|
Post by justaman on Sept 3, 2006 14:41:41 GMT -5
And hold on, so you're saying that you guys don't have an agenda to make people intolerant of homosexuals because they are sinners?
Face it, if you try hard enough anything can become an 'agenda'. Really all they are looking for is for people to not treat them as lesser beings for what they are. As one of God's children, even if they are 'lost' in your opinion.
Though, I always thought of those pushing the laviticus statements as people who should really live in Isreal, since that's who God told Moses to go tell...
And don't give me this, "We're decendents" bull... if you believed in everything out ancestors did, you'd be Catholic, not Protestant.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 3, 2006 14:52:11 GMT -5
Hey, even my Jewish Gerbil has an agenda!!
(He choose his religion, not me. I won't force Christianity on him)
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 3, 2006 15:55:03 GMT -5
And hold on, so you're saying that you guys don't have an agenda to make people intolerant of homosexuals because they are sinners? Face it, if you try hard enough anything can become an 'agenda'. Really all they are looking for is for people to not treat them as lesser beings for what they are. As one of God's children, even if they are 'lost' in your opinion. Though, I always thought of those pushing the laviticus statements as people who should really live in Isreal, since that's who God told Moses to go tell... And don't give me this, "We're decendents" bull... if you believed in everything out ancestors did, you'd be Catholic, not Protestant. Well, it sceams as though it worked on you. Just a "man"......
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 3, 2006 17:27:45 GMT -5
Show me a homosexual who beat a Christian to death and maybe I wouldn't be so sympathetic...
And why are you making fun of my name... I accept I am just a mortal under God... do you see yourself as more?
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 3, 2006 20:06:51 GMT -5
No, I am just a mortal under God same as you. But you are taking the side of sodomites in this debate and that's wicked...and yes there has been plenty of violence against Christians by f*gs.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 3, 2006 20:38:40 GMT -5
No, I am just a mortal under God same as you. But you are taking the side of sodomites in this debate and that's wicked...and yes there has been plenty of violence against Christians by f*gs. I think calling a homosexual a f/a/g is unappropriate, brother. I apologize on behalf of our brother here.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 3, 2006 21:43:32 GMT -5
That was nice of you to do Thumpy. I just had a warm fuzzy feeling about you!!
(But that's not love because it's just an action. What was my warm fuzzy feeling then?!?)
Again, that was nice of you.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 3, 2006 21:53:54 GMT -5
No, I am just a mortal under God same as you. But you are taking the side of sodomites in this debate and that's wicked...and yes there has been plenty of violence against Christians by f*gs. I think calling a homosexual a f/a/g is unappropriate, brother. I apologize on behalf of our brother here. Well I don't think it is wrong or inappropriate. And I respect that you feel strongly enough to say that you think otherwise Dan. I feel it has it's place in dialog. Possibly it would be a good topic to discuss. The use of the word fag??
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 3, 2006 22:13:22 GMT -5
We all know that the word f/a/g is used to demean and degrade a homosexual... and even if that is not YOUR intent, it will be viewed as such by a homosexual.
Why not stick to Biblical words such as evil, wicked, etc etc?
Homosexuals are also mad ein the image of God, and have dignity as creations of God...as we all do.
The use of the word f/a/g is derogatory; hence, you may use it, but it serves only to demean another individual unjustly... whether you intend to or not.
God bless,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 3, 2006 22:14:20 GMT -5
Do you have morals or ethics pach?? At least, morals when it comes to dealing with other people NOT like you??
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 3, 2006 22:15:56 GMT -5
That was nice of you to do Thumpy. I just had a warm fuzzy feeling about you!! (But that's not love because it's just an action. What was my warm fuzzy feeling then?!?) Again, that was nice of you. Thanks... I believe that homosexuals are (1) humans, (2) humans mad ein God's IMAGE, (3) Not to be degraded in the Name of God.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 3, 2006 22:18:26 GMT -5
It feels nice to be nice to someone on this board for a change! ;D
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 3, 2006 22:34:30 GMT -5
I don't think I would ever call someone a f*g or homo or a similar name in the course of a conversation where I was talking to them. As if I was using this as a means to identify them at that particular moment. Like, "yo f*g". Or, "your a homo". I agree that this serves no purpose and could be potent ally damaging.
However, those words do remain in my vocabulary. Consider the following: Billy Sunday said that society will take the first step back in the direction of morality when sins are called by their proper names. In conversations where we are talking about behavior or group behavior I feel that it is right to call it what it is. Not to demean people...but to place a rightfully deserved stigma on sinful behavior.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 3, 2006 22:40:43 GMT -5
But to agree with Thumpy again, would not the correct terms (Biblically) to call be the ones he gave? Wicked, etc.
fag is slang baby. Derived from faggot, which just means bundle of sticks. So, the correct term for gay ppl is a bundle of sticks?? *sigh* I doubt it.
So I better call you by your sin, LOONIE TOON!! QUACK. NUTJOB. PSYCHO. Doesn't matter if you were born that way, it's still your sin.
;D
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 3, 2006 22:47:44 GMT -5
A person who engages in sex with a member of the same sex should be ashamed. Society has removed that stigma......we must continue to call it what it is. It's among the worst sins and a man that engages in such has no manhood. And a woman...has no womanhood.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 3, 2006 22:50:24 GMT -5
Ya it has manhood. In fact, as I understand it, it would have twice the manhood.
And again, calling it what it is means calling it a bundle of sticks?? Mighty confusing. How does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 3, 2006 22:56:57 GMT -5
You can't take your sin to heaven curvyy.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 3, 2006 23:15:31 GMT -5
Manhood is a sin?? ;D
Oh Pach you loony you. ;D
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 4, 2006 1:46:02 GMT -5
Like many 'dirty words' faggot was actually a clean one which mean a bundle of sticks. But people demeaned it into homosexuality, and thus (since dirty words can never be more then four letters as some rule) got reduced to the three letters. Would like your evidence on them killing a Christian... and it won't count unless 'they were a Christian' was the motive.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 4, 2006 10:08:37 GMT -5
pachristianpatriot: I don't think I would ever call someone a f*g or homo or a similar name in the course of a conversation where I was talking to them.
Response: You ARE talking to them on this Board; you have absolutely gone against your entire statement here.
pachristianpatriot: As if I was using this as a means to identify them at that particular moment. Like, "yo f*g". Or, "your a homo". I agree that this serves no purpose and could be potentially damaging.However, those words do remain in my vocabulary. Consider the following: Billy Sunday said that society will take the first step back in the direction of morality when sins are called by their proper names.
RESPONSE: I do not believe the word f/a/g is a "proper name"... and if Bill Sundy or the Pope said otherwise I'd publically call them to repent.
pachristianpatriot: In conversations where we are talking about behavior or group behavior I feel that it is right to call it what it is.
Response: I agree... and because homosexuality is homosexuality...call it that.
pachristianpatriot: Not to demean people...but to place a rightfully deserved stigma on sinful behavior.
Response: The word f/a/g has NOTHING to do with the homosexual lifestyle...the Bible calls it perversion, sin, etc etc... but NEVER has it called man a f/a/g.....
JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF would have done no such thing.
To demean another, while claiming you're simply coming against sin, is pretty low brother pachristianpatriot.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 4, 2006 11:11:55 GMT -5
Brother Dan, We'll have to disagree on this. I' talking about their behavior. I would like to know why you have formed such a solid belief against the use of this word? Is there a specific incident or example of something that you could give me a reason why you to feel so strongly against it's use? Because what bothers me is that there are Godly men that use the word ( or similar words), even while preaching. And some of them have ministries to specifically help homosexuals. Christ takes away their shame..... I'm simply not talking against their personhood any more than I would be speaking against mine for saying that I'm a sinner as well.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 4, 2006 13:25:44 GMT -5
Brother Dan, We'll have to disagree on this. I' talking about their behavior.I would like to know why you have formed such a solid belief against the use of this word?
RESPONSE:
Talking about their behaviour and name calling them as f/a/g/s are related? I don't see the relation here AT ALL.
I see hatred..whether intended or NOT.
THEY see cruelty and name calling and they CERTAINLY do not see Jesus in this useage.
We had a minister come to our former church once.... he was from Tulsa.
I loved his preaching and his stand against sin and wickedness....
Then...
He began speaking on homosexuality.
It was powerful, until he began saying such things as, "q/u/e/e/r" ....
I happened to have brought a homosexual WITH me to the church.
He hasn;t gone back to an Evangelical church since.
Not because he thinks his lifestyle is OK; he admits it is not.
He's rebellious and wicked.
This is a fact.
However, he didn;t believe the preacher was calling him to Jesus Christ... but he felt, as most of the Christians did, that this Man of God was demeaning homosexuals.
ONE SINGLE WORD has caused 9 YEARS of non church attendance.
I witness to this man almost every night; one2one.
If I ever call him a f/a/g he'll never speak to me again.
Because he's not dumb; he know sthe word is demeaning....
I don;t care what others think of it.
I'm with Pat (Christking) on this issue of name calling while we claim to be "speaking truth" and "witnessing".
CLOTHE them!
FEED THEM!
LOVE THEM!
You can;t feed, clothe and love them while saying, "you're a f/a/g".
That's hypocrisy.
Someone may come to this forum and read your words and NEVER again look for help from the Body of Christ.
Take that any way you want to brother... but rather than say f/a/g and whatnot, why don;t we use words that are ABOVE the vocabulary of the world?
Wicked men call homosexuals f/a/g/s and here we are trying to justify it's use?
I would hate to stand before God and see that I may have forever sealed a man in hell because he thought my God was evil and promoted (PROMOTED) such words against His creation.
God promotes BIBLICAL vocabulary; He certainly DOES NOT condone the use of worldly speech, brother.
Let us rise above name calling.
Let us show that God SAVES homosexuals...rather than calls them names they have heard from homophobics and infidels.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 4, 2006 13:45:03 GMT -5
I'll think on what you said. Thank you for explaining your position to me. I am able to understand you a little better now. I do agree with you.....in principle. I will think on my use of the word. I'm coming from a position from railing against "the homosexual agenda". But you do have a legitimate point.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 4, 2006 15:14:29 GMT -5
Let's talk about a 'homophobic agenda', why are there many versions of the Bible? The same reason there are many different web browsers. All bibles are tools to preach the Word of God, while browsers are tools to view webpages.
Now why are there so many versions? Because not every browser is good at doing particular tasks, Fire Fox isn't good at plugins, which IE has many flaws.
So I find myself using particular browswers for particular tasks, such as preachers tend to do to attack groups, such as gays.
1 Cortitians 6:9-10 in the KJV is different from the NIV, you guys use the NIV because the word 'homosexuals' is in there, while in the KJV it is the word 'effeminate', which means a man acting like a woman.
Now for questions. Do all gay men act feminine? Does this condemn lesbians? Are these questions why you use the NIV and not the KJV?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 4, 2006 16:09:54 GMT -5
Let's talk about a 'homophobic agenda', why are there many versions of the Bible? The same reason there are many different web browsers. All bibles are tools to preach the Word of God, while browsers are tools to view webpages. Now why are there so many versions? Because not every browser is good at doing particular tasks, Fire Fox isn't good at plugins, which IE has many flaws. So I find myself using particular browswers for particular tasks, such as preachers tend to do to attack groups, such as gays. 1 Cortitians 6:9-10 in the KJV is different from the NIV, you guys use the NIV because the word 'homosexuals' is in there, while in the KJV it is the word 'effeminate', which means a man acting like a woman. Now for questions. Do all gay men act feminine? Does this condemn lesbians? Are these questions why you use the NIV and not the KJV? Your FIRST mistake was to try quoting the Scriptures without BELIEVING the Scriptures. First... Turn from YOUR sin. YOUR wickedness. YOUR evil. PLACE your faith in Jesus Christ; He HAS given you faith! Next, SERVE HIM!
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 4, 2006 17:52:58 GMT -5
His wicked what? His evil what?? HUH???
Thumpy, i hate to say this after agreeing with you, but that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. I placed my faith in Jesus I feel the same way he does. Believing is not a prerequisite for reading the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 4, 2006 18:01:02 GMT -5
Fair enough and correct also... you do not have to believe to read the Scriptures.
However, let's be fair, here, Cervyy....
Don;t you see justaman trying to water down what Scripture teaches on homosexuality by comparing preachers who use several versions of the Bible?
Isn;t that a silly way of coming at this issue?
I, for one, use ONLY the KJ.
I mean, how does a preacher using many versions have anything to do with what Scripture teaches on homosexuality?
Also, the KJV is clear on homosexuality; he simply mad eit look otherwise.
Lev 18:22, Romans 1.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 4, 2006 18:07:40 GMT -5
I get his point. It goes back to that the Bible in and of itself is unreliable because it is flawed. Why? There are many versions, where for instance scriptures about homosexuality is different. That raises some red flags to me.
It's not silly if it shows that the Bible is flawed and can be claimed to be 100% accurate and of God. Unless God wanted to lie to you.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 4, 2006 18:15:30 GMT -5
I get his point. It goes back to that the Bible in and of itself is unreliable because it is flawed. Why? There are many versions, where for instance scriptures about homosexuality is different. That raises some red flags to me. It's not silly if it shows that the Bible is flawed and can be claimed to be 100% accurate and of God. Unless God wanted to lie to you. No... only modern version readers can get stuck on your argument here... I believe in ONE Bible, based on the Textus Receptus, which is our KJ and all versions based on the TR in other languages. So, I would have to say that the other Bibles are not versions; they are PERversions. Other people will take issue with that; however, I believe in ONE Bible. Not many. And my ONE Bible says ONE thing about homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 4, 2006 18:18:03 GMT -5
Eh, I'll live happily with my belief that the Bible is wrong because of all that. I'll ask God when He judges me, know it's too late, but I can chance it. I have faith too.
|
|