|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 2, 2006 13:37:28 GMT -5
I have a few questions for the homosexuals. Actually, I suppose I'd like to question your morality.
On what grounds do you justify homosexuality?
Do you believe in homosexual sex before marriage or only after marriage?
What do you think about kiddie porn and beastiality?
If you condemn it, on what grounds do you condemn it?
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 2, 2006 14:03:29 GMT -5
Something else to ponder as well: If everyone in the world was a homosexual (a true one, not "bi"), the world would die off in a matter of less than 100 years due to not being able to reproduce! Just another proof that we are not made to be homosexual, but heterosexual. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 2, 2006 14:13:47 GMT -5
I know that there are some homosexuals who would publicly condemn beastiality. But my question to them is, why are you so hateful?
The dogs that get involved in beastiality are really men that are trapped in dogs bodies. And so long as the women and the dog really love each other, isn't it ok?
Of course I am using satire to prove my point. I truly believe that just as Americans in the past did not tolerate such a sinful thing as slavery, neither should Americans today tolerate such a sinful thing as homosexuality.
(Notice how the adds up top always advertise according to the key words it picks up in the discussions)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 2, 2006 17:35:04 GMT -5
I thought of another question, what if the women is actually a dog trapped in a womens body?
(I know it sounds absurd, but it's sad that our society has come to this tha it requires absurd internal critiques)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 2, 2006 17:35:22 GMT -5
I thought of another question, what if the women is actually a dog trapped in a womens body?
(I know it sounds absurd, but it's sad that our society has come to this that it requires absurd internal critiques)
|
|
|
Post by Alison on Apr 2, 2006 19:39:52 GMT -5
I truly believe that just as Americans in the past did not tolerate such a sinful thing as slavery, neither should Americans today tolerate such a sinful thing as homosexuality. We meet again. lol I know I'm posting here instead of on the other thread when there is even a question posed ot me, but whatever. I don't have the time to construct huge arguments, I'll admit to that much. So my postings may be short, to a specific point, and therefore in vain, but I'm posting them nonetheless. So to that, the funny thing is, many many many many Christians actually ok'ed slavery. Especially in the South (where i'm from, so I think I can say that.) I'm in a Baptist Traditions class right now and it's very interesting to see how the Baptists' opinions have changed over the years, including a change from being slaveholders themselves to condemning it. And in the issue of slavery and the issue of homosexuality, both sides of each argument have verses to back up their points. In fact, a preacher at the First Baptist Church in the very town in which I'm living right now preached a sermon in the 1800's later published in the local paper, called something along the lines of "A Biblical Justification for the Institution of Slavery". Interesting huh? How do you know that in twenty years the Christian standpoint on homosexuality will not be the opposite of your viewpoint now? As for your questions, I'm not homosexual myself, so I can't really answer your question. But your argument about the dog being a human in a dog's body is actually not relevant at all. That is a dog, not a human. We are talking about humans and love between two individuals. Anyway, that's the best I can do for now.
|
|
guest
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by guest on Apr 2, 2006 20:53:03 GMT -5
Many homosexuals commonly say that if two people love each other should it matter whether or not they are both the same sex? They say things like God would never condemn a person for loving someone else. They would be correct in saying that God wouldn't condemn someone for loving another person male or female.
However, I love my daughters and sons very much. Does that love then mean it's OK to have sex with them? Of course not! So for homosexuals to justify their sexual choices and consider it moral because they love the other person is actually no justification at all. Go won’t condemn them for loving people, but he will for their immoral sexual conduct.
|
|
|
Post by Guest777 on Apr 2, 2006 22:49:20 GMT -5
Alison, the "love" you refer to isn't love at all. It is lust and it is an abomination to God. For someone to give in to being a homosexual, means that they most likely have a depraved mind that God has given them over to...Romans 1:26-27
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 3, 2006 8:30:02 GMT -5
Homosexuality produces death, not life. If I am preaching agianst this sin, I ask the crowd, "How does a homosexual couple have children?" The answer, "They adopt." And with that I preach that they produce physical death as well as spiritual.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 3, 2006 11:14:22 GMT -5
Oh Alison Alison, when will your war-mongering end?
It was the true (not hypocritical) Christians who were against slavery because they believed their bible that all men were created in God's image.
It was the EVILUTIONISTS who believed in Darwins "Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" book that tried to justify slavery. Evilution was their justification of slavery and also Hitlers justification of the holocaust. He thought he was helping evilution by advancing the arian race.
It's amazing how you war-mongering types always swing things around and try to blame the Christians.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 3, 2006 16:00:07 GMT -5
I've decided to stay neutral on my orientation, just for kicks (I'll let you assume what you will), but I'd like to take on these question and my understanding of them.
On what grounds do you justify homosexuality?
That's kind of a vague question... on what grounds do you justify heterosexuality? I mean, what about the whole reproduction thing in general? Paul seemed to say only do it if you must... so wouldn't the right thing to do be celebate? I might need this question restated to form an accurate answer.
Do you believe in homosexual sex before marriage or only after marriage?
Wait, another vague question. What defines sex? I'm going to go with the 'Clinton definition' of sex - anything that leads to orgasm. Ideally, after marriage. For me, at the least, sex after love. Love - not lust. We'll go into the origins of marriage at another point - then we'll see whether or not I'm even worried about marriage. And again, Paul seems to promote chastity...
What do you think about kiddie porn and beastiality?
Uhmm.... eww.
If you condemn it, on what grounds do you condemn it?
There are clear and undebatable Biblical arguments against kiddie porn... whereas the arguments against homosexuality are few and pretty debatable. Beastiality I dunno about Biblically. I'm pretty sure there's something there, though.
Something else to ponder as well: If everyone in the world was a homosexual (a true one, not "bi"), the world would die off in a matter of less than 100 years due to not being able to reproduce! Just another proof that we are not made to be homosexual, but heterosexual. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!
Yes, and if everyone were male this would be the same case. How do you know that God didn't intend for some people to be homosexuals? It's not a choice. We don't actually know the cause, but twin studies show that there is some genetic susceptability to it.
Guest777: Alison, the "love" you refer to isn't love at all. It is lust and it is an abomination to God. For someone to give in to being a homosexual, means that they most likely have a depraved mind that God has given them over to...Romans 1:26-27
And how, exactly, are reproductive couplings not lust in the same sense. I can say I love my friends, family, etc, male and female. The lust part comes in when you have sex. To be 'in love', by my definitions, is to have one significant other that you dedicate yourself to. You don't love them any more than your friends or family, necessarily.
Josh: Homosexuality produces death, not life. If I am preaching agianst this sin, I ask the crowd, "How does a homosexual couple have children?" The answer, "They adopt." And with that I preach that they produce physical death as well as spiritual.
No... homosexuality just doesn't renew life... just like starvation from overpopulation. And Someone has to adopt all of the homeless kids. Maybe this is part of God's plan to care for them, since we obviously haven't handled it 'naturally'
It was the true (not hypocritical) Christians who were against slavery because they believed their bible that all men were created in God's image.
So who's to say that the 'true' Christians aren't the ones who love and accept everyone, including homosexuals? Your argument doesn't hold enough water.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 3, 2006 16:25:53 GMT -5
Neutrality is a fallicy. There is no neutral ground. Christ said you are either for Him or against Him. Your answers will be either for God or against God, either biblical or unbiblical.
I justify heterosexuality by the bible. God said be fruitful and multiply. The bible teaches that God not only created, but also commands heterosexuality. The basis for it is God's Word.
But there is no justification for homosexuality in God's Word. In fact, all references to homosexuality in the bible are passages which condemn such wicked perversion. So if it cannot be justified by God and His Word, on what grounds then can it be justified which is not sinking sand?
Any type of sex at all. I am personally against premartial kissing. Kissing should be between a man and a women that are married. If not, then why would men have a problem with someone else kissing their wife? Or why would a wife have a problem with another women kissing her husband? It's obvious that even kissing should be between a man and women who are married.
Amen.
Is Romans chapter 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 not loud and clear? It says homosexuality and lesbianism is unnatural, vile, unseemingly, and those who do such deserve death and will not inherit God's kingdom.
The bible says God does not intend for anyone to be a homosexual, and God's word says that it is a choice. God knows what the problem is - a wicked heart.
Lust is desiring that which is forbidden. A married man and women are not lusting.
These poor kids are growing up with two daddies who they see kissing and holding hands and waking up in bed with each other. That is sick. These men should be in jail.
A Christian is one who loves all, but love is not tolerant. If a parent has a child addicted to cocaine, the loving thing would be to be intolerant of his destructive choice. It would be hateful for the parent to tolerate the childs destructive lifestyle of cocaine.
So with sin. The wages of sin is death. God does not tolerate sin, neither should we. We should be loving enough to be intolerant of all sin because all sin leads to hell-fire.
-----------------------------------------------
But the basis in which all ethical judgments must come from is God's Word. His Word alone is a light unto our feet. Christ alone is the solid rock. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. We cannot rightly judge, condemn, or justify anything without the backing of Gods Word.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 3, 2006 17:11:17 GMT -5
Neutrality is a fallicy. There is no neutral ground. Christ said you are either for Him or against Him. Your answers will be either for God or against God, either biblical or unbiblical.
I feel that statement was pointless.
I justify heterosexuality by the bible. God said be fruitful and multiply. The bible teaches that God not only created, but also commands heterosexuality. The basis for it is God's Word.
As I've stated before, it also says to only marry and have kids 'if you must' - see Paul's words. That part comes in the New Testament, which overturns Old Testament in some people's minds. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. The Bible teaches no such thing as commanding heterosexuality. Go read.
But there is no justification for homosexuality in God's Word. In fact, all references to homosexuality in the bible are passages which condemn such wicked perversion. So if it cannot be justified by God and His Word, on what grounds then can it be justified which is not sinking sand?
I think I'm going to stop responding to comments like this with much effort until you take up my arguments in my very first post. The Bible says nothing about homosexuality. Jesus himself had NOTHING to say about it. K, thanks
Any type of sex at all. I am personally against premartial kissing. Kissing should be between a man and a women that are married. If not, then why would men have a problem with someone else kissing their wife? Or why would a wife have a problem with another women kissing her husband? It's obvious that even kissing should be between a man and women who are married.
It's called jealousy, one of the seven deadly sins. You seem to want to fight against it by avoiding it. Which means you never learn to cope. Kind of an untested faith thing.
Is Romans chapter 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 not loud and clear? It says homosexuality and lesbianism is unnatural, vile, unseemingly, and those who do such deserve death and will not inherit God's kingdom.
See above. Corinthians also subjugates women to men.
The bible says God does not intend for anyone to be a homosexual, and God's word says that it is a choice. God knows what the problem is - a wicked heart.
See above.
Lust is desiring that which is forbidden. A married man and women are not lusting.
Which brings us back to the point of defining what's forbidden and what's not. See above.
These poor kids are growing up with two daddies who they see kissing and holding hands and waking up in bed with each other. That is sick. These men should be in jail.
Because we know that only gay couples raise gay kids... and only status-norm couples raise status-norm kids....
I'm curious, what is your standpoint on interracial couples? "That is sick" were choice words used against the same issue.
A Christian is one who loves all, but love is not tolerant. If a parent has a child addicted to cocaine, the loving thing would be to be intolerant of his destructive choice. It would be hateful for the parent to tolerate the childs destructive lifestyle of cocaine.
Ahh, conditional love. The Humanists (they're a branch of psychologists) believe that conditional love causes incongruence, which is a bad thing. Love is meant to be unconditional - that's the true essence of things. You're right, love isn't tolerant - it's infinitely forgiving.
Personally, I've heard it said that the world can take its tolerance and shove it. When you 'tolerate' something, you allow it until a point. Homosexuals want acceptance.
|
|
|
Post by Alison the WarMonger on Apr 3, 2006 21:07:15 GMT -5
Oh Alison Alison, when will your war-mongering end? Hopefully never. You've inspired me, as you can see by my newly formed account on this thing. I hope you don't mind that I quoted you. I can attribute it to you or not, whichever you like. You know, I'm kind of starting to see warmonger as a term of endearment. It still makes me giggle. I told some friends about it today, and we laughed. Laughter is healthy. So thank you. No on to the real issues here. The thing is, I wrote you a nice reply and then hit some wrong buttons and lost it. So I really have got to make this short because I have a ton of work to do for tomorrow (but this is so much more fun!). But here goes. I'm not blaming anyone for the entire institution of slavery, I'm simply trying to point out that there are always Christians on both sides of an issue. The same with slavery, there were Christians who supported slavery and had slaves themselves, and they found Biblical justification for something we now find despicable. These people included the founders of a certain little group. These guys met in Augusta, GA, in 1845, to split from the Triennial Convention when the Triennial Convention took a stand against slavery by not appointing a slaveholder to some position, or something along those lines. So the Southern membership of the Triennial Convention formed the Southern Baptist Convention. Whew, what hypocrites, right? I just wanted to point out something I saw as a little point that needed to be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 3, 2006 22:33:03 GMT -5
On what grounds do you justify homosexuality?
Well, on the grounds that the translations in reference to homosexuality are actually incorrect. In addition to that, I myself have battled homosexuality in an effort to conform to societal norms. From this battling I have come to a few conclusions:
1.) Homosexuality is not something that one can help. When I say this I'm referring to the sexual desires that one feels for members of the same sex. Actions, of course, can always be kept in check if one is careful enough. 2.) I think it is better for a man to commit himself to another man than to commit himself to a woman and be unable to satisfy his desires. This leads to an unhappy marriage for both parties involved. Gay men that marry straight women are often prone to cheating on them with other men. Because they are unable to remain in a committed relationship, this opens the door to spreading STDs between the multiple partners the husband finds, the husband, his wife, and any children that they may have after the disease has entered the family. 3.) Fighting one's sexual preference is damaging to one's self. I was suicidal for a long time before I finally accepted myself for what I was. I also have friends that suffer mental problems from constantly struggling to fight their sexuality.
I have also had friends that "converted" to being straight. These friends generally feel a temporary "high" of empowerment over having "conquered their sin." However, this period is usually short and ends in the person committing acts of promiscuous sex with members of the same sex and then lying about it or "reverting" back to being gay. Either way, the experience is generally traumatic for the individual.
Another argument that being gay is not a choice is the "down-low" culture in which men call themselves straight, have heterosexual relationships, and then have sex with other men on "the down-low." These men typically say (if discovered and challenged), "I'm straight, I just like to have sex with other men." This is the only way these men can cope with being unable to fit in and you can see my view on these sorts of relationships above.
There has also been scientific research that shows that homosexuality is genetic, at least in part. Mothers with a certain genetic characteristic are more likely to have gay sons. I can go more in depth into this subject if you are willing to listen.
Do you believe in homosexual sex before marriage or only after marriage?
I am very much a "you wait until you're married" type of person, though the heterosexual majority and fundamentalist conservatives wish to deny people such as myself the joy of being able to declare unconditionally my love for another because they don't believe that I'm marrying the right person. Of course, I also realize that the person that gets married as a virgin is rare and the couple that marries in which both individuals are virgins are even more scarce and I'm not going to condemn unmarried non-virgins to Hell because I believe in forgiveness. I at this point am among a small minority in my group as a 21-year-old gay male virgin.
What do you think about kiddie porn and beastiality?
I think that both of these are obscene and wrong. I also do not understand how people always manage to bring these topics up when discussing homosexuality. Kiddie porn is not only traumatic and psychologically damaging to children, it also exploits those who have no ability to stand up for themselves. Bestiality, and this is the correct spelling (try a dictionary), I also consider wrong. Sex is something that should take place between two consenting adults. Animals are unable to say that they want to have sex with a person (although dogs have been known to hump humans' legs without the consent of the human). Animals also do not have legal standing and cannot sign a marriage certificate, so please don't try to say that same-sex marriage will lead to people marrying animals.
If you condemn it, on what grounds do you condemn it?
When I was young I tried to tell myself that I couldn't possibly be gay. The reason? Because it wasn't a norm in society.
Something else to ponder as well: If everyone in the world was a homosexual (a true one, not "bi"), the world would die off in a matter of less than 100 years due to not being able to reproduce! Just another proof that we are not made to be homosexual, but heterosexual. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!
Why don't you ponder this? The world is already close to becoming overpopulated. Many spend most of their lives battling starvation. Have you ever thought that homosexuals are God's way of trying to keep our population down?
I know that there are some homosexuals who would publicly condemn beastiality.
I think that it would be more than "some." I personally have not met anyone that would approve of the practice. My question is: why are you so focused on bestiality? I'm concerned about you because you are so focused on this topic.
However, I love my daughters and sons very much. Does that love then mean it's OK to have sex with them?
If you are all adults, that is your choice. I can't say that I approve of it or would ever even consider it but that is your prerogative. However, most cases of incest are between an adult and a child. A child is unable to resist an adult and I consider this as rape.
Alison, the "love" you refer to isn't love at all. It is lust and it is an abomination to God.
Try to see it like this. The love that she is talking about is the same love that a man experiences for the woman he is married to (well, in the ideal heterosexual marriage, which is not always the case)
Oh Alison Alison, when will your war-mongering end?
What makes her a war-mongerer? I could more easily say that you are a war-mongerer. I think this is slanderous. Besides, didn't you open up this discussion? What kind of discussion is it if you ask for someone to tell you why they disagree with you and then as soon as they give you their reason you immediately accuse them of starting the argument? Rather, if you are the one who opened the discussion, you, if any, are the one to be called a war-mongerer.
It was the EVILUTIONISTS who believed in Darwins "Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" book that tried to justify slavery.
I have a problem with this statement. The term is evolutionist. Changing the term won't change the idea; it will only show your unwillingness to be civil.
Actually, I lied, I have another problem with it as well. It was not evolutionists that tried to justify slavery but rather those that did not understand the concept trying to apply it to places it did not belong. Darwin did not ever intend for his theory to be used in such a manner. Again, it was a concept that people did not understand. They thought that they did but they were unable or unwilling to grasp it. The same is true of homosexuality; many try to discuss it without having an understanding of it.
Evilution was their justification of slavery and also Hitlers justification of the holocaust.
Hitler also called himself a Christian. I guess this is something he has in common with you. Sadly, it is something that he also has in common with me.
I've decided to stay neutral on my orientation, just for kicks (I'll let you assume what you will), but I'd like to take on these question and my understanding of them.
Neutrality is a fallicy. There is no neutral ground. Christ said you are either for Him or against Him. Your answers will be either for God or against God, either biblical or unbiblical.
I think you missed the point of hopefulheart's statement. He wasn't saying that he was neutral on the subject. He, in my understanding, was simply saying that he wasn't going to declare his orientation.
These poor kids are growing up with two daddies who they see kissing and holding hands and waking up in bed with each other.
What about the children growing up with two mothers? What about the children that grow up with only one parent? What about the children that grow up never seeing their parents show any affection to each other? What about the children that grow up without ever having any parents?
Studies have shown that children with two parents of the same gender grow up and develop no differently than those with a mother, a father, or a mother and a father. It is the parenting itself that makes the difference. The only true difference is that the child may be more accepting of such a union, which is not always the case. Some children of same-sex couples reject their parents when they grow up. Children that grow up without seeing their parents show affection to each other are often afraid of showing affection to others themselves. I personally would think it would be better for a child to have a family (with one or two parents, with a heterosexual couple as parents or a homosexual couple as parents) than to grow up in an orphanage or being tossed from one foster family to the next.
We cannot rightly judge, condemn, or justify anything without the backing of Gods Word.
I thought the Bible told us not to judge others. You are saying that you have God's permission to do what the Bible expressly forbids you from doing.
I would now like to add some other thoughts.
-The Bible has many accounts of slaves and in my readings I do not recall having ever read the Bible forbidding it, though most Christians now stand firmly against the practice.
-The Bible also would seemingly condone polygamy, as there are many figures that were close to God that had more than one wife. Still, most Christians now stand firmly against this practice as well. And yes, I am aware of the "one man and one woman each leaving their parents and becoming one flesh" quotation. Though couldn't it be argued that this was only a description of the act of sex?
-The Bible never says that a marriage should be based on love. Do you think that marriage should be based on love? Or do you think that everyone should have an arranged marriage? In either case, I believe it should be based on love because that's a strong bond to base a relationship on.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 4, 2006 14:53:24 GMT -5
Great job, Nick. Thank you for sharing your story with us.
|
|
|
Post by Alison the WarMonger on Apr 4, 2006 15:57:46 GMT -5
Yes, thank you Nick for that very nice post.
|
|
|
Post by moarathi on Apr 5, 2006 3:18:35 GMT -5
Do not simply waste your time on such things. Go on Preaching the Gospel and discipling people for His kingdom. If anyone here supports or does homo... let him do he will be accountable to God and why do you all war with one another. We are given certain responsibilites let us fulfil them and hear the Lord say "you are the trustworthy servant"
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 5, 2006 14:39:31 GMT -5
Nick,
I looked through your post and you are obviously greatly deceived as well as biblically illiterate.
There are many passages that discuss the proper relationship between slaves and owners, but this does not mean it is condoned. This can also apply to employers/employees, etc. Slavery existed at the time of the writing of Paul. Usually these were people who could not pay their debts or were prisoners of war. Very much different from our wicked American slavery.
The bible commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves. That means will his highest good. This is the greatest commandment. American slavery would be condemned by this standard.
As far as the prisoners of war or debtors masters were commanded by God to treat their servants well.
You also stated that you have never read ANYWHERE in the Bible where it condones slavery. Well 1 Timothy 1:10 condemns slavery right along with homosexuality. That is right, all in the same verse. That means in the eyes of God your sin of homosex is on the same level with slavery. Are you in favor of slavery?
1 Timothy 1:9-10-Knowing this that the law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawless and disobedient (these are people whom God considers lawless and disobedient), for the ungodly and for sinners (ungodly and sin-God is condemning these acts), for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for THEM THAT DEFILE THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND (homosexuals), FOR MENSTEALERS (right next to homosex we have God condemning slave traders or those that bring others into slavery), for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine: (see also Exodus 21:16-that is the death penalty for selling someone into slavery).
You also have swallowed the lie that Christians are not supposed to judge. You homosexuals started that lie back in Sodom in Genesis 19:9. You do not want anyone to tell you your sin is wrong, but it is. It is a perversion. It is a sin against God. It's penalty is eternal hell fire. God finds it an ABOMINATION! (Leviticus 20:13, 18:22)
Christians are supposed to judge (see John 7:24, Luke 12:57, 1 Corinthians 2:15, Malachi 3:18). We are not supposed to judge hypocritically. We are not supposed to judge others if we are involved in sin. Since Christians are free from sin we can see clearly to call sinners to repent. I am sure this has already been explained to you and you are probably not interested anyway, but if you are really sincere in your previous post then look it up for yourself.
We are judging you. You have admitted to being a homosexual. Your problem is that you do not want to repent. You love your sin and your homosex perversion. You have no fear of God.
The fear of God is to depart from evil (Proverbs 16:6). It is to hate evil (Proverbs 8:13-God hates sin, evil, and homosex). You need to cry out to God for the fear of God to cause you to hate your sin so you will repent.
Jesus can save you from your sin of homosex if you will repent (Matthew 1:21, Galatians 1:4, John 1:29, Acts 3:26, Titus 2:14, 1 John 3:5). Stop lying to yourself and saying you can't repent.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 5, 2006 17:02:04 GMT -5
Oh no, I was thinkig that this post was pointers to witnessing to sodomites. The Bible, strongly, strictly, and powerfully condemns the sin of sodomy. "No homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God", that is the proper translation I am sure. When a man lies with a man, as he lies with a women, they both commit an abomination. The Bible is clear, the unregenerate mind, not so clear. Jesus can and will set you free, trust in him, his shed blood, and the power of his ressurection, you can be forgiven and set free from sin.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 6, 2006 2:54:14 GMT -5
I'm not sure that Jesse completely understands the difference between homosexuality and being transgendered. Perhaps I am just misreading his interpretation of Bestiality. The dogs that get involved in beastiality are really men that are trapped in dogs bodies. And so long as the women and the dog really love each other, isn't it ok? The use of the "trapped in dogs bodies" language is akin to that used by transgendered persons to describe the feelings they have. I.e. a person who is anatomically male, but always feels as if they were meant to be female, would be considered transgendered. They often describe their feelings as being a female trapped in a man's body. Gay men and women do not feel this way. Homosexuals do not wish to change their gender, they merely are attracted to members of the same gender. My interpretation of Jesse's message was that he was comparing that out-of-body feeling to bestiality as an anology for why homosexuality is wrong. In that regard, however, I think it is important that animals are incapable of expressing love. Sure, a dog can be loyal, but in order to love someone, you must be concerned primarily with their welfare, not your own. Love is about giving, even at your own expense, not recieving. When you love someone you will be content to give everything you have for that person without ever recieving anything from them. Animals are thusly incapable of doing so because they are instinctual creatures. They are also not able to consent to any type of sexual activity. At any rate, I must inquire as to how bestiality is related to this discussion thread. It isn't a slippery slope there from homosexuality. Men and women are capable of expressing love toward members of both genders. Most people are merely biologically or genetically predisposed to favor one gender over the other in terms of attractedness, but that is not a barrier to love. Some people favor either gender sexually, but again, sexual attractedness is not a barrier to love. As someone here has said, you can love a child without being sexual with them. In terms of sexual orientation, however, love and intimacy do not always fit strict social constructs. I hope that clarifies that. I am personally against premartial kissing. Kissing should be between a man and a women that are married. This is definitely a first for me. I have honestly never heard of anyone criticising pre-marital kissing. I wonder, though, what is appropriate for young couples? Is pre-marital hand-holding ok? What about ankles? You know, showing them to someone who isn't your husband, is that ok? Is it ok to have pre-marital hugging? We all know where hugging leads.... Now that's a slippery slope! Is it ok to hug after engagement? What about kissing? Can engaged couples do that, or is that forbidden too? Oh, and congratulations, by the way, Jesse! I hope your and Krista's bond is strong enough to hold during these times when the 'sanctity' of such bonds is under fire. I know it can be hard these days to find a bride that is unspoiled by pre-marital kissing, but congratulations indeed!
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 6, 2006 16:14:29 GMT -5
Ok, I have a few points to make. First of all, there never was a word in any language that the Bible has been printed in until the 1800s, long after the Bible was compiled and written. Secondly, I do not condone slavery in any sense. I was merely saying that I was unaware of the Bible forbidding slavery. Thirdly, the Biblical references to sodomy refer to cases in which men are raping other men. Lust is desiring that which is forbidden. A married man and women are not lusting.So are you saying that the desire that you have for a woman that you love and intend to marry, but as of yet have not married, is a sin? Christians are supposed to judge (see John 7:24, Luke 12:57, 1 Corinthians 2:15, Malachi 3:18). We are not supposed to judge hypocritically. We are not supposed to judge others if we are involved in sin. Since Christians are free from sin we can see clearly to call sinners to repent. I am sure this has already been explained to you and you are probably not interested anyway, but if you are really sincere in your previous post then look it up for yourself. Christians are free from sin? We are forgiven from sin if we ask for forgiveness from the Lord, but we are born from sin and live in sin. Noone is without sin. To think oneself free from sin is delusion and fallacy. Your ego preceeds you.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 6, 2006 16:36:39 GMT -5
Again, you are a biblical illiterate. You and Alison are competing for who is actually more ignorant. You are not ignorant by the standards of most of America as you have swallowed the unbiblical lies you have been told about not judging, everyone sins, God loves everyone, etc. They will not judge though but the Holy God of the Bible will.
You said that Christians are not free from sin. John 3 Jesus said a person must be born again to go to heaven. 1 John 3:8-HE THAT COMMITS SIN IS OF THE DEVIL (that includes homosex).
1 John 3:9-WHOSOEVER IS BORN OF GOD DOES NOT COMMIT SIN (can you read that Nick?)
1 John 5:18-WHOSOEVER IS BORN OF GOD SINS NOT (can you read that Nick?)
Prove to me that every reference in the Bible to sodomy only means men raping other men.
That would be interesting since you claim we cannot know the original languages and what exactly they meant.
You cannot be a Christian if you are a homosexual or any other type of sinner. That means you will go straight to hell fire unless you repent.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 6, 2006 17:47:21 GMT -5
That is a mute point because that does not negate the fact that they were copies. Obviously they have not been 'printed' from when the Bible was compiled since the print press hasn't been around for thousands of years.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 7, 2006 0:06:20 GMT -5
Something else to ponder as well: If everyone in the world was a homosexual (a true one, not "bi"), the world would die off in a matter of less than 100 years due to not being able to reproduce! Just another proof that we are not made to be homosexual, but heterosexual. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve! Um, ever hear of individual differences? Of course we are not ALL supposed to be homosexual... LGBTs (that's lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans if you aren't familiar with the abbreviation) don't condemn heterosexuals because of their sexual orientation. In my experience, I have only come across religious fundamentalists who want to condemn LGBTs to death and oppression because they are different. Is every human being on our blessed Earth supposed to be exactly the same? And I'm not even going to comment on the "kiddie porn and beastiality" question because that is just ignorant and downright insulting. These poor kids are growing up with two daddies who they see kissing and holding hands and waking up in bed with each other. That is sick. These men should be in jail. I'm sorry, I am truly not trying to be antagonistic. I didn't join this forum just to irritate you guys. I really want to understand where you are coming from. But honestly... What you have stated here is YOUR opinion. Ever hear of seperation of church and state? Who are you to force your morals on the entire world? YOU see homosexuality as "sick." You don't have the right to force legislation on your entire society based on your own personal opinions. And I can guess that you are going to say it isn't your opinion but the opinion of God. Well, the mere existance of God is a topic of public debate, so any belief based on morality or religion is relative and thus, a personal opinion. This saying may be a little cliche, but I've always found it effective: Don't like gay marriage? THEN DON'T HAVE ONE. If you don't like it you don't have to practice it, you don't even have to agree with it. But you cannot dictate whether it will be tolerated by society as a whole. You don't have that right. The government does not have that right. No one has the right to decide how another person should live. This is definitely a first for me. I have honestly never heard of anyone criticising pre-marital kissing. I wonder, though, what is appropriate for young couples? Is pre-marital hand-holding ok? What about ankles? You know, showing them to someone who isn't your husband, is that ok? Is it ok to have pre-marital hugging? We all know where hugging leads.... Now that's a slippery slope! Is it ok to hug after engagement? What about kissing? Can engaged couples do that, or is that forbidden too? LOL. EVERYTHING IS FORBIDDEN!!!! XD Haha, I'm sorry I just had to say that. With this group, it doesn't seem to be far from the truth. Again, you are a biblical illiterate. Like illiteracy? How 'bout you check out the admin of this forum. "Cereal killer" ... "evilution" (I'm still not sure if you were trying to be cute and say that evolution is evil or if you just can't beep spell, I'm going to judge from your other examples of grammatical failure and guess the second option) Seriously Mr. Morrell, invest in a dictionary before you start yo preachin'.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 7, 2006 7:02:57 GMT -5
Yes evilution is evil.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 7, 2006 10:02:43 GMT -5
Morluna, Why is it that as a last resort you always have to build straw man arguments and then make everyone listen to you push the handle on your mouth. We dont much care to smell the stink of a potty mouth. However, you are somewhat biblically illiterate if you condone sodomy. I am not going through all the different scriptures, maybe the original hebrew and greek does not use the word homosexual, but it uses the word sodomy, it speaks of things like if a man lay with another man they both commit an abomination, and the like. Do you want to know why it is useless to debate with you and people like you, because your conscience is seared and you are given over to a reprobate mind because you will not heed to the voice of God. I hop one day you see the truth, if not, all of this will be sorted out and our stance will be proven when we all stand before the judgement seat of Christ. God bless...
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 7, 2006 12:19:44 GMT -5
Since Christians are free from sin we can see clearly to call sinners to repent.
You said that Christians are not free from sin. John 3 Jesus said a person must be born again to go to heaven. 1 John 3:8-HE THAT COMMITS SIN IS OF THE DEVIL (that includes homosex).
1 John 3:9-WHOSOEVER IS BORN OF GOD DOES NOT COMMIT SIN (can you read that Nick?)
1 John 5:18-WHOSOEVER IS BORN OF GOD SINS NOT (can you read that Nick?)
Actually, I think I'll back those statements up. Micah is right. Well, except the first part a bit. Christians, as in the ones living now, are NOT sinless, lmao. Yer a bigot, hypocrite, and fool if you think you can back that statement up and then tell everyone else they are sinners. You know you sin, don't lie - that's another sin!
It's like being saved. Once you're saved, you are SO golden. But the important part of that is the tense - once you are Saved - past tense. Too many people like to think they are saved, but until you're raised from the dead, Unh uh! You're in the process, maybe, but it takes a big ego to think you can't backslide (no, I haven't read that thread on it yet, and I don't really want to at this point in time).
That is a mute point because that does not negate the fact that they were copies. Obviously they have not been 'printed' from when the Bible was compiled since the print press hasn't been around for thousands of years.
Wow.... that wasn't only dumb, it was pointless. A MOOT point, so to speak ^_- Semantics, whee!
Aww, Morluna, yer awesome. And you used one of my favorite smileys! XD X3 (kitty)
Yes evilution is evil.
Ignorance, inflexibility, and self-righteousness are... Evolution just may be a misconception.
But please, feel free to back that up with evidence ^_^ Thanks!
Morluna, Why is it that as a last resort you always have to build straw man arguments and then make everyone listen to you push the handle on your mouth. We dont much care to smell the stink of a potty mouth. However, you are somewhat biblically illiterate if you condone sodomy. I am not going through all the different scriptures, maybe the original hebrew and greek does not use the word homosexual, but it uses the word sodomy, it speaks of things like if a man lay with another man they both commit an abomination, and the like. Do you want to know why it is useless to debate with you and people like you, because your conscience is seared and you are given over to a reprobate mind because you will not heed to the voice of God. I hop one day you see the truth, if not, all of this will be sorted out and our stance will be proven when we all stand before the judgement seat of Christ. God bless...
You're somewhat Biblically illiterate if you keep reading sodomy as homosexuality rather than rape...
I'd say 'God bless' to ya, but I have no right to ask for things from God when he's given us so much. That'd be ingrateful.
Bless your heart!
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 7, 2006 14:08:07 GMT -5
hopefulheart,
I do not think you know what is meant by being saved. What do you consider being saved?
Since we are talking bible terms here I am not interested in your opinions. I want Bible.
I gave you Bible evidence for the fact that real Christians do not sin. All you gave me was an opinion not based on any fact.
I nor anyone else on this board has ever claimed that they cannot sin. It is not that we cannot sin but that we do not sin.
Eviloution is evil because it is designed to prove that the Bible is not accurate. Since the God of the Bible is a God of love who seeks the highest good of all mankind, to try to disprove His existance is evil.
Evilotion was the excuse for the European whites to treat other races as inferior. Please do not tell me that Darwin was not a racist because that is not the point at all. Whether or not Darwin was a racist is not the issue. I know he was not in favor of slavery so he was definitely not as racist as many people of his day. However the ideas he promoted were the foundation many used as an excuse to treat other races as inferior because they believed they were not as evolved.
Trace the teaching of evilotion back to the rise of immorality and you will see the direct correlation.
The goal of evilotion is no God, no standards, no accountability, no judgment, so do whatever you think is right.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 7, 2006 16:25:18 GMT -5
Eviloution is evil because it is designed to prove that the Bible is not accurate. Since the God of the Bible is a God of love who seeks the highest good of all mankind, to try to disprove His existance is evil. Evilotion was the excuse for the European whites to treat other races as inferior. Please do not tell me that Darwin was not a racist because that is not the point at all. Whether or not Darwin was a racist is not the issue. I know he was not in favor of slavery so he was definitely not as racist as many people of his day. However the ideas he promoted were the foundation many used as an excuse to treat other races as inferior because they believed they were not as evolved. The goal of evilotion is no God, no standards, no accountability, no judgment, so do whatever you think is right. Actually, the goal of evolution is for a species to adapt so as to have a better chance of surviving. Perhaps some supporters of evolution used those arguments to propogate racism, but they would be as deluded as those who used the Bible to justify slavery. Blacks are not black because they are less evolved, they are black because their skin pigment helps them to function better in the arid, sun drenched climate of sub-saharan Africa. Similarly, familial lines that originate in northern Europe have longer noses so that the cold air is warmed slightly before entering the lungs. Black skin is actually proof of evolution, not proof that whites are more evolved. Evolution does not disprove the Bible's accuracy. The Bible was not written as a science book or a history book. It was written to explain the human condition in terms that all could understand. The creations stories (there are two) are MUCH MORE than descriptions of what happened (or did not actually happen). Regardless of whether or not the creation took place over a period of six days, it does not invalidate the lessons that can be gained from reading the creation stories. These stories exist to tell us about the God in which we believe. They tell us, for instance, that we believe in a God who creates order out of chaos, who divides good from evil, who separates the heavenly from the earthly, who gives order to the seasons, and so on. Even if the creation did not happen, this story still tells us what we believe to be true about God. Again, I posted this in the other homosexuality thread, but science and religion ask different questions. Science seeks to know how; religion seeks to know why. Evolution tells us how life works without invalidating the why question answered in Genesis. Science does not pretend to attempt to remove standards, accountability, or judgement of what is right and wrong morally. It only seeks to explain the world in which we live using sound methodology. Oh, and can you clarify, exactly, when immorality started? I was under the impression that it had been around for a while. Wasn't that what the prophets were always complaining about? Didn't God do that whole great flood/mass genocide thingy to clean up our immorality? Sorry, just confused.
|
|