to mention illegal. Homosexuality is NOT choice or illegal. So don't you think that is different?

I gotta work now. be back later.

jcc64 replied:

I believe you are 100% sincere about the above statement. However, if you are going to argue for a morality that is "exclusive" rather than "inclusive," you have to accept the fact that you will in fact be making some people feel badly for who they are. You can't have it both ways, kwim? Similarly, it is hard to reconcile your view that homosexuality is a condemnable, sinful "choice" that flies in the face of what God wants, with the statement that you "aren't judging at all." If that's not a judgment, what is, in your mind?

TLCDad replied:
Again to me it is a choice and an unacceptable behavior just like breaking the law. Maybe not a good analagy. It would be the same if they choose to live with and have sexual relations with two other people of the opposite sex. It is something that I would not approve of but does not mean I would not love them any differently.

My point being you can still love your child even if they do things you disapprove with. It is your responsibility as a parent to explain/witness why.

Danalana replied: Jugding would be taking something and interpreting it as I see fit. I don't believe repeating clear scripture is judging. Nobody has to believe me, but that is my faith, and is written in the book that I believe is the inspired word of God. Just like when people write a zillion things about the environment, global warming, the economy...these are things that have learned/read and believe it to be true. Is that judging for those of us who don't recycle everything?

TLCDad replied:
This one thing I never could understand about the far left liberals. They all want Christians to be open minded and not offend people. What about them offending us? Its like we have to agree with everyone's lifestyles otherwise were offensive? That makes no sense to me? What about the opposite?

And what is even funnier is they to tend to be judemental and then complain that they are being judged.

And this is coming from someone who leans left.

Calimama replied:
I have to say, If I were gay and my parents made some of the comments I've read here, I wouldn't have much of a relationship with them.

My sister is a lesbian, she left our family and didn't speak to us for YEARS because she knew her being lesbian goes again the religion we were raised with. When she finally "came out" my dad said she was a sinner and that it hurt him but still welcome and she stopped speaking to us for another year or so. Finally my mom called her and said, I don't care who/what you are or do, just come back and be my daughter. I just don't think I would be willing to risk losing my daughter (and it COULD happen) just to get the point across that I think what she's doing is a sin, KWIM?

Danalana replied: I just want to say that I never would have taken any of this so far....but the few of us who wouldn't condone the lifestyle were made to feel like unloving parents, so I felt the need to explain and defend. See, the "attacking" can (and does) go both ways.

Calimama replied:
I don't think any of you are unloving parents. It's very clear how much you love Kade. He's a lucky kid.

Danalana replied:
Denise, I understand your point...I honestly do. But I can guarantee that if you thought it meant Miabella's soul, you would tell her the truth. I'm not saying you do believe that, but IF you did, you wouldn't just pat her on the back.
My kids are going to know our faith and beliefs about everything. They'll also know they are loved unconditionally. If that's wrong, then so be it.

Danalana replied:
Thank you

Calimama replied:
Yeah that's true.

Very interesting. It's like for example, if Miabella did drugs. I'd love her but I'm sure as heck not letting it happen in my house and I'd try to get her to go to rehab and quit.

I guess I'm just not sure you can "quit" being gay.. kwim? So how many times do you tell your kid that you think it's wrong? That's the part I don't understand.

I'm not saying being gay is like doing drugs though, I'm just giving an example.

Danalana replied: I'm not going to walk around proclaiming it. When they get older, they will start asking questions, and then we will tell them. Mostly, the way we live will show them. Does that make sense? I'm never going to downgrade anybody or talk about gay people like they are inferior or second-class citizens, and I don't ever want to hear them do it either.
And thank you for understanding what I meant...I understand what you mean too.

luvmykids replied:
These are my sentiments exactly, on a wide array of topics. I feel like it's almost guaranteed I will be called judgemental, yet I am judged for my beliefs by people who in most cases have very little understanding of where they come from....I don't see the difference.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
AMEN to that!

Insanemomof3 replied: I am Christian. I am well, not gay, but bisexual. I have a very open mind and try to never be judgmental. I am not perfect, I make many mistakes, and yes I do judge at times. That is the human way. The only reason I was "offended" really is because some of the comments on this thread basically told me that I can't be a Christian if I am gay. I guess part of the problem with me is this...I told my parents about my relationship and at first they told me while they don't like the idea, they would support me no matter what. When it came time for me to go home and visit, they treated me like the plague. Now I do understand that they don't like my decision, and that is fine, but treating me like I am no longer part of the family hurts like crazy and so I see that they lied to me in telling me that they would support me. It has been an ongoing thing for the last few months. My sister just had her baby, and I was told they don't want me to come visit right now, to "let her settle in for a few weeks." Yet everyone else in the family has visited and seen the baby. Coincidence on my lifestyle? Maybe, but probably not.

I am just trying to point out, from a point of view that our children MAY have in the future, how parents can make a child (adult or not) feel about his/her lifestyle. Does that make sense? I have experience in the matter so I am trying to let you all know how that feels.

Cece00 replied: Well, I dont believe people choose to be gay, and I dont believe being gay is a sin.

So while I would probably be a little sad that my little "dream" of how life would be would be different and life might be harder for my kid, I really would not feel any differently about my child.

I will love my kids whether they are gay or straight or whatever. I support them, and I want them to be happy and I want them in my life.

ZandersMama replied:
sorry your familys not treating you right.

A&A'smommy replied:

Link

This will clear up what the BIBLE, Gods words says about that!! I'm sorry you treated that way. Even though I would support what my children were doing I wouldn't EVER turn them away and it hurts me that any parent would do that!!! [B]

Danalana replied: Denise, I am sorry about your family. I hope I made it clear that I would not treat my child that way...or anybody else, for that matter.
And, so you know, I understand in a small way. As you may know, I live in Alabama. My grandmother is from the old school of thinking, as far as racial relationships go. To be fair, so are the older african american people. Anyway, we have had many arguments about race, since I can't stand racism (I said earlier that I can't stand for anybody to be treated differently). I remember a conversation we had before I ever met Richard. I asked her "Nanny, what if I fall in love with, and marry a black person?" There wasn't anybody I was interested in...it was just to get her answer. She told me I wouldn't be welcome at her house anymore. It really hurt me, but it's not like I'm used to being close to family. Anyway, then I asked her, "So, if we had a baby, you wouldn't ever want to meet it?" She said "No." SO, I know it isn't the same thing, but I DO know what unconditional love is like. Apparently, I am "loved" and accepted, as long as everything is approved. I ended up telling her that I didn't care. I ended up telling her how I felt, and she never mentioned it again. It wasn't even about me liking an african-american (to my knowledge, Denzel Washington is the only one I have liked )...it was about how stupid it was to disown somebody over something like that. She had a black friend, Tina, at the time (they were neighbors), and she felt the same way about her grandkids. My grandmother was raised that way. And I mean harshly. Her father told her if he ever saw her talking to a black boy, he would kill her So, I can understand how this stuff happens to people, even though it's not right.
I said all that to demonstrate that many families are capable of ostracizing their kids/grandkids. It might not be about homosexuality, but it still happens.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: I can't judge a person for the choices that they make.. the choices they make don't define them as a person. I might think differently of them... but my child would be my child, regardless. While they may make choices that I wouldn't agree with, nor support - I'd still love them unconditionally, and would still be their mother...

if my child was a murderer - I wouldn't support the act that they did, and I would be incredibly sad and hurt about the choice that they made.. but they would still be my child, and i would still love them.

Nina J replied:
How can you say you do not particuarly care for Palestinian's? Every single Palestinian person is not favourable in your view? Infants, children?

I don't mean to offend you, but saying you don't care for Palestinian's is quite a harsh statement to make. It gives me the impression you are saying this in relation to every Palestinian.

You were not very specific so from my point of view, you have said you do not like any person of Palestinian heritage. And for all you know, that could be me, or my husband, or someone near and dear to me. And you could dislike us without even knowing us.

redchief replied: Wow, how did I miss out on all of this? Me being one of the few resident Catholics and all...

Hmmm... I like excerpted quotes, but this thread has gotten so long I hope that some of them haven't become irrelevant. Here goes anyway.

That's not exactly true either. Sins are indeed graded, and you can't even take a particular sin and grade it generally, because it is the level of intent to do evil that actually grades the sin. If you want to read more about sin, check out this site.

If my son or daughter were to tell me he or she was gay, I would be supportive and would still love them with all my heart. I would feel for the societal pressures they would have to endure, and I'd be disappointed in the much reduced potential for grandchildren. But my love would never waiver.

ZandersMama replied:
beautifully said Ed.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Ed, I wouldn't use a blanket statement and say that about all Catholic churches, as most in my area would completely disagree with you.

boyohboyohboy replied: I also believe that having homosexual thoughts are also sins of lust..
its just the same as a married man thinking of having sex with another woman other then his wife...the thoughts are wrong also.

jcc64 replied: Ed, you rock!

Danalana replied: Ed, I completely disagree. If your Bible (and as far as I know, we have the SAME Bible) says that a man sleeping with another man, (and the same for women) is an abomination...and Homosexuality IS sleeping with someone of the same sex....does it have to use the word? I don't think so. I took a logics class in college, and there is just no way to dispute it :lol People will always "interpret" for however they want to justify their lives. But if you leave it alone and take it for what it says, it's kinda hard to justify that one.

Danalana replied: And I will never believe that there are "bigger" sins than others. In our eyes, of course. If it were true that some sins are bigger than others (to God), why would Jesus have come to be the sacrifice for our sin?

luvmykids replied:
My thought too....aren't we splitting hairs to say the word "homosexual" wasn't actually IN the original Bible?

And I understand Catholicism "grades" sins, hence the different "punishments" (one Hail Mary for this, etc) but Christianity doesn't....

redchief replied: I don't believe we're splitting hairs when I say that being gay and living a promiscuous gay lifestyle are two very different things. The Church is clear in teaching that sexual actions outside of marriage is immoral. In fact, the US Catholic Bishops in 2006 released a pastoral paper on the handling of the issue of homosexuality. Further the paper speaks to all disordered sexual activity as being sinful. That's my argument. That all of us have, at least once in our lifetimes, committed a moral sin of disordered sexual conduct, and therefore we have no right or reason to judge anyone else because they are predisposed to being homosexual, for having homosexual tendencies in and of themselves are not sinful. Read the pastoral paper here if you're interested.

Please don't mock my sacramental faith. I do not mock anyone else's beliefs. When we disagree, we should strive to do so without degradation. The Catholic Church was, after all, the original Christian faith.

jcc64 replied:

Beautifully and succinctly said, Ed!

lisar replied: I am not going to get into all the other things on this topic (dont have time today) however I will say that if one of mine came home and told me she was gay I would love her no matter what. I might not like the decision but I will love her and support her no matter what. And its not a religion thing for me at all.

And I do think you are born that way.

luvmykids replied:
I wasn't mocking you in any way, sorry if I came off that way, and have no problem with you standing behind your faith just as I do mine. My point was that although the actual word may not be there, IMHO there are clear references to it. And yes, according to Catholicism, we've all committed sexual acts that are outside of pro-creation but doesn't that then further back up that in God's eyes, homosexuality is wrong? It definitely is not pro-creative sex...again, in my belief one sin isn't worse than another but how is homosexuality NOT wrong, based on the statement that anything outside of sex for the purpose of pro creating is?

I'm wondering if there is a clarification I missed somewhere, are you saying the Catholic church doesn't feel being homosexual is a sin but living the lifestyle of it is?

LovinMama replied: I hate to have this discussion based upon religion, because like so many other topics, there is no way to meet halfway. No one is willing to accept that perhaps, just maybe, something is wrong or out-dated in their religion. I believe that while there may be things in the Bible that seem to condemn homosexuality (along with the hilarious list of other "sins" mentioned earlier - all of which we have conveniently allowed to change into acceptable actions, including those of you who state that God is against homosexuality according to your religion) God does not judge us on how often we go to church, how many times we pray, or whether or not we are gay or straight. We are judged on our character, our moral values, and above all else, the way we treat those around us. If someone is a good person, they're a good person. That's it. Homosexual does not equal hell, and heterosexual does not equal heaven. I think it's easy for us to condemn lifestyles that make us uncomfortable, but we all have to remember that you don't have to "understand" homosexuality, but you should accept it just as you would a man and woman being together. For any of us to say that the LOVE between a man and a man, or woman and a woman, isn't the same as a heterosexual couple is just ridiculous. You may not be in love with a member of the same sex, nor do you have the right or ability to pass any form of judgment; doing so, is simply prejudice. Like one of you mentioned you are SO against racism (which I think is wonderful, as I feel the same way), I always find it interesting when that acceptance of race doesn't extend to sexuality.. and religion... etc. It's all a form of prejudice. Perhaps you should all check out Prayers for Bobby the movie, and see what's it's like to have prejudice in your heart, even against your own son... and to see how remorseful you may be if you never have the chance to understand or accept a child you love. I watched it on tv, and I really think it will have an impact on you. Best to everyone...

Jason's Papa replied: I agree that religion is often used as an excuse to condemn homosexuality, but if you're a believer in the Judeo-Christian bible, it's pretty cut and dry. I'm not saying that religious people always use the bible to judge others, because it's not for them to judge, it's for their god to judge.

I disagree w/ something being 'outdated'. There are plenty of religions (Christianity and Mormonism come to mind) that have revised a lot of their previously accepted beliefs in order to assimilate into modern society. To me, if you believe that your holy book is the actual word of god, then who are we to revise and pick and choose what to follow? Wouldn't that be bastardizing the word of god?

That's my view as an outsider, anyway.

lisar replied:

Boo&BugsMom replied:
You are exactly right with most of this. However, Christians don't use it as an excuse to condemn...we aren't condemning anyone to any place. I'm not the person who decides whether or not someone gets to Heaven...however, I believe that the Word of God is never-changing and is always true...so I don't argue with God...I'm simply the messenger.

And it's not the Word that is changing necessarily...it's the way things are worded. The sins and everything else are clearly laid out in each version and the basis never changes, the verses are just worded in a way that people can understand better. It's like saying "this ball is blue" in one book, and saying "this blue thing that is a ball" in another...the truth is still the same, just worded differently. KWIM?

And because the Word of God and it's truth are never-changing...well, IMO God doesn't want His Word changed or else we wouldn't be following his orders correctly. If you want to call that outdated, so be it...to change what God would want and then call it ok to make ourselves feel better about sinning would be a sin in itself.

Jason's Papa replied:
In some instances there have wholesale revisions that change the entire meaning of things. In the bible the Jehovah's Witnesses use, they change all wording that refers to the Holy trinity or that anything where Jesus or the holy spirit is equal to God. In the JW faith, God is the almighty, and Jesus was just a mortal. A very special mortal, but not on par w/ God himself.

And Mormonism they obviously have revised the sections on polygamy and the dark skinned races being inferior to whites and things like that, things that would obviously be tough to justify in today's day and age.

Kentuckychick replied: According to the Bible homosexuality is an abomination (actually... not homosexuality, but sodomy -- which is different... a homosexual can be a homosexual and never have sex just as easily as a heterosexual can be a heterosexual and still be a virgin) anyway I digress...

The Bible also says that eating shellfish is an abomination.

That getting married not a virgin is an evil sin condemnable by death. (Deuteronomy 22:20)

That children who speak ill of their father or mother should be put to death. (Leviticus 20:9)

That it's an sin for a man to have sex with a woman while she's on her period (Leviticus 20:18)

Shaving is not allowed (Leviticus 19:27)

Pork is an unclean (Leviticus 11:7)

That those who work on Sundays should be put to death (Exodus 35:2)

Wearing clothing of more than one material is a sin (Leviticus 19:19)


So yeah... the Bible pretty much says we're all up a poo crick without a paddle.
Now excuse me, I have some shrimp in the freezer I apparently need to go toss out.

My2Beauties replied:
Thank you girl..this is the reason why I have a hard time with my faith. I believe there is a higher power of some sort but I also believe that our souls once we die are reincarnated and attach themselves to a different living being, maybe human, maybe not. I don't know I could go on and on about the things that just seem to make more sense to me. I just say this, the golden rule, do unto others, it can't get any simpler than that, hopefully I will be judged by the content of my character, what is in my heart and the love that I have for all living things (except bugs eew LMBO ).

Boo&BugsMom replied:
That is the OT! We already covered this if you go back and read the rest of the thread.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Yes, you are right in those instances...I am more or less talking about the Bible-based only faiths (some like you are talking about use other references that do not pertain to the Bible itself) that do not change content of the Bible...if that makes sense.

Kentuckychick replied:
Meh... I still maintain we're all in trouble.

cameragirl21 replied:
One thing to keep in mind is that the KJV was written in 1611 and we don't know what the NT looked like before that, unless the Catholic version has remained unchanged, Idk. Also, the original texts were NOT written in English and a lot can be lost in translation--example--the original texts about Jesus were written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek and then back into Aramaic. I remember a scholar of the Aramaic language saying that the original text does not call Mary a virgin and instead uses the word for "maiden" meaning unmarried woman. I asked a rabbi about this as Aramaic is a language that is no longer spoken but anyone who went to rabbinical school will be familiar with it and he also said that the actual word for virgin, I believe it is bessula (sp?), was not in the original text. I do NOT want to start an argument about this as I know it's a sensitive topic for many here but I'm just using it as an example of how much can be lost in translation.
Also, I'm surprised that anyone who is of the Judeo-Christian belief system could easily dismiss the OT...without the OT there'd be no NT, it's my understanding that Jesus said he came to finish what Moses started, no? That said, how can anyone just dismiss the five books of Moses (the Torah)?
With regard to Rachel's OT quotes, I have to say, we live by a lot of those today.
For starters, pork and shellfish are considered unKosher and no truly observant Jew eats them. I don't eat pork because I'm a pescetarian but I do eat shellfish, for which I get lectured A LOT by my Jewish friends.
Religious Jews also do not have sex during a woman's period, not all of us follow that one.
As for shaving, observant Jewish men have a beard, except for the modern Orthodox, the women cover their hair in public. You will NEVER catch me doing that.
Religious Jews do not work on Shabbat, which is actually Saturday, not Sunday.
I'm sure the other verses are used and followed in the Orthodox community, I am just not entirely familiar with the details.
The point is that these scriptures are followed by many and have been for as long as Judaism has been around, approximately 4000 years. Scriptures and the word of God don't change but we should not presume that we entirely understand the word of God. Just as an example, in Judaism, in addition to the Torah, our holy book, we also have the Talmud, which is a book of rabbinical opinions compiled over the millenia to teach us how to live our lives to be in line with the Torah. This is so complex that by Jewish law, no rabbi can study the Talmud alone, they can only study it in pairs so as to discuss/exchange opinions because it is so hard to determine how it is to be interpreted.
Just something to think about, no one, no priest, no rabbi, no pastor, no human being can say for certainty what God wants and how God wants us to live right down to the minutia.
I also agree with Ed that we should be able to disagree without degradation and tbh, when someone dismisses the OT that is insulting to me and those who believe what I believe. If you don't believe in it, fine, but that doesn't make it wrong or not relevent.
Furthermore, I have watched Christian programming and have been to a Christian book store (when I was buying a bible for my godson's baptism) and found discussions about the OT and in the bookstore, there were OT books and movies like, "The Prince of Egypt" which is totally based on Jewish scripture (althought not entirely accurate), in this movie they were singing songs that we sing in synagogue to this day.

Boo&BugsMom replied: Nobody is "dismissing" the OT ...if you are not a believer in the fact that Jesus Christ died for your sins you will not understand how important that is to the NT. Plain and simple. Of course the OT is important, but in the Christian faith the scriptures need to be paralleled with the NT...which has already been discussed.

My3LilMonkeys replied:

which I take as some of these things listed in the old testament aren't sins anymore.

So I'm still confused. Is it just different branches of Christianity having different interpretations of things, or am I just completely missing the point? I guess what I'm really asking is are the laws of the old testament still valid or not?

cameragirl21 replied:
they are to me.
the ten commandments are in the OT, I don't think you'll find much biblical text to be more valid than those.

luvmykids replied:
I'll address the statement I made, only to keep it brief although I agree completely with what Jessy Ann said as well.

You are exactly right about what I meant:

When talking about sins in the OT, before Christ, there was no "forgiveness", only punishment. When Christ came, it was solely for God to provide a link between man and Himself (big part of why Jesus is referred to as the Saviour). That way, man had a choice....accept that Christ died for his sins and seek forgiveness, or continue on his own.

It isn't that sins weren't sins any longer, only that now they could be forgiven. However, the Bible also makes it clear that it's not just a simple "So what? God will forgive me" but truly being sorry. The reason I bring that up is because many people, regarding homosexuality, have that very attitude. The key in the whole forgiveness equation is believing that Christ died for your sins, and, to put it very simply, make your best efforts at following His instructions (the Bible). Doing something repeatedly is not repentance, nor is making conscious choices to do things that are wrong.

I may have confused you more, or I may have over simplified it in trying to keep it basic.

And for the record Jennifer, personally I don't dismiss the OT and have been doing some study in it the last few months. I don't think anyone is dismissing it, just trying to make the point that the OT and NT go hand in hand in Christianity.

luvmykids replied:
Is the eye rolling really necessary? I don't expect you to agree with my beliefs or where they come from, but I respect the fact that yours are different, can I get the same?

My3LilMonkeys replied: Monica, that does make sense, thanks. Just to make sure I am understanding correctly:

That getting married not a virgin is an evil sin condemnable by death. (Deuteronomy 22:20)

That statement is from the OT. So even though getting married not a virgin is still a sin, it is no longer punishable by death.

luvmykids replied:
Exactly

Kentuckychick replied:
Actually my beliefs probably parallel quite a bit with yours as I'm a Christian and a Catholic.

The eyerolling was just to show that I was being sarcastic.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: Let me ask this - if today, a new version of the Bible was published and widely accepted by the catholic/christian faith leaders, would it be accepted and used in place of the NT such as the NT was accepted and used in place of the OT?

Would your beliefs change based on the new Bible's teachings?

(Assuming, of course, that the words in this new modern version of the Bible were reflecting today's accepted modern day society and way of life.)

luvmykids replied:
I'm not clear on what you're asking....when I reference different versions, I'm talking about King James vs NIV....they say the same thing, just use different words. "We" instead of "thee", "You" instead of "Thou". I have the Message translation, which is considered pretty modern and it still says the same thing. I've yet to see a "version" that says Thou shalt not kill, and another that says "Go right ahead."

luvmykids replied:
Ok, didn't get that impression when you said according to the Bible we're all up a creek.

Kentuckychick replied:
That was me being sarcastic too... sorry... sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across so well in typing.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
No, I mean, (well, specifically mean) that if in this hypothetical new version of the Bible it completely took out the passage about homosexuality - which the "wording" is in the NT as opposed to the OT, or at least, if they put it back to "sodomy" as opposed to "homosexuality" - would homosexuality still be wrong if the relationship ensued without actual sodomy? Would it include women, who to be fair 2 women can't physically commit sodomy (do you commit sodomy? do sodomy? practice sodomy? ) or men who have a homosexual relationship but do not commit sodomy?

I know that it's all about different wording and the spirit behind the word yadda yadda.. but since these words are interpreted so differently depending on your area, and your spiritual leaders.. which you cannot disagree with, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.. lol But if it specifically refrained from mention of homosexuality, and rather made mention of non-procreative sex - in which case, let's face it, 99% of us are guilty of, with contraceptives and charting and what not.. would you alter your beliefs to accept this new version of the Bible?

If not, why? Why would this new version be any less acceptable of a modern revision than the KJV from 1611?

I'm just curious as to whether ppl would accept a new revised version of the Bible, with any and all changes to the wording, if there came to be one, like they accepted the NT after the OT.

luvmykids replied:
Gotcha, sorry I'm bad at getting sarcasm

luvmykids replied:
If I correctly understand what you're asking, no I couldn't accept it. I can accept that people read ONE Bible and come away with different understandings of it, I couldn't accept someone today completely rewriting it, if that makes sense. With all the different versions and interpretations, the Bible itself has still remained unchanged. The reason the NT came to be accepted after the OT was (IMHO, of course) it was being written as it happened, if you will, by men of those times, it was current events for it's day, kwim? And the NT strongly reflects and refers to the OT, doesn't in any way replace it.

For me personally, it's not about not being able to question religious leaders either, in fact, I think that is absolutely necessary. If I can't ask questions and get answers that satisfy me, how can I believe? It's the answers I have gotten that allow me to believe more deeply in the things that can't necessarily be explained, isn't that how faith works? It's much more than that for me though, I don't carry any of my beliefs because someone told me to. It's just what I believe, the same exact way others believe the way they do.

I don't know if I'm making any sense, that's a deep question for me at the end of the day

Hillbilly Housewife replied: lol - thanks Monica.

I get what you're saying.. i guess another way to put it, was if the Bible was rewritten, still reflecting the OT, but written in today's language, like it was re-written in the 1600's for those day's "current events".. would it be so widely accepted, as well.

I respect the beliefs of those not in tune with my own, i'm just curious as to why a re-written version - as much as it reflects the original version - was accepted over the original version.. and if the "true word of God" shouldn't be just accepted in it's original version, period. I'm not saying jus a Joe Shmoe rewriting it.. i'm saying the "authorities" on such things rewriting it to reflect today's world rather than a world 400+ years ago.

I'd like to think we're a little more civilized and accepting of a people than our forefathers were, in those times.

luvmykids replied:
The NT wasn't accepted (and still isn't) over the OT, as in replacing it but rather in addition to it. I'm doing a lot of reading in the OT currently because I had forgotten just how relevant it is to the NT. But anywho, as to even an "authority" adding to it or rewriting it today, I guess for me I don't believe it would be the "inspired" word of God today that it was back then. Can't really put my finger on why, maybe it will come to me between shaving my legs and eating shellfish

Hillbilly Housewife replied:

i eat porc, too.

redchief replied: Does not the revelation over time that "this blue thing that is a ball" is "this blue ball is a blue marble" significantly change your understanding of the blue ball, though? Further, doesn't removing inconvenient books of the bible significantly effect the understanding to be gleaned from the whole? How is that justified? Just asking.

Rocky brings up an interesting point, and one that the Catholic Church embraces. It is our belief that revelation is ongoing and that our advancement as a spiritual and intelligent people aid in that revelation. Christ came and revealed Himself, but he also came with a new message to people more sociologically advanced than their predecessors, which I think is what some of the others are trying to say regarding parallels in the New and Old Testaments. Jesus didn't say, "That's it; it's all you get," when He walked among us. After all, after Jesus left more knowledge about Himself was later revealed in the epistles, and even more was revealed that continues to baffle theologians in Revelation. We can't forget that Jesus was speaking to simple men, only a few of whom could read. Peter, our first Pope was certainly illiterate, being a fisherman by trade before he became a disciple of Christ. The great St. Paul never met Jesus, but had his revelation forced upon him. Why should the rest of the human race have it any easier?

In the time of the Old Testament, homosexuality was seen as a human weakness, not a genetic difference. Just as the menstrual cycle was barely understood. The authors, simple men with extraordinary gifts from God, of the Old and New Testaments spoke to their contemporaries. We have learned so much since those times, just as the men of Jesus time on earth were much more advanced socially than their ancestors, we are more advanced socially and intellectually than were they. The revelations of our time cannot be less important than those in the time of the Old Testament, or the years after Jesus left this world, because God expects us to learn and advance.

Jason's Papa replied:
See, this is where we get into trouble. The Evangelists and JWs both believe a literal interpretation of the bible, whereas other Christian faiths believe as you say.

My issue is this: If you believe that the word was passed on to imperfect humans and errors may have been made and science and the bible must co-exist, how do you know which parts are erroneous? What if some parts that you accept as truth are the product of such an error? And what if some of the parts that are dismissed as fables and allegories - what if those are the literal truth. How do other imperfect humans decide what parts are in error? Wouldn't this call into question the validity of the entire book in your mind?

jcc64 replied:

Those are really good questions, imo? Love to hear what others think.

redchief replied:
You're right; these are very good questions, but quite honestly, I think they should be asked in a thread to themselves. The general nature of the questions will almost certainly pull this thread further off topic than it's already gone.

I will try to give a short answer though. When I speak of flawed humans I mean not that they (any of them) got it wrong, but were writing and speaking in their time and according to (or against as the OT tends to be very negative in connotation) beliefs and customs of the time. For instance, if you look back just 30 years, these would be some of the general beliefs held. Males with long hair and facial hair were drug consuming anti-establishment hippies. Communism was taking over the world. If you needed to get hold of someone in a public place you needed to find a phone booth and hoped it wasn't being used. We spoke and wrote in these contexts in that time, and much of what was written reflected life of the time. As an example, read Orwell's !984. That prediction of the time seemed very real to us who lived in that time. To read it today seems absurd and even irrelevant.

Similarly, I believe the bible authors were speaking to the people of their time. In fact, if you read beyond the passages to the books as a whole, nearly all of them tell a story of the time in which the events were occurring. The biblical authors and prophets had an agenda. They were inspired by God to guide the people in the moment and we can use the moral guideposts they lay down to improve our own relationship with God. The revelations in the bible were never meant to be used as a gauge to prove or disprove scientific knowledge. As you said, fundamentalists tend to take the words of the entire biblical text literally, and that's a mistake. Take the moral lesson, but don't assume that along with moral revelation, God also revealed the physical secrets of the universe.

It's important to remember that the biblical prophets were the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham to guide his ancestors, and led to the fulfillment of his promise to send his Son to redeem our souls and teach us how He wants us to live. Reflecting on that, the morality taught is valid, but the people were simpler and lacked the knowledge that we take for granted. Remember, moving 50 miles in a day in those times was considered a huge feat, and today many of us commute that far to work daily. They believed the earth was the center of the universe (and flat), and arguably, were unready to absorb the knowledge that our little planet is but a speck in a great big universe. They had only recently come to understand that the stars, the sun and weather were not gods in and of themselves. So, we can take the moral lessons, but must remember that they were not speaking to the civilized people of 2009. So much for a short answer.