God loves homosexuals, but does not approve of their actions.

Renzzy, Sorry again about being so late to get back to you. Last night I was at a friend's house and I was out all day with my friends today. In fact, I just got back a little while ago. Anyway, on to the debate. First, may I say that your last few arguments were really tough and I did have to put a lot of thought into this response. I appreciate your ability to get me really thinking about this. Very few people have ever come up with such thought-provoking answers to my arguments. Now to begin: "If the Bible was intended to be interpreted differantly by every man, then we would simply not have an unchanging God... If God allowed each man to interperate it differantly, He would have to change for everyones differant beliefs, and it would make Him a liar when He speaks in these verses." I'm not sure if the Bible was *intended* to be interpreted differently, but because each human looks at it from a different perspective, it inevitably is. Even religious scholars don't see things eye to eye all the time. If I listened a priest's sermon about a reading, then went and listened to another priest's sermon about the same reading, there would probably be quite a bit of contrast between the two. The fact of the matter is, God is a very complex being and his Word is like a novel written by a genius. Though people may find some of the hidden meanings, other's will miss them or find something that isn't even there. That verse I sent you is a perfect example. While I thought it meant one thing, you interpreted it to mean something completely different, and it made sense. Speaking of that verse, when I said it "cancels out" sin, I didn't really mean cancels out. I mean, I know I said that but I couldn't really find the words to express what I really meant. Err... I still don't really know how to put it. "The Romans passage that that I quoted still says that the men exchanged their NATURAL relations for UNNATURAL ones, and my argument that God created us to act naturally still stands." This is such a tricky argument when it comes to nature, God, and homosexuality because no matter what I say, it can be turned around and used agaist me. For example, if I argued that God condemns human nature throughout the Bible and that homosexuality is not a result of human nature but human affection, one could argue that there is a great difference between the nature of humans and the nature of, well, nature. However, if I argued that homosexuality has been observed in nature among several species of animals and that humans are merely included among them, one could just as easily argue that humans should not take their example from animals concidering that many of the things they do, we would see as immoral. Now there's a contradiction: we're suppose to act naturally, yet act against our nature. It's a double standard that we can only act naturally if our natural inclination is heterosexual. Some people believe that homosexuality is a psycholgical disorder, caused by not enough nurturing from a parent of the same sex or by rejection of one's own feminimity/masculinity. If this is the case, many Christian ministries attempt to solve these problems theraputically. However, as a homosexual myself, I have never experienced either of the above and I know others who feel similarly. Others argue that homosexuality is inbred, which is what the Catholic Church believes, yet we are told to act against this inclination in order to remain chaste. I don't understand, should we act naturally or shouldn't we? And why? This is why I argue love. The one thing that seperates the humans from the animals is the ability to harbor a deep, emotional bond to accompany these natural inclinations. It is probably the one thing that keeps humans monogamous when they are so inclined to act otherwise. If our nature is so detestable to God, then why did he make us? Despite his obvious dislike for homosexuality, Paul speaks on this as well: "'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"'[a] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" Romans 9:20-21 As Paul also said, "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" If God made us this way, what else can we do but go with it, make what we can of it? If a commitment is what blossoms from this, then is that not the best that can be made of an unusual circumstance? Or should we go against our nature, marry one of the opposite sex, void of a love that could have been? Which is better: love or procreation? That is what it comes down to after all: procreation. One asserts that heterosexuality is natural way things should be because it is only from man and woman that a child is born. God did say "be fruitful and multiply" but is that truly our only purpose, to have babies? Isn't that the sole purpose of animals? The Bible seems to teach that we are above animals, and if we are above animals, then our purpose should transcend that of an animal's as well. Could it not be that maybe some people aren't meant to have children? For example, as well as being a lesbian, I also show signs of infertility. Perhaps this is a sign. Perhaps the purpose of a homosexual lies beyond building a family. I shall end my argument with that and thank you for this most enthralling debate. Though we may never be able to see eye to eye on this issue, at least we can now better understand each other's perspective on the matter. I pray that you lead a life of happiness and prosperity from here on out and that your already deep relationship with God grows even more profound throughout your journey. God Bless! Your Sappho