Can GOD accept homosexul man?

Post Reply New Topic

It wasnt accepted because back then they didnt understand homosexuality.

Pawel--I sent you a PM. You're cool. Also, Poland sounds awesome.

All the rest of you people--SHUT UP!

There's a difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. You see, one sins by thought, word, action, or omission. (Roman Catholic here. It's a nice religion to be autistic in. Lots of classifications and a black-and-white morality.)

Anyway, I'm straight. I haven't any real libido and for me "in the mood" is a Glenn Miller record, not a sexy frame of mind. So here's where I and the queers match.

Church teaching forbids homosexual behavior as "intrinsically disordered." Oooh, big scary words.
And it also forbids masturbation as "intrinsically disordered." Did I hear a bunch of people get worried?
AND--because there are a lot of things to forbid--it bans fornication (old word for casual sex.)

But because somebody has a DESIRE to do these things doesn't make them incapable for God to accept. I mean, God made straight people, and then forbad them from banging all the opposite sex people in sight. That's what the Incels haven't figured out yet; they're too busy with their anime body pillows.

Religion bans these "recreational activities" because they're recreational uses of something serious namely the act of sex. A sacrifice, recreation, and sometimes procreative (some idiots in the Bible Belt here think sex equals pregnancy but biology says otherwise, so if you don't want kids, try a little timing). And good Catholic theology says that for the married people, they really should make use of serious recreation and be open to the prospects of beginning a new batch of people. It's too late for me to re-write Humanae Vitae here but honestly, Protestantism AND the new Gay Agenda are, to my opinions, far more restrictive than the old Roman Catholic church.

That's about all I got to say about that. Y'all got Internet access, you go look it up for yourselves if you have questions--or PM me. I don't bite!

There is no "yes" or "no" answer to this.

Christianity is split pretty much right down the middle in regards to their various stances on homosexuality, from those who outright condemn it to those who take an apathetic or moderate stance (e.g. "love the sinner, hate the sin") to those who outright accept and affirm it. However, even that's a gray area, because there are sub-denominations within such denominations which have different outlooks: for example, there are at least three denominations of Baptists which accept and affirm LGBTQ members. Just recently there was a big schism within the United Methodist church as to the extent which they affirm LGBTQ members, with very vocal arguments being made from both sides.

If there was a singular, unanimously agreed-upon interpretation of the Bible, there wouldn't be a thousand different denominations with a thousand different stances on one topic. The very small handful of verses which reference homosexuality - some of which are extremely ambiguous as to whether or not they're even referring to homosexuality to begin with - have been ridiculously scrutinized: there are dozens of books on the subject, all of which say different things (and sadly, most of which reflect the author's own personal biases, be it for or against).

Of course, I'm speaking as a Christian who has always belonged to open and affirming churches, so clearly I have my own bias coming from that perspective as opposed to someone voicing their opinion from churches who teach the opposite. I've personally always been taught that it's okay to not always know the answers, but if there's one thing I've kept with me in my journey of spiritual growth, it's that if ever there's a question, the answer is to love. That's as much as I can say about my own personal stance without delving too deeply into hermeneutical semantics.

Something I will say which is very important and will help many struggling with this area. When you meet with Jesus and look to Jesus Christ, nothing else matters to you. Your sexual preferences will fail to have any significence compared to Him. Nothing compares.

When a Man Lies with a Man as with a Woman
Stephen J. Patterson
From The Fourth R
Volume 25-3 May - June 2012
People today widely believe that the Bible condemns being gay. They get this idea from, well, reading the Bible. When most people leaf to Leviticus 18:22 in their Bibles, they read something like this: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.” In Leviticus 20:13 they find identical words, only adding death by stoning as punishment. That seems pretty clear. End of story. In our early twenty-first-century American culture, a man who “lies with a man as with a woman” is usually thought to be gay.
But the Bible was not written in our day nor for our time. These two texts were written about 2,500 years ago in a time and place scholars generally refer to as the Ancient Near East. What did it mean for “a man to lie with a man as with a woman” in the Ancient Near East? Male-male same-gendered sex in the Ancient Near East—so far as ancient texts discussed it—had three possible meanings: domination, recreation, and religious devotion. To understand the first, one need only think today of prison sex or war-time rape, or read the news from Syria, where male rape has recently emerged as a tool of government repression. This modern thing is actually a very old thing. In the Ancient Near East male-on-male sex was usually seen as an act of violence. This was (and is) not gay sex. It was heterosexual phallic aggression. It was generally frowned upon, unless done in a context where violence and domination were the point, as in war. Today the practice is shocking. In the ancient world, not so much.
Ancient Near Eastern recreational male-male sex was a similar thing. This is something one might do with a slave or personal servant in the absence of female companionship. It was also frowned upon in some cultures, who viewed it as exploitative and demeaning to the man or boy who was forced to play the role of “catcher” in such sexual activity. To lie with a man “as with a woman” pretty much captures the point. Men were supposed to be men, not women. Gilgamesh is a good example. The chief shortcoming of the ancient king of Ur was his voracious sexual appetite, which he satisfied with women, daughters, and sons—no one was safe.
In the Ancient Near East, male-male sex can also have a religious meaning. Sex as religious devotion is an odd concept for most of us, but it was not so for ancients. The Ancient Near East is a dry place. Agriculture there is a critical, but precarious undertaking. Consequently, agriculture attracted a good deal of religious attention in ancient times. Fertility gods were common, as were fertility rituals. Sometimes this involved ritual sexual activity with male priests, who, like the gods they represented, were thought to be androgynous—that is, both male and female. Devotees believed that by planting one’s seed in such a priest, one could ensure the fertility of the earth for another year.
None of these meanings depended upon the homosexuality of the participants. In fact, it was quite the opposite. All depended on the assumption that the initiator of the act (the “pitcher,” so to speak) was acting in the very heterosexual role of male. A man could dominate another man by buggering him, thus forcing him into the subordinate role of female. That was why it was permitted to rape one’s enemies at the end of a battle, but not to bugger one’s slave. In the first case, violent aggression is part of what the soldier signs on for. In the second case, you’re just taking advantage. In the case of ritual sex, the devotee (again, the “pitcher”) is seen as performing the heterosexual male role of planting his seed in another, in this case a man reimagined as part female. So, was there actual gay sex, as we today understand that concept, in the Ancient Near East? Probably. But it is never discussed in the surviving literature.

The sin is not being gay, the sin is acting on it.

But, if you aren't a believer, why worry about it?

If you are a believer, you get one 'outlet' to your sexual frustrations. It's the same 'outlet' all believers get, it's the opposite sex. The fact that sex feels nice was just supposed to be an incentive to breed. If you notice animals, they have a 'season' to breed. They don't go around rutting for sport. Humans have completely disregarded sex for children (with pleasure) for sex with no children, all the time, as much as we can get it, strictly for pleasure (and to hell with the kids). We pervert everything. Is all about sex.

I feel sorry for straight or gay people who think of nothing else. What a bore.

Sex should primarily be for pleasure unless one wants to be part of a Quiverfull cult and have 20 children.

Sex in a loving relationship furthers physical and emotional intimacy. I don’t think most people are trying to get as much sex as they can whenever they can (although if there’s two enthusiastically consenting, responsible adults, why not?). We don’t “pervert everything.” There’s nothing wrong with sex or the enjoyment of it.

I’m not planning on having anymore children so any of the sex that’s in my future certainly won’t be about having kids.

Back to the topic at hand, do you really want to worship a god who doesn’t accept gay people and who doesn’t want you to be in a happy and fulfilling relationship if you are? I don’t! That wouldn’t be a loving deity.

The OP asked a question. I gave an answer. Is it THE answer? That's up to the OP. It's just MY answer and can be taken or left, it's up to the reader.

"Can GOD Accept Homosexul Man?"

Is this the right question to ask? Rather ask this one.

"Can a homosexual man accept God?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFMPUN4O5QM

I don't worship a god thay says I deserve to be put to death. I don't understand how anyone can.

I wouldn’t accept such a god, but there are a lot of gay Christians and gay people with various religious and spiritual beliefs.

There are many atheists with strict moral beliefs. One doesn’t have to believe in a god (or the “right” god(dess)) to be a good person.

Something I need to explain. When you read the list of those who won't be accepted into Heaven... Does it not seem odd to you that the list contains just about everyones sin? Liars, cheaters etc, etc? If you lie once in your life you are a liar...

So what do we need to get into Heaven then? If none of us can stand before Gods perfect standards. We need Jesus who took our place of punishment, as death on the cross is what we all eeserve for our sins. But God LOVES us soo much that He made a way, so each one of us can make it... All we have to do is accept that Jesus paid the price for our sins.

Remember. Jesus loves YOU and as you are. It is not about being straight or gay. It is about accepting the love that Jesus has for you. This is not love in a sexual way but love in a deep way... A love that is closer then a brother... Someone there for you through all your trials... And when we do something wrong, He picks us back up and says "Carry on..."

Some of you may think "But I know I sin everyday. How can I be worthy?" None of us are worthy. It is because He loves US. And that is ALL of US!

He may love me, but a lot of his followers sure don't. They are quick to judge others for sinning while they don't acknowledge the sins that they themselves commit every day.

To quote Gandhi: "I like you Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike you."

That reasoning is a little like refusing to go to someones wedding because the mailman who brought you the invitation was rude to you.

Not at all. I'm sure Jesus himself would be very unhappy to learn of how some of these holier-than-thou types are actually turning people away from God instead of bringing them closer to God with the cruel way they treat others. That includes homosexuals like me who have been told by their own friends and family that they are "perverts" and are going to hell just for being what they are.