Help & Hope for Homosexuals

last SG · 2008-07-19T10:41:42+00:00

Xephone_xenonIndeed, homosexuality is a very controversial topic matter. This is why open and free dialogue from both sides ought to be encouraged.Technic...

Herzog_Zwei SG

Well, how accurate is that? That law is a relic from the past. We live in the New age now, and I find it laughable that people like you still decide to abide by the old laws in a new paradigm. And besides, those laws could easily have been added and edited by other people over the years. How do those laws fit into the love of Christ?

Tell me, did Jesus condemn homosexuals? Pray, tell me....lol

I agree with shade's view that indeed Christianity is living in the past.

thetruthsetsyoufree SG

I agree with shade's view that indeed Christianity is living in the past.

Herzog_Zwei

Why do you say that Christianity is living in the past?

Apostle Paul declares in Hebrews 13: 8 that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

Apostle John has a vision in Revelations 22: 13 in which God says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Christianity is a religion but, above all, it is a faith --- a Christian is defined by his relationship with God. And eternity begins the moment a person has faith in Jesus Christ and is baptised in the Holy Spirit.

I am not sure when you say that Christianity dwells in the past, if you mean that Christianity is backward looking. The Scriptures may be centuries old, written by men of a different "paradigm" as shade343 has put it, but nonetheless the doctrines of the religion are very much universal and timeless, as God Himself is.

And then when you comment about Christianity living in the past, do you mean that the faith is obsolete and thus irrelevant to today's reality? If so, HOW so?

The Bible is not an exhaustive life manual which dictates to a Christian what or what not to do --- or at least, it is not necessarily what it seeks to be. God's Word is essentially and ultimately God's revelation of HIMSELF. In relation to a Christian, how he can lead a holy and godly life which is pleasing unto Him.

The principles remain but the manifestation will vary from era to era, culture to culture. In other words, how the Church puts these principles into practice and how Christians apply these principles in their day-to-day lives will be guided by God's wisdom.

If you believe that God is a living God, and He is real and the Holy Spirit dwells inside our hearts, then Christianity will never be obsolete or irrelevant. How can the religion live in the past when God is with us here, now and forever more?

Ultimately, our faith is a supernatural one. Our lives as Christians are not defined by how we wield the Bible, but by our LIVING relationship with God. Christianity is very much active and alive. It does not remain in the past because it CAN'T.

Because our God is a living God, let homosexuals who struggle with their unwanted homosexual thoughts, feelings and desires not lose hope. For more information, please visit http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/

domonkassyu SG

Tell me, did Jesus condemn homosexuals? Pray, tell me....lol

JC when he walk the earth is a fufillment of all the mosiac law.he did not condemn the sinners for he is here to redeem them.however, if we are to talk only about the bible, we dont really see JC or his disciples actually screw each other's ass rite?being new age doesnt mean we can defy the laws and standards set by God.he is the one that doesnt change no matter how long it is.or he would have okayed same sex screwing by now in this "new age" u r in.

the love of christ is that it pains him too to see humans engage in such immorality and acts that defies the will of his dad.and thus he is moved with such pain to be willing to die for all humans to save our ass.therefore, as much as he hates all practices that his dad hates, he did not hate the humans doing it as his dad did not hate the humans doing it either.

domonkassyu SG

WHy do you keep bringing animals into the picture? What has beastiality got to do with homosexuality? Its like comparing an apple with a durain and saying that the apple is better becos its less spiky and looks more moral than the durain.

it is to better let u know the nature of angels and how twisted some of them came to be.it is pretty much the same..so an asshole is better den a vagina because its less hairy and more butt cushion when u bang it and tighter so everyone should change to banging ass knowing that it leads to nowhere?

why is homosexuality an act against God?perharps one will remember what God has told the 1st humans couple and how scientifically correct it is?God said to adam and eve to fill this earth(with their spawns) and subdue it.we all know scientifically that only through the front door sex will the woman be able to be impregnant normally.backdoor does not.nor does same sex sex.If God's idea was to allow same sex sex, he would create adam and steve, adeline and eve and tell them to clean carpets and screw asses.

thetruthsetsyoufree SG

Dear all homosexuals struggling with unwanted homosexual thoughts, feelings and desires:

It is certainly helpful to know how homosexuality may come about. In order to overcome your homosexual tendencies, you need to understand and know what are the contributing factors. Often, psychologists would refer to the homosexuals' childhood days to explore and examine what the family background was like, and how the environment may shape the pre-homosexual's perceptions and responses to certain people and events.

Here are two interesting articles which any person interested in homosexuality must read:

1. Why Me?
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/why-me/

2. Sexualization of Emotional Needs
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/sexualization-of-emotional-needs/

Do not give up! The Holy Spirit will help you. Trust, and not doubt or fear. To the praise and glory of our loving Heavenly Father. Amen.

For more information, please visit http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/

4Justice SG

Hahaha we need a thread called "Help and Hope for Ignorants, Bigots and Homophobes(aka In-denial Homosexuals)"

Learn to accept oneself and stop being unhappy!

thetruthsetsyoufree SG

My website The Truth Sets You Free http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/ attempts to describe and explain how homosexuality may come about.

I think it is reasonable and fair to know and understand what homosexuality is about, before "accepting" it.

Indeed, if there are many ignorant members of mainstream society who discriminate against homosexuals or stereotype homosexuality due to prejudice, then they need to be educated.

In my personal opinion, a good education has two components:
(1) knowledge and
(2) moral values

In order to rid mainstream society of ignorance, there must be knowledge of how and why homosexuals become who they are, as well as an ethical treatment of homosexuality.

Perhaps, this is why my website focusses so much on the Truth. Because lies chain a person, while the truth sets him free.

Homosexuals must not "accept" things as they are unless they know and understand and are convicted of the Truth.

My website invites all, whether heterosexuals, bisexuals or homosexuals, to examine and scrutinise the Truth for themselves.

You can be perfectly happy in self-deception; you can be perfectly happy in delusion. But you can be perfectly happy being released by the Truth.

thetruthsetsyoufree SG

From Homosexuality: An Overview http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/homosexuality-an-overview/

It is obvious that the vast majority of people still think homosexuality — being sexually attracted to members of one's own sex, along with an at least substantial reduction of heterosexual interests — is abnormal. I use the word "still", for this is in fact in spite of a prolonged bombardment of normality propaganda by the ignorant and slavishly trendy social and political ideologists who rule the media, politics and a great part of the academic world. If the social elite of this time have their common sesnse, not so the great mass of people, who perhaps can be forced to accept social measures coming from the "equal rights" ideology of homosexuality emancipators, but not to change the simple observation that something must be wrong with people who, although physiologically men and women, do not feel attracted to the obviously natural objects of the propagation-directed sex instinct. To the bewildered question of many on why it is possible that "educated people" could believe that homosexuality is normal, perhaps the best answer is George Orwell's saying that there are things "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." The phenomenon is not new: many a noted scientist began "believing" the "correct" racist ideology in the Germany of the thirties. For many the herd-instinct, a weakness of character, and an anxiety "to belong" make them sacrifice their independent judgment.

If someone is starving while his feelings fearfully reject the object of the hunger drive, food, we know the person suffers from a disturbance (anoerxia nervosa). If someone cannot feel compassion at the sight of those sufferring, or worse, even enjoys their suffering, yet becomes sentimental at the sight of an abandoned kitten, we recognize an emotional disturbance (psychopathy). And so on. However, if an adult lacks the capacity for erotic arousal by the opposite sex, while he obsessively chases same-sex partners, this failure of the sexual instinct is considered "healthy." Would then pedophilia likewise be normal (as pedophilia advocates already say)? Exhibitionism? Gerontophilia (being attracted to elderly people in the absence of normal heterosexuality)? Fetishism (a woman's shoe causes sexual excitement, the body of the woman indifference)? Voyeurism? I will skip over other, more bizarre, and fortunately, more rare deviations.

Militant homosexuals try to force on the public the idea that they are normal by playing the role of victim of discrimination, thus appealing to the sentiments of compassion and justice and to the instinct of protection of the weak, instead of convincing by way of argument and rational proof. This in itself shows that they are aware of the logical weakness of their position. Their vehement emotionality is an attempt to overcompensate for their want of rational grounds. With people of this mind-set, matter-of-fact discussion is nearly impossible, for they refuse to consider any view that does not fully endorse their normality dogma. But do they, deep down, really believe it themselves?

Such militants may succeed well in transferring their view of themselves as martyrs to others — their mothers, for instance. In a German town I met a group of parents of avowed homosexuals, who had united to fight for their sons' "rights". They were not less indignant and overemotional in their irrational argumentation than their sons themselves. Some mothers behaved as if their favourite baby's life was endangered if one merely contended that homosexuality is a neurotic condition.

This brings us to the psychologically dangerous decision to identify oneself as a different species of man: "I am a homosexual." As if the essence of that existence were different from that of heterosexuals. It may give a sense of relief after a period of struggle and worry, but at the same time it is defeatist. The self-identified homosexual takes on the role of a definitive outsider. It is, in fact, a tragic role. Quite different from a sober and realistic self-appraisal: I have these fantasies and feelings, still I resist taking on the role and identity of "homosexual."

That role brings certain rewards, to be sure. It makes one feel at home among fellow homosexuals. It temporarily takes away the tension of having to fight homosexual impulses, and yields the emotional gratifications of feeling unique and tragic — however unconscious that may be — and, of course, of having sexual adventures. Recalling her discovery of the lesbian subculture, an ex-lesbian writes about the "sense of belonging" it gave her: "As though I had come home. I had found my true peer group [recall the homosexual's childhood drama of feeling the outsider]. Looking back now, I see how needy we all were — a group of misfits who had finally found a niche in life."

The coin has another side, however. Real happiness, let alone inner peace, is never found that way. Restlessness will increase, as will the feeling of an inner void. Conscience will send out its disqueiting and persistent signals. For it is a false "self" the unhappy person has identified with. The door to the homosexual "way of life" has opened. Initially, it is a seducing dream; in time it turns out to be a terrible illusion. "Being a homosexual" means leading an unreal life, even farther away from one's real person.

"Self-labelling" is greatly stimulated by the propaganda that repeats that many people simply "are" homosexual. But homosexual interests are often, perhaps usually, not constant. There are highs and lows; periods when the person has more or less heterosexual feelings may alternate with fits of homosexuality. Certainly, many youngsters and young adults who did not cultivate the self-image of "being homosexual" have thereby prevented themselves from developing a full-fledged homosexual orientation. Self-labelling, on the other hand, reinforces the homosexual side, especially when it is only in its beginnings, and starves the heterosexual component. It is important to recognize that about half of homosexual men can be regarded as bisexuals and the proportion among women is even larger.

-------

From Can You Change Your Sexual Orientation? http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/can-you-change-your-sexual-orientation/

We estimate gay activists comprise 1 to 10 percent of all sexually active homosexuals.They have succeeded in defining themselves as a minority group unjustly suffering discrimination and are seeking equality with heterosexuals in all possible respects. Gay activism attempts to discredit any research that shows change is possible or anyone who claims to have changed. Why?

Here is our theory. People who came to adulthood in the last several decades of the 20th century lived for a long time with the growing awareness of their homosexual orientation, well-aware of prevailing attitudes towards homosexuality, fearful of disclosure, and not knowing what to do about it all. Many tried alone for years to change but failed. Some genuinely sought help from counsellors, ministers of religion, psychologists, or psychiatrists - often at considerable expense - but got nowhere. It's not too surprising that many believe it's impossible to change. "If it were possible, I would be heterosexual today," some of them say. If they turned to religion, as many of them did, and found only censure, rejection, and no power to change, they will be cynical about the church unless it accepts them unconditionally. (Nearly 40 percent of gays say that, because of their homosexuality, they have become less religious than they were.)

Gays who find no way to change their orientation have few options, but one of them is to summon the considerable personal courage required to accept the label "homosexual" and "come out" to themselves, families, and others. But an identity in which there is such an enormous personal investment then has to become acceptable to society at large and gay activism has worked hard to this end on many fronts. Naturally, when governments begin granting political protections, and homosexuality begins getting backing from the church, the judiciary, education, the medical and caring professions and the media,and apparent "scientific" backing, change is not something a self-identified gay person needs to give much thought to - especially if there are rewarding patterns of sexual gratification and intense emotional attachment to give up. As one ex-gay, Frank Worthen, put it, after about thirty years out of homosexuality, "Sex (for males) has met their needs for closeness for so long that the prospect of giving it up is very threatening." He goes on to say, "There is no one in the lifestyle who cannot make the change - but many will be too fearful to seek it."

Now, of course, the 'right' to be gay and sexually active is so enshrined that any suggestion that change might be a better option is barely heard.

LucasStriker SG

I agree with shade343. Christianity is a "relic from the past". And thetruthsetsyoufree, I don't see how quoting verses is going to convince us that the laws in the Bible are applicable this day and age. You said it yourself, the Scriptures were centuries old and written by MEN. Not God. Many Christians argue that they were men "guided" by God, so it makes the Scriptures somehow holy. I think it's really mental to take the words of centuries old men claiming to be "guided" and take it to be the ultimate law.

If you believe the words are Law thetruthsetsyoufree, then your not only forsaking evolutionary science (which has been proven over and over again; and don't even bother arguing that evolution is God's "tool" because it would have been the biggest contradiction if I ever will see one), but you are also supporting Rape, Human Sacrifice, Mass Murder and most of all Slavery.

Don't believe me? Well your not the only one who can quote fancy verses:

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

So a woman is considered "spoils of war" to take?

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

I see why God would want to punish the man, but the rape victim too?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

God loves slavery doesn't he? Seriously I could go on forever about his deep fixation with slaves. Hell, Jesus calls us the "lambs" of God didn't he? Guess that means we're glorified slaves. Oh well. Praise the Lord!

Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me. (Exodus 13:2)

I actually flipped open the bible the first time and came to this very verse! It must be a sign from God! Oh wait... scratch that... human sacrifices disgust me. Sorry God, but I have morals.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Wow... guess I'm guilty of the first. But didn't a certain famous pastors daughter recently commit fornication (sexual intercourse between unmarried persons)? We should dispense judgement immediately! Who's got the torch!

So, did I get everything? Not by a mile folks. The bible isn't as warm and fuzzy as you thought. In fact, everything not warm and fuzzy has been substantially ignored or deemed to be "metaphors" that doesn't actually mean what it says. I don't know about you thetruthsetsyoufree, but the laws seem pretty archaic to me. But go ahead and support them, God does! =D

Herzog_Zwei SG

Hahaha we need a thread called "Help and Hope for Ignorants, Bigots and Homophobes(aka In-denial Homosexuals)"

Learn to accept oneself and stop being unhappy!

Amen.

copenhagen SG

Made an account just to enter this topic because I do think we might be getting somewhere here

First of all, I am not pro-gay, but neither am I anti-gay. I think, in terms of sexuality, it should be a personal choice and no one should have the right to force them to change, just like I believe religion is a personal choice and parents should not force their religion onto their children. And yes, I am a Dawkins fan

On the subtopic of is the bible, for the lack of a better word, obsolete in it's laws, I completely agree with lucasstriker. It is obsolete and christians can not win an arguement of this magnitude simply because they themselves don't practice every law. Although lucasstriker was quite blunt in his delivery (funny but still blunt), he makes an excellent point on relying more on our morals than the book itself, thus proving that we do not need God to have morals (a hotly debated issue). For example, you don't stone people just because the bible tells you to do it, your morals wouldn't agree with that. This should be proof that our morals are independent of a belief in God.

Although, I am not saying the bible is empty of beauty. I believe it is a great piece of literature filled with poetic grace and elegance. The golden rule of "not doing unto others which you would not like done to yourself" is a very beautiful rule indeed. That's why I am happy when pastors preach them to children. I think it's great that the less desirable parts of the bible are as lucasstriker put it, "substantially ignored" or "taken as metaphors". This selectivity is what differentiates us from the barbarians of the past, we are selective in what we wish to incorporate into our lives.

That is why homosexuality shouldn't be condemned. I ask you, why is it so hard to ignore that law?

oxford mushroom SG

As long as the majority of Singaporeans deem homosexuality as immoral, it should remain illegal. Anyone who commits an illegal offence in Singapore is liable to be prosecuted and punished.

Homosexuality is condemned by Christianity, Islam and Judaisim. If you can eradicate all people of faith who believe it is an abomination, we can legalize homosexuality. Otherwise, the status quo remains.

Herzog_Zwei SG

As long as the majority of Singaporeans deem homosexuality as immoral, it should remain illegal. Anyone who commits an illegal offence in Singapore is liable to be prosecuted and punished.

I don't think it is a question of faith that is in order, rather it is a question of morality. Due to obvious moral choices and religious edicts, homosexuality is being proscribed in SIngapore.

nightdragon SG

Seriously, speaking, do you guys even believe that homosexuality is not a choice and it is actually integrated in them since they were born? If one is born with a prick, and feel like they have a wet and moist oyster instead, is that really a genetic defect that they can't control or is it just pure influence?

I strongly believe that we, humans, as freckle# minded as we are, are easily influenced, both in our actions and our thoughts. Take Derren Brown and Stanley Milgram's experiments for example. Yes! Google it. From their videos, we can see that even with the slightest amount of distraction, these artists are able to lead on a person with their techniques to do according to what they please. (ps. don't even start the topic on whether those videos are genuine or not, because its so spectacular that it seems like magic, there is some truth to it, if not no one will study psychology/NLP)

Let’s take Singapore only as our context since we live here and we're more familiar with the culture. I'm sure that you guys have friends around you who are "Homosexuals" (a gay man or a lesbian ) and you will realise a trend in them. They are all so comfortable in their own "costume" (homosexual-ness) that they don't care about what others think about them. They will ignore with your insults and continue on with their lives as if it doesn't really matter. And if you insult them, the people around them condemn you which make you feel even guiltier.

I'm going to use gays for example, not touching on lesbian’s because personally, I find them hot.

As we can see, gays are usually* trendy, and have a lot of social influence. Many girls will surround them and treat them as their own. Many guys will agree that a gay is a nice person and someone you can rely on (unless you insult him or make him angry then your life will be worst than hell) ps. They are even more scarier then woman. If you think you can’t understand women, wait till you try to understand gays.

These trends create a high social esteem for them as they experience "sisterhood" and "attention" from every side.

Keep in mind, what I am trying to say is that gays* and gangs* both provide a person with a sense of strong belonging. Just in a different situation, depending on what he is being influence in. In this case we are talking about homosexually and not gangs. In fact both extend a similar influence that will affect our kids in future.

Similarly, Christianity and Buddhist-ism, If you’re born in Israel, Most likely you’ll be a Christian and perhaps, if you prefer the use of chopsticks, China, most likely you’ll be influence by your family and be a Buddhist. No one knows for sure if the God they claim to worship is the true one but it all just depends on the influence one religion has against the other.

It’s the influence.

Because of this strong sense of belonging, he will remain in his own comfortable world and refuse to change despite the insults that are bought upon him. You got to study these confuse boys in order to understand what is so attractive about this "sense of belonging". For me, what I’ve observed is that, these boys gain a lot of social attention in the outside word, which leads them to satisfy their ‘self-esteem’ needs.

They have this popularity-o-meter that is integrated in everyone of them and it seems to control their mentality of being popular. “Nothing is more important then being popular.” They change boyfriends so frequently and kept comparing who have a more popular boyfriend in front of me. What’s worst is that in Singapore, the community is so big that now both gays and lesbians actually start merging together and forming their own social groups apart from the normal, sexually pleased humans. When I went out with my gay friends, I’am shocked to see how they take care of each other and there is actually a strong bonding going on, despite those minor backstab stories about "I’m more popular than you".

How they are spreading is even more astonishing. The government is not doing anything to stop this tend*. I use the word trend as I believe that these boys are not homosexuals but they are influenced to be one. Gay pubs and clubs are emerging everywhere. Even 'ladies night' turned into 'guys night'. They even have activities in the pubs where transsexuals/gays come up to the stage and perform a cooking show in a club. And those confuse guys (gays) usually those popular ones are given the minor roles of dancing on stage before the main event and yet they are satisfied and proud of it because it increases their popularity level! Refer to “drag show Singapore” YouTube for real hardcore live performance. Because of these activities, which causes more bonding to go on, their groups is growing in numbers, ranging from as young as primary 5.

From online chats, we’re able to monitor their activities if you guys are skeptical about what I am saying. Go visit Trevvy.com, and the truth will set u free =)

Most of these guys classify themselves/ feel themselves as gays to enter the popularity circle but if you lock them in the room together with Fiona Xie, I’ll guarantee you that they, as a horny male being, will definite make her pregnant.

Teachings in school talks about sex education and all those, but nothing about homosexuality, which is an increasing case in Singapore.

We should be throwing a lifebuoy to save them from their sea of confusion. Instead of encouraging all these activities or even using the bible to condemn them. Seriously speaking, the bible ask us to burn them/ stone them. And a human being ask you to save them by counseling them and talking to them. Which one will you follow? Killing them to secure a place in heaven or counseling them as it is the morality right thing to do. Which leads to lucasstriker’s morality point.

And if you notice, in the bible, homosexuality is being condemned. And none of those homosexual guys in the bible have a good ending. But yet at this point of time, in our country, because homosexuality becomes an increasing trend, churches reinterpreting the bible to be favorable to the homosexuals and thus giving them a second chance.

Do u agree with this statement?
"When a specific standard no longer satisfies the members of a society, it is being modified or replaced"

So are the words claimed by thetruththatsetsyoufree genuine or is it just a reinterpretation to suit our community?

Ps. Gaf0a0si0mailliw

thetruthsetsyoufree SG

Don't believe me? Well your not the only one who can quote fancy verses:

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

So a woman is considered "spoils of war" to take?

I see why God would want to punish the man, but the rape victim too?

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me. (Exodus 13:2)

I actually flipped open the bible the first time and came to this very verse! It must be a sign from God! Oh wait... scratch that... human sacrifices disgust me. Sorry God, but I have morals.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

LucasStriker

I am a Protestant Christian and I take the Bible, God's Word, seriously. The Bible is my authority for my faith and religion. What I need and want to know about God and what Christianity is about comes from the Bible. In other words, God's Word reveals about God Himself.

When I quote Bible verses, they are meant to explain and elaborate on why homosexuality is a sin against God. Hopefully these Bible verses can justify my position. Having said that, I do not simply "quote fancy verses" just to substantiate my points. I hope to argue and convince by showing all of us here what God's Word says about homosexuality.

But I do not quote Bible verses out of context. What this means is that I have taken the background into consideration and hopefully make the meaning of the verses I have quoted clearly. In other words, I do not quote Bible verses without an attempt to clarify their significance in connection with its context or background. Context or background may refer to doctrinal, moral, historical or otherwise.

On the other hand, some of the Bible verses you have quoted seem to me to be very much out of context --- or at least, you make comments about them which do not take their background into consideration.

You must understand that the Bible is not merely a document written by over 40 men within a span of 1,500 years. The Bible is not just a collection of 66 books in three different languages. What makes the Bible God's Word is that theologians and scholars have examined all 66 books and found that there is remarkable doctrinal consistency. (I know you will disagree with me at this point but I shall speak more of this on another occasion and explain to you what I mean by this.)

Theologians and scholars have studied and scrutinised the Bible and found out that all knowledge and wisdom have been coherent and cohesive. Because a religion is supernatural, and not natural, we can say that an element of unscientificity (pardon me for coining such a word) is present in it. Perhaps secular academics will conclude that the compilation of the Bible may just well be coincidental, based on archaelogical, historical and linguistic grounds. However, for Christians, we have faith and this faith tells us that it is the Holy Spirit which guides and leads these men to write the Word of God. It is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which allows the Bible to be written.

This is where we differ and we come from two irreconciliable premises so it will be challenging for me to go on, but I do not mind making more comments if you would like me to.

I shall try my best to briefly address the Bible verses that you have quoted:

For Judges 5: 30, this is part of The Song of Deborah and Barak after a battle against the Canaanite king. This verse you quoted is praising God for helping them in triumphing in the national war. It is part of the Jewish culture and poetic expression so it is difficult to comment on how this will translate to today's context. Besides, you quoted from a different English translation from mine. I personally use the English Standard Version (ESV). So with these two translational problems, it is hard for you or I to determine or define what this verse means.

For Deuteronomy 22: 23-24, God is not condemning the rape victim. God is condemning the WILLING rape victim, in this case perhaps not rape after all since the girl herself was consentual to the act of sexual intercourse. If you read carefully, your version NAB actually says "because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city." This is an instance where you have quoted the Bible verse out of context. Why? If you look further down to Deuteronomy 22: 25-27, God provides an alternative scenario where if a girl is raped by a man in the open countryside, the girl will not be punished because "though the bethrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her." (ESV) So, you see, God is merely juxtaposing two different scenarios and illustrating why the girl is to be punished in one example and not in the other. Do not quote Bible verses out of context. The background provides meaning and significance.

For the verses you quoted pertaining to slavery, I must admit I myself need to do much more study on this topic, particularly for the Old Testament times. However, one comment I would like to make is that slavery is not approved by God or the Apostles in the New Testament times. Slavery was a way of life since ages ago, and it had became their culture, so to speak. Slavery was normal to the Jews. So when the Apostles wrote about slaves submitting and obeying their masters, they were basically telling the Christians what they could do within the status quo. That is, in their situation, no matter what it was, how the Christians could still glorify and honour God whether they were slaves or free men.

Why I say that the New Testament does not give a nod to slavery is because in 1 Corinthians 7: 21, Apostle Paul encourages slaves to try to get out of slavery and enjoy freedom if they can --- "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)"

The Apostle Paul tells the New Testament church not to be so concerned about freedom or slavery because all Christians are slaves of Christ in 1 Corinthians 7: 22 --- "For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."

In 1 Corinthians 9: 19, Apostle Paul explains that though he himself is free, he is selfless and willing to sacrifice his freedom to serve God --- "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible."

Finally, Apostle Paul tells us that at the end of the day, none of the Christians are slaves even though some of them may work as slaves because in Galatians 4: 7 --- "So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir."

NOW, DO ALL OF THESE VERSES ABOUT SLAVERY CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER? No. Of course not.

The idea behind slavery as a job or vocation is that it is wrong and bad. So Apostle Paul encourages all slaves to fight to be free if they are given the opportunity to do so. Then he uses the metaphorical / figurative / spiritual sense of the word "slavery" to describe Christians. That we Christians are slaves of God because we serve Him. But it is good and right to be slaves in this sense. Yet, we are not slaves but also sons of God.

Essentially, I never perceive the Bible as "warm and fuzzy." Hopefully no Christians would see God's Word as "warm and fuzzy." The Old Testament testifies to God's wrath and the New Testament witnesses of the precious gift of God --- Jesus Christ --- to save us and take away God's wrath. No, the Bible is not "warm and fuzzy" at all. It cannot be.

All I wish to say is that let us not be too quick and gleeful to contradict the Bible. Yes, indeed the Scriptures are old, but not that old. Even for its age, God's Word has many qualities and characteristics that speak of its extraordinary status as a document of truth and faith that are unmatched in other literature. The problem I see is that people who criticise the Bible so often looks at the surface meaning and ignore or neglect the deeper significance. If the Bible is more than just a collection of writings, I am sure there is much more depth to it than all these amateurish contradictions. If you really wish to critique the Bible, you will need to study and understand the original languages Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. You will also have to examine the Jewish way of thought and culture, as well as the God's revelations in terms of His redemptive plan for humanity.

You look, but you don't see.

May struggling homosexuals continue to persevere for our God is mighty and He will help you! There is hope.

For more information, please visit http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/

thetruthsetsyoufree SG

Made an account just to enter this topic because I do think we might be getting somewhere here

That is why homosexuality shouldn't be condemned. I ask you, why is it so hard to ignore that law?

copenhagen

My response is that sexuality is what nature or God has made us to be. What is natural is what functions according to its design. So homosexuality is unnatural for me because it is biologically and psychologically incompatible.

Of course, it makes much sense if you say that sexuality is of one's choice or preference. My stand is that a homosexual must know the truth about the unnaturalness of homosexuality and may that truth set him free. My position is that the homosexual can exercise his right of choice, and to use his freedom to choose heterosexuality. But this freedom can only come about by the Truth.

A homosexual can choose or prefer to remain a homosexual. Nobody can force him. I am not forcing homosexuals to change. I am simply making an effort to tell the Truth behind homosexuality and pray that there are homosexuals who agree with me. I hope that God's Truth will set homosexuals from the bondage of sin. I wish to convince and persuade homosexuals that homosexuality is unnatural.

When homosexuals have UNWANTED homosexual thoughts, feelings, and desires, they WANT to change but they may not know how to. So my website ( http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/ ) is to provide help and hope for these homosexuals who are repentant.

The Bible, perhaps specifically the Old Testament, is not "obsolete" (whatever that means!). Christians believe that God's Word is relevant to our day-to-day reality and our faith.

However, one must STUDY the Bible carefully and diligently to understand the implications, and particular to our case here, the Laws of the Old Testament. The Old Testament laws are threefold --- civil, ceremonial and moral. The civil and ceremonial Laws may or may not be applicable, but the moral Laws are definitely still applicable to modern Christianity. The moral Laws are universal and timeless, such as the Ten Commandments, and therefore not "obsolete."

Of course Christians do not obey all the Laws.

From what I understand about God's Law in the Old Testament, it is like a primary school teacher who helps young kids to understand what faith is about and with Jesus Christ's death and resurrection in the New Testament, the Gospel is like an university professor enlightening adults to live out their faith based on what the primary school teachers have established during their childhood.

Galatians 3: 23-25 (KJV)
"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

Therefore, when you say "that law is a relic from the past", I hope you are not implying that it is obsolete and hence irrelevant to what we believe of God's Word.

Our Christian faith and religion is still very much built on God's Law in the Old Testament. Jesus Christ Himself says this in

Matthew 5: 17 (ESV)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Essentially, God's Law can be summed up by the following:

Galatians 5: 14 (ESV)
"For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

The Law is split into three aspects: the moral, the ceremonial and the civil. The moral Law is universal and timeless, such as the Ten Commandments.

As homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, we must not ignore the Law but see it as a consistent manifestation of God's character.

Therefore, Christians ARE SELECTIVE, in a certain sense, as to how they understand, interpret and apply the Bible to their lives. We Christians are not "barbarians from the past." We believe and know that homosexuality is STILL condemned by God. In order to greater appreciate what I mean, please read the following three articles from my website:

Linguistic Grounds for Translating Arsenokoitai as "Homosexuals"
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/linguistic-grounds-for-translating-arsenokoitai-as-homosexuals/

Historical Grounds for Translating Arsenokoitai as "Homosexuals"
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/historical-grounds-for-translating-arsenokoitai-as-homosexuals/

The Pauline Origin for Arsenokoitai
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/the-pauline-origin-of-arsenokoitai/

For more information on homosexuality, please visit: http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/

thetruthsetsyoufree SG

In response to copenhagen

For example, you don't stone people just because the bible tells you to do it, your morals wouldn't agree with that. This should be proof that our morals are independent of a belief in God.

We Christians "don't stone people just because" the Bible tells us to do it. We abide by the principles of Love and we enjoy the Christian liberty to act as the principles of Love guide and lead us. The absolute moral truths are universal and timeless, but its manifestation / execution / application may differ from era to era, or culture to culture. So Christians ought to abide by the principles of Love. This is not about stoning or not. The issue here is more of, perhaps, at least in the Old Testamental Jewish context, why stone?

Although, I am not saying the bible is empty of beauty. I believe it is a great piece of literature filled with poetic grace and elegance.

If you acknowledge that the Bible is a great work of art, then you must not take the Word of God at face value. Often many read the Bible and draw surface meanings and conclusions. Do bear in mind that you will need to understand and know the three original languages Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek in order to greater appreciate the significance of the Bible. This is in the academic field of hermeneutics.

That is why homosexuality shouldn't be condemned. I ask you, why is it so hard to ignore that law?

To ignore what law?

For more information, please visit http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/

nightdragon SG

Just a question, so from what I see in your website, its just believing in god and the homosexuals will stop being confuse and free of temptations of going back to the old path? Or maybe they should get physical counseling instead of religion and encouragements from friends and family to continue their non-homosexual ways?

Being a Christian, it’s all base on trust and hope and prayers. Why not create and mold your own future by doing something practical. Base on science and man who is at the very least able to carry you out of the burning ditch.

We should not be using religion to address such issues. These issues should be held physically. Religion is use to show us a path and a proper way to lead life. For us and your future generations. Allah.

LucasStriker SG

In response to copenhagen's comment on my words being "blunt", I concede I might have injected alittle too much sarcasm. This nagging topic on homosexuality drives me up the wall sometimes. And I'm familiar with Dawkin's work. I'm more of a Christopher Hitchens guy though, but their both similar in several aspects =)

Now thetruthsetsyoufree, you are right about one thing. I would disagree with you on the Bible's doctrinal consistency. In fact, I can quote one evidence of the Bible's inconsistency with a reference to the very law stated on Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 (which I did not take out of context; will explain later). I'm studying for my exams now so I won't go scouring the Bible for the verse and chapter (was it John 8:?-?) but I believe we'r all already very familiar with the much celebrated story about the poor woman taken for adultery and dragged before Jesus by the Jewish Pharisees who demanded to know if he agreed with the Mosaic punishment of stoning her to death. If he did not, he would have violated the law. If he did, he made nonsense of his own preachings. Anyone who's heard this story could imagine the crowd, evil in their eyes, all ready to pounce on this helpless little girl. And then came Jesus's cool reply: "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". Nice.

But what's wrong with this story? Well, it not only contradicts the history of Mosaic law, it contradicts the Bible itself (or rather the old testament; Deuteronomy 22: 23-24). Mosaic law states clearly that both man and woman who commited adultery must be stoned. Yet, the man was never mentioned and was never dragged to the public for stoning. Well, as any good novelist would know, a damsel in distress is the perfect ploy a hero needs to shine. And boy, did he shine. Oh and before you start saying that I can't make such a statement because I don't study Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, Barton Ehrman, now holder of the chair in religious studies, is fluent in both Greek and Hebrew and he was the man who brought the world's attention to this very contradiction (to the dissaproval of his religious "friends"). There are several contradictions like these, just a couple of examples are some of Luke and Matthew's statements and the Bible's wrong mention of the rulership at the time.

And I never took the verses out of context. Saying that it's fine to stone a married woman just because she was raped within city walls (and did not scream; or probably did scream but who's screams weren't heard) is absolutely barbaric and insane. And it does agree with a rapist's nature of blaming it on the fact that the victim had "asked for it". No woman wishes to be raped, and if screaming is the only yardstick that differentiates between rape and consensual sex then I submit to you again that the laws of the bible are archaic.

I do not know Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic but even the ones who do can't seem to place the right meaning behind the words of the Bible. You must agree with me on this for how do you account for the numerous versions of the Bible out there? If everything is to be "drawn from the surface" and not to be taken literally, then I submit to you that the Bible is no different than a fairy tale. From Red Riding Hood for example, we don't elaborate on the M18 part of the story when the wolfs head is chopped off by the woodsman. We go into the poetic values the story teaches us. If all you have to defend the Bible is literature of metaphysical weight then you win, I cannot fight you on that. I agree with copenhagen that it is a beautiful work of art. But we must not take it to be facts and laws of logic.

I am not saying that helping homosexuals change for the better is wrong (though I would ask if it is so unnatural and wrong to be one in the first place; many animals are capable of homosexual play). Homosexual acts in Singapore are actually already illegal, there is no need to bring religious laws into the mix. And religion isn't the answer to everything either, especially not when it comes to stopping homosexuality. It might even have the opposite effect. We've seen proof of that time and time again. Pedophilic priests molesting altar boys. AIDS being seen as a punishment from God for the existence of gays (though being lesbian apparently lowers your chances of getting AIDS substantially). I would say more, but I wouldn't be hundred percent certain if religion was the major cause of the rising number of gays in Singapore. Personally, I think LKY's speech had alot to do with it as well. But that's a debate for another time.

I would end with my earlier statement. That laws from the Bible are archaic and shouldn't be taken as the ultimate truth.

"In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides." Heinrich Heine, Gedanken und Einfalle

thetruthsetsyoufree SG

nightdragon

1. My website The Truth Sets You Free seeks to offer help and hope for struggling homosexuals with their unwanted homosexual thoughts, feelings and desires.

2. I assume that most of these struggling homosexuals are Christians, and that they see homosexuality as irreconciliable with their religion.

3. In other words, I seek to reach out to Christian homosexuals.

4. This is a Christian forum, so I hope that this is an appropriate portal to do so.

5. However, The Truth Sets You Free also offers help and hope for Christians who are not of the Christian faith.

6. While it is true that the website has many Christian pastoral articles, it also has a good number of secular scientific essays. These essays are mostly based on psychotherapy, or specifically psychoanalytic theories.

7. Non-Christian homosexuals who WANT to change can refer to these secular scientific essays. But my mission is to also evangelise them and spread the Gospel.

8. Ultimately, The Truth Sets You Free caters to homosexuals, whether Christian or not, who wish to change but do not know HOW to. So the objective is to essentially provide the help and hope to encourage and motivate them to change.

9. As prescribed by Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg, the best way for a homosexual to change is through religious pastoral counselling as well as psychotherapy --- a combination of faith and science. I adopt this position in my website.

10. Of course, change also comes about with gender affirmation through family and friends. So the "success" of the homosexual's recovery will go beyond just the pastoral counselling and psychotherapy. The homosexual's willpower and determination also matter.

11. Once again, for clarification's sake, this is a Christian forum. I believe, or assume, that most readers here are Christians and hope that within religious grounds, I am only doing what is most fitting.

« Previous Page Next Page »