mlks_babe, you be lawyer? Haba!! You alone gather all those translations and you want more? You really dwarf me, but I doff my hat

Rom. 2:11 -

For there is no respect of persons with God. (KJV)

For God shows no partiality. (ESV).

Admittedly, God's ways are past finding out (Rom.11:33) and it's truely a mystery how things happen to folks. However, there'll be nothing mysterious about life as it is here and now when He sits on the throne to judge in that day. "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.__For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (I Cor.13:9 & 12).

Welcome anytime, chinani

gigitte:

God doesnt change, only his revelation to human beings changes

'Progressive revelation', you mean? It all depends on which 'God' we're talking about. From the Christian reference, God does not change; His revelation is progressive - not changing. Just a note.

God is Who He says He is. Everything else na jara!

nferyn & allonym/idiot,

First, I know that allonym is the same gentleman as idiot - because he mistakenly posted a reply March 17 under his idiot username; but before I could be done with my reply to his post, he had changed his post on idiot and left the terse word 'funny', then re-logged in and posted exactly the same previous reply under the username allonym. Just wanted to clear up that confusion so that anyone reading this reply would not misconstrue my reason for addressing 'allonym/idiot' as the very same person.

I believe that if someone is taking up a subject, whatever is being penned should be so done in a way that is intelligible and not ambiguous. It's hilarious that when you get tangled midway, you turn round and accuse others of the very thing you do - focus on rhetorical tricks. Whose rhetorics or tricks - mine or yours? Did allonym/idiot not clearly state how narrow he could get in picking on people's posts?

idiot:

It doesn't matter how narrow I pick at your argument.

It's simple really. There could be only two suppositions here: either (a) atheism - God does not exist; or, (b) theism - God exists.  What is the challenge you offer? If God does not exist, there is no midway or sitting on the fence about this - just clearly state your claim and let's take it up from there. As far as I know, nferyn has tried to consistently argue for atheism in other threads (see for example: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-4284.32.html) - although he leans towards a revisionist definition that is more agnostic than atheistic. So far, he has neither been able to logically satisfy the claims of his atheistic suppositions, nor has he been able to advance an alternative view that can intelligently and completely explain the complexities of metaphysical/supernatural phenomena.

However, allonym dribbles between two opinions so that he tries to make it difficult for anyone to know on what leg he dances. Is he for atheism, or confused between agnosticism, deism or theism? What am I supposed to make out of his inconsistent statements so far (emphasis mine) - 

allonym:

. . . then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its supposed to be.

idiot:

I have not said God cannot exist or does not exist, just so far, the God you are describing cannot possibly exist.

                                                 ". . .then God cannot exist

                                         . . .I have not said God cannot exist 

People, who's been playing on rhetorics? In less than 4 hours a man makes a statement and denies he ever said so! So then, if allonym can't stand up to the truth of his own statements, what do I make of his painful art of dribbling between 'nonsense' and 'no sense' at all? I should not have bothered replying to these idiosyncratic oddities, but just so that there'll be less casualities when you hunt for your next victim. Believers are often accused of rhetorics and other nonsense when in fact it so happens on many occasions that atheistic apologists are the ones who party to such moulds. I don't lose any sleep over anyone mocking God - He knows just when to show Himself (Gal. 6:7). If you want to argue for the mere fun of it, the floor is all yours. But when you're ready to make some sense, I'll be back with a bang!

No Christian is imposing his/her belief on anyone. We have not said gays should not live; but when someone insists that 'God' in the Christian faith is responsible for what infact He detests, we are being challenged to face up to that misconception - and there's not a more effective way to show this than from the Bible. If that's too tough for you to handle, then let be.

Well said, t4cash.

Now I can deal with the other questions you raised here.

chinani:

In my opinion, marriage & homosexuality are 2 different topics. I do not understand how Matt. 19:3-6 relates to homosexuals. From your post, they are the same or interconnected to you. Can you explain this (as I do not follow you)?

You're right in stating that marriage and homosexuality are 2 different topics - but that is only an artificial supposition as far as sexual unions/partnerships involving same-sex marriages have been an ongoing public debate in the West of late. In that context, one cannot contend that discussions about marriage are far removed from homosexuality.

chinani:

Regardless of sexual orientation, is it necessary for everyone to marry? What is your position on nuns, priests, spinsters and the like? And how do they relate to homosexuals?

Again, society is permissble and tolerant to just about anything under the sun. It is not necessary for everyone to marry when taking into consideration that some people have no sexual inclinations: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."[1Cor. 7:7]. However, the Bible recommends for believers that the only context in which sexual activities are engaged in is marriage. Sex outside one's marriage is a sin and goes by several names: fornication and adultery among others - "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.__For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication." (I Cor.6:18 and I Thes.4:3). "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (I Cor. 7:2). This would also apply to spinsters - let them get married and enjoy God's gift of healthy sex:

"But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.__ But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." (I Cor.7:9 & 36).

With regards to some who have taken up a disposition to remain celebate (nuns, priests, etc) in their Christian ministry, I'd rather say that celebacy is not a Biblical prerequisite for ministry. The religious order of nuns and priests have more to do with Catholic tradition that makes celebacy one of the rigid stipulations for ministry; but I think this is a grave mistake. Rather, leaders (bishops, deacons, elders, etc) in the Church are encouraged to get married - I Tim.3:2 &12 and Tit.1:6. Perhaps, there is some substance to the thought that celebacy forced upon people is partly responsible for the shameful sins that have ensued in Christian history.

As regards how celebacy relates to homosexuality, it is to be understood from my answers on homosexuality in the other thread (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-8611.0.html ) that the latter is not a prescriptive norm in Christian living. Consequently, from the foregoing here, celebacy is also not prescriptive for Christian living or ministry where the people involved are not eunuchs.


People struggling with homosexuality is a reality that is very painful because of the social and cultural stigma connected with the lifestyle. I do not subscribe to the interpretation that the Bible condemns people or promotes homophobia towards people - because it is my firm belief that people are first and foremost people; and in that context, the Christian is to seek to understand their pains and experiences with a view to being practical and relevant in providing help and a better understanding of life from the Biblical perspective. It is the practice/lifestyle that is more the problem discountenanced in Scripture. Fortunately, so many people have been helped and their change of disposition is a testimony that, despite the deep struggles they face, it is possible to choose not to be gay.

chinani,

I have tried to deal with the questions you raised in another thread, The Bible and Homosexuality: What Shall We Do? (find here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-8611.0.html ). I still have yet to deal with the last part of your enquiry relating to nuns, priests, spinters, etc. but will do so soon enough.

Thank you again for the wait.

What then about the NT - is it anywhere taught that homosexuality remains generally what it is in the OT?

The NT shows that God's mind has not changed on the issue. Perhaps, more than anywhere else in the NT, it is explicitly shown in Romans 1 that sexual relations between people of the same sexes are not countenanced by God.

Rom.1:26 - "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom.1:27 - And 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 umseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

From the Biblical point of reference, we have here a question of what is 'natural', and the picture of what sexes are engaged in 'unnatural' activities. Women going against nature (lesbianism - verse 26); and men with men lusting after one another (same sex/homosexuality - verse 27). Notice also that the Bible in verse 26 describes these passions as 'vile affections' (KJV) - something which resulted from the deliberate exchange of God's truth for a lie (v.25). So, it ought to be clear that anyone reading the Bible sees that Rom.1:25-27 obviously presents the case of homosexuality with the understanding that it is not a virtuous practice from God's point of reference.


What about Jesus?

I believe that based on Matt.19:3-6 Jesus did not ignore the question of Biblical ethics with regards to relationships between people. The Jews had brought a question about divorce to Him, and He had to take them back to the creation for answers. "Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female." (v.4). Profound statement. But notice how He wraps up the argument: He appeals to the authority of what God has joined together and forbids any man to put asunder. Now, in all honesty, we should ask: who has God joined together according to Jesus' teachings? If God has joined two men together and therefore established the very same thing He detests; or, if God has joined two women together in same-sex marriages, it should be clear in Jesus' teaching. However, what we find there is that He unequivocally states that because God made them male and female in the beginning, marriage is the union of a man and a woman - nothing more than that.

So, does Jesus explicitly forbid homosexuality or same-sex unions in Matt.19:3-6? Anyone could argue that He did not - but then again, for those who want to dribble round Jesus' explicit statement about marriage in that scripture, the challenge is for them to look for an equally clear statement that He was giving His consent for the same practice described by God as abominable. Is it even thinkable that Jesus would have consented to such a thing of which God emphatically showed His disapproval? (please excuse my repetition for the sake of emphasis).

Among Christians, the Bible's position on marriage is the 'one-man-one-woman' union - just as could be referenced on Jesus' teaching as shown just above. In I Cor.7, Rom.7 and the recommendations for ministers in I Tim.3:2,12 and Titus 1:6, there is a general consensus of the one husband to one wife position. How is it possible that no reference of same-sex partnership was hinted at as part of the qualification for ministers or even a recommendation for Christian living and norms?

Those who try to push a homosexual agenda from a Biblical point of view should understand that , wherever referenced in both the OT and NT, it was not accepted as a normal Christian practice that God acquiesced to or winked at.

Prolegomena:
First, let me remind my readers of two things I'd wish them to constantly keep in mind while going through this writeup: (a) I'm writing from a Christian perspective and not from a politically correct or socio-culturally adopted view; (b) I know the pain of some of the people in this situation who are seeking help - and I'll try to be respectful of their dignity in my language. If anyone feels offended somewhere along this post, I'd like to tender my unreserved apology upfront in the firm belief that people are first and foremost people than anything else; which in no way suggests that my convictions are waned thereby.
___________________________


Many societies view homosexuality as a socially and/or culturally unacceptable lifestyle. It is not just a religious concern. However, when people claim that 'God made them gay' ('God' in context of the Christian faith) and press this notion as Biblically correct, a lot of issues emerge. First, we ask for a scriptural basis verifying that claim (so far, none has been forthcoming, other than mere opinions and speculations). Second, the excuse is given that the Bible neither condemns nor even remotely mentions anything on the subject of homosexuality. There is a plethora of other issues to this debate, but here's what my views are on these two suppositons:

1) Do I believe God made/created anyone as gay? No. I have requested (in other threads) that those who assert this provide the necessary Biblical texts to back up the assertion. In the absence of any biblical quotes, I have proffered a few for my own convictions. First, it is illogical that God would have had to create anyone as gay when infact He calls such a position 'abominable' in His sight (Lev.20:13). How would God make a person gay and then have to later punish such a person for being something/someone that He was directly responsible for, if that is even possible? If you strike my face and I bleed, would it be fair for you to complain about my bleeding when I did not cause it in the first place? Now, one such text that convinces me that God did not create people as gay is Eccl.7:29 - there it says that "God hath made man upright" rather than making him 'abominable' in what He detests.

2) Second, some contend that the issue of homosexuality is neither expressly condemned nor even remotely mentioned in the Bible. There are two ways to look at this. There are a few words that are not explicitly used in the Bible but are undeniably established Biblical doctrines: substitution (in Christ's sacrifice for our sins); rapture (Christians being caught up to meet the Lord at His second coming); Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit alone being the One God eternally co-existing). So, just because 'homosexuality' is not explicitly penned down in any Bible text does not justify it as a normative or prescriptive practice any more than 'abortion' would be justified since the Bible does not expressly mention it in name.

In both the OT and NT, we find clear statements that show God's disapproval of the practice.

a) Read the story of Sodom in Gen.19. Among the various understandings that could be obtained from the chapter is a clear pointer: the men of the city had less interest in having sex with women than they did with men - that is why they rejected Lot's offer of his daughters in verse 8. There are also other reasons why Sodom fell to the judgement of God (such as are described in Ezek16:49); but it is not coincidental that God used 'sodomy' as a proverbial warning to His people in Deut.23:17 - "There shall be no LovePeddler of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

b) From the time of Abraham to the emergence of the covenant nation Israel, is it not significant that twice in Leviticus, God warned in unmistakable terms against the practice of homosexuality among His people? Just what does this involve? If we understand it simply as same-sex activity [or, for example, 'man + man = homosexuality'], then match that in any translation of the Bible to these two verses:

Lev.18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Lev.20:13 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

These are explicit statements that convey God's mind on the subject regardless what term we commonly use today for the activity - homosexuality, gay, buggery, down-low, msm, etc

So many have protested the OT texts on this subject as obsolete and non-applicable today. Against the backdrop of such arguments, there's just one question to ask: since when has an abominable act in the past ceased being abominable in the present? It's all well and good that the literal application of Lev.20:13 to put gays/homosexuals to death is not something the Christian pursues today; but should that in itself overthrow the implications of homosexuality and now be regarded as having been elavated as a virtuous activity?

What about the New Testament? My writeup continues shortly.

chinani:

In my opinion, marriage & homosexuality are 2 different topics. I do not understand how Matt. 19:3-6 relates to homosexuals. From your post, they are the same or interconnected to you. Can you explain this (as I do not follow you)? Regardless of sexual orientation, is it necessary for everyone to marry? What is your position on nuns, priests, spinsters and the like? And how do they relate to homosexuals?

chinani,

Thank you so much for your patience in my reply. I'll find the time to post one before long so you could see my views from a Christian perspective. Very much 'preciate your questions.

I guess you'd come back with that. And I maintain that you state your assertions for the non-existence of God as clearly as possible then we could pick it up from there. Seeing that you didn't face up to that, I'd let it be - just so we don't tease ourselves with needless definitions of grammar. BTW, my definition of mercy does not subscribe to shooting anyone in the head as you put it - and you're right in stating that God hasn't done that.

TYPOP,

Thanks for your input - a few things you said are very helpful.

If for the sake of mere arguments you ferret all kinds of notions, it is understandable that you do so because you would not want to believe in God; but that in itself does not mean that God does not exist. The problem here is that you are actually trying to argue that He does not exist because you don't want Him to. Still it does not change anything about the existence of God. Let me reference a quote from you:

"Merciful is shooting a man in the head when he is being burned alive with no hope of being saved."

Where in my writeup did I describe mercy that way? Then you draw the inference that -

"I've never heard/read/seen God do that. So, God cannot be merciful."

So, if shooting someone in the head is the meaning of mercy to you, does it establish the non-existence of God because God hasn't shot anyone in the head while being burnt alive? How cheeky could you get?

Apart from reading posts out of contexts to such extremities, it's very disappointing that when you want to talk about the non-existence of God you actually pick up limited constraints. The point is, does God exist or does He not? If God does not exist, on what empirical basis do you make that claim? Words may be taken out of context to mean things they are never meant to - as in your example of mercy. If you want to discuss issues as a hard-nosed atheist, clearly state your claims and let's take it up from there.

It doesn't take an idiot to see the problem with God being omnibenevolent - why do bad thimgs happen to good people.

To be omnibenevolent and still have bad things happen to good people. . .that would imply God enjoys the pain of people and thus doesn't see it as a "bad" thing.  However, that would technically be a contradiction of his omnibenevolence and thus ,  . it couldn't happen.  So, a being that allows pain to exist CANNOT be omnibenevolent.

Once you accept this to be true, you realize that unless we are wrong and God is NOT omnibenevolent. . . then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its supposed to be.

Your reasoning is faulty by a million miles. You are trying to look at the attributes of God in a one-dimensional frame of reference - a limited constraint. Take another look at the divine qualities ascribed to God: holiness. A perfectly holy God will not only love purity, but by default He must act in perfect accordance with His holiness in situations of sin and impurity. It is perfectly in keeping with the attributes of a perfect God that He punishes wickedness and rebellion - qualities which are contrary to His character and personality. He cannot let evil run its course unabated. But if He zaps at every moment that man sins, rebels and spurns His grace, who would be alive today? And people like you would be first in line to say, "Aha! God does not exist because He has not shown mercy despite the fact that He says He is merciful!" Here we have a balance - and it is that balance that you have refused to look at. You are dreaming of a 'god' that is at best a monolithic being, one who is too rigid that he is incapable of acting in harmony with real experiences. God is holy and His holiness judges anything impure; but even so, He is merciful - and it is His attribute of mercy that helps man to not experience the immediate judgement of His hand.

In human relationships, any woman dreams of certain qualities in any man they want to give themselves to in marraige. He should be completely honest, gentle, caring and loving, among other things. Alas! How many times have you been dishonest, uncaring and unloving? Not trying to sound accusative, let me yet ask: Have you never stolen, lied, cheated, argued, said things to hurt people, acted cynically, put down people, . . . (and if you're married) - argued and been unnecessarily domineering towards your wife? So, just because you have failed at any one of these reference points (or qualities) would not be taken to mean that you can't be a good and romantic husband; less so could it be taken out of context to mean that you don't exist!

It's admittedly a poor analogy, but God has not failed any test of His attributes - He's not the one on trial: you are! You may not like this God and therefore write Him off as inconsistent and non-existent; but your premise is too narrow to draw any meaningful conclusion. Pain and suffering do not prove the non-existence of God any more than crime in any society 'proves' that the Police does not exist.

Think again about how many times you make contradictory statements: "then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its supposed to be." Wait a minute: how could you tell the 'behaviour' of God, much less draw the conclusion that it 'contradicts' what He's supposed to be? How do you know the 'behaviour of God' if you deny His existence? If someone or something does not exist, how do you observe or measure his/its behaviour in other to draw upon a reference of contradiction? This is why your atheistic assertions are often muddled up.

You cannot establish  a broadly categorical denial of the existence of God by a limited frame of reference and inconsistent or contradictory inference.

simmy:

Please read your bible in full before making arbritary statements ok? The new testament explains very clearly excactly how Christ amended the laws of the old testament. Nobody (at least i don't) grudges the homosexuals a right to live but i do take offence when they want to attend MY church and tell me to my face that MY God made them the way they are when He explicitly tells me in His book that He does not condone such a thing.

My dear simmy, you are BOLD! And I couldn't have said it any better. When the question of marriage was brought before Jesus in Matt.19:3-6, there was something striking in His answers. For one thing, Jesus categorically stated that what God had joined together, let not man put asunder (verse 6). The question is, who did God join together - man + man (homosexual union) or man + woman (heterosexual union)? I suppose that anyone trying to justify the gay lifestyle will look for any excuse to debate Jesus' straight answers in the scripture above.

spikedcylinder:

When i said something about chapters in the bible and the divinity of Jesus,i was not attacking anyone's beliefe,i was just stating WHAT I DONT believe in.Simple.

You don't believe God has a Son is not the same as "that so called son is divine". How would you feel if I referred to your belief as a 'so called' religion in fair exchange? You could state something without attempting to slur the beliefs that are different from yours.

Anyway, could we just move on and leave this petty issue behind us?

spikedcylinder:

Are you just realising that?
You should realise that each and every time you tackle someone else's beliefs, you would always hit a stone wall

Hey spike, don't take it that far - no one's attacking your belief; she was curious, and if you didn't state your belief system from the onset, you don't need to be so up in arms. I noticed that when people talk about 'God' they don't necessarily are thinking of the Christian deity - and that's what I've always maintained. Your statement that certain chapeters in the Bible were other people's opinions and that God doesn't have a 'so called son' could be taken as the same thing you sulk about: tackling someone's else's beliefs.

Hey Rolly, everyone makes mistakes - and I don't think you should feel __ ! U're d best!  

spikedcylinder:

Some people seem to be fogetting that chapters of the bible are based on the opinions of people who lived before and after jesus christ and not jesuse himself.

No chapter in the Bible was based on the opinions of people who lived before and after Jesus Christ. First, you're not a Christian; second, you can't sustain that opinion based on verifiable an historical facts. You might brush away certain chapters you don't like - but there's just not one chapter that fits your opinion above.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" [II Tim. 3:16].

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." [II Pet. 1:21].

KAG:

Rom 1:27, is not condemning homosexuals, but is instead condemning the Roman heterosexuals, who unnaturallly decided to partake in lustful homosexual practices, something that was prevalent in ancient Rome. Rom 1:27 And 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 recompense of their error which was meet.

The fact that you're trying to interpret the Bible as a non-Christian is forgiveable, but that still does not carry the point that homosexuality is an OK lifestyle from the Christian point of view. If you read Romans in the Bible, you'll see that God was not focusing merely on "the Roman heterosexuals" but on everyone in every place engaged in the practice condemned in Rom.1:27. The scope of Romans is "for obedience to the faith among all nations" - (Rom.1:5); and when God says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (ch.3:23), you certainly would not suppose that was limited to just the "Roman sinners", would you?

KAG:

There was no need to, Lev 20:13 is a mosaic law, and has been superceded by the love of christ. This is also clear freom the other mosaic laws that have been disregarded, like, the recommended punishment for many practises, the belief that eating certain animals would make you unclean, the keeping of the sabbath day free, and the law condemning the wearing of a garment made of two different materials.

So, let me ask: does the love of Christ pass the bill for promoting what the Mosaic Law forbids? I don't think so. The ten commandments are part of the Mosaic Law; by the same reasoning that we are not under the Mosaic Law, does that mean it is okay for anyone today to kill, steal, commit adultery, and bear false witness against one's neighbour? (Exo.20:13-16). The fact that Christ came preaching grace and love does not mean that the implications and significance of the Law is thrown overboard wholesale.

KAG:

I'm sure Jesus would have pro-choice too, and I believe he would have supported a woman whose only choice was abortion (but that's another thread).

Your opinion. But putting words in Christ's mouth does not help the argument.

KAG:

Homosexuals were around in Jesus' time, if he didn't think the love between two consenting adults of the same sex was worth condemning, then, It's also a good thing that homosexual christians are not living a lifestyle condemned in Romans, they can therefore be led of the Spirit (big S).

Good to note that homosexuals were around in Jesus' time. But just because He apparently did not say anything on the issue does not mean that He gave His consent. Leviticus is part of Jesus' assertion in Matt.4:4 - "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." He definitely shamed those who felt that God's Word could be relaxed just to suit people's appetites for whatever they chose (Matt.15:1-9). Anyone carefully studying Jesus' teaching would know what to do with Lev.20:13 - would Jesus have nullified that warning simply because He came to preach love?

KAG:

Except perhaps, he isn't going to punish them for being homosexuals. Taking into account the many testaments of Homosexuals, who have stated explicitly that they have been attracted to the same sex as far back as they can remember, and coupling that with the occurence of homosexuality in other animals, it would seem to me that a christian would be justified in stating "God made them this way".

No Christian would be justified in stating that God made them gay or homosexual - Eccl.7:29 refutes that notion: "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

KAG:

Once again, lying is too strong a term. you may disagree with their premise, but it would be a tad self-righteous to condemn it as lies. Just out of curiousity, did you choose to be attracted to the oppposite sex?

I apologise for my strong verbiage in calling their bluff as straight lies. But I still maintain that people choosing to be gay or homosexuals or whatever does not mean that God made them so - from the Christian point of view. Nowhere is that thought sustained in the Bible as far as 'man + man = homosexuality' is a discountenanced lifestyle in God's eyes.

t4cash:

Once again, let me make my opinion clear: God did not make this boy gay. He did it by himself.

aye, point noted.

t4cash:

BTW There is no such thing as a "christian God". God with a capital G, implies monotheism. Correctly, you shouls say a "Christian concept of God".

And I certainly hope you're not being childish in supposing that monotheism is synonymous with Christianity alone (or, besides Islam and Judaism). The Zoroastrians speak of belief in one God called 'Ahura Mazda' (meaning 'Wise Lord' see here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian/beliefs/index.shtml) - and I've met English speaking Zoroastrians who often refer to their deity as 'God'; Sikhism preaches just about the same monotheistic deity [here also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/sikhism/beliefs/index.shtml], and Bahá'ism is fundamentally a monotheistic religion [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bahai/beliefs/god.shtml ].

When you say "God with a capital G, implies monotheism" you'd need to qualify that statement because most people would immediately point their fingers at the Christian deity in issues like the present topic - and that is what the debate seems to be moulding into. [KAG - "GOD = christian God"__"the christian God is often referred to simply as GOD" https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-8351.0.html]

And spikedcylinder, why has it suddenly become tough for you to state what faith/religion you belong to? Your responses of late seem that you've become deflated and can no longer carry forward your argument - like t4cash puts it.

t4cash:

Yawn. Why is it that once someone says to them "I don't believe in the Bible" some Christians become deflated and can't carry forward their argument?

BTW There is no such thing as a "christian God". God with a capital G, implies monotheism. Correctly, you shouls say a "Christian concept of God".

Excuse me t4cash, you obviously just waded into the discussion without checking out what has been said before. FYI, in response to KAG's posts, I made the correction that not everyone speaking of God is necessarily talking about the 'Christian God' (precisely as she put it - concept or no concept!). So, when you come up to the idea that some Christians become 'deflated' just because others who speak about God don't believe in the Bible, I think that is being bogus and childish on your part. The argument has been well carried, and if you can't see that, sorry. And what is the argument? God did not make anyone gay - from the Christian point of view, the Bible has a lot to say on the issue, and you only need to refer to the previous posts with clear Biblical references. If anyone believes that their 'God' (or 'concept of God') made them gay, they are most welcome to push their agenda - but that does not justify the notion that any and every silly agenda should necessarily be blamed on the Christian faith.

Quote from: spikedcylinder on MArch 15
Simmy,am sure with your rigid views you also believe that men are superior to women?

Quote from: simmy on March 15
Then from common sense, the woman is obviously the complement of the man.

spikedcylinder:

This was why i asked that question simmy,am not straying from the topic.

That 'the woman is obviously the complement of the man' does not sound the same as 'men are superior to women'. The issue is on gay and God - did God make anyone gay? The question of whether men are superior to women is a distraction from the main topic.

spikedcylinder:

I'm not a christian but i believe in the Divine ALMIGHTY God,is that the same God as the christian God?

Wow! I wish KAG would see this - my is point made: not everyone speaking of 'God' is actually referring to the Christian deity.

I'm a Christian, and I believe in God ALMIGHTY. However, the Bahá'is believe that 'God' is ALMIGHTY as well, but they don't speak of the 'Christian God'. I respect your beliefs, but my Christian belief does not teach that God (the Christian deity) made anyone gay (Eccl.7:29).

Thanks for your input.

spikedcylinder:

Simmy,am sure with your rigid views you also believe that men are superior to women?

Face the issue at hand and forget the detours. The question is: Did God make anyone gay? If you're pushing for the affirmative, please tell us what 'God' you're referring to and reference your points from God's Word.