|
Post by valentine on Aug 24, 2006 16:01:31 GMT -5
Valentine, Don't you think you were misled in college about these things by people who you admire. I'm all for being kind to homosexuals. But you keep equating our disdain for homosexual behavior with hatred. That's not based in fact. Someone told you to think that way. Show me where I said the word "hatred" in connection with your attitude about homosexuality in this thread, and I'll stop posting in it. And for the record, the only school that taught me lies was my Catholic one. Fortunately, I saw through their crap.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 24, 2006 16:23:45 GMT -5
Valentine, Don't you think you were misled in college about these things by people who you admire. I'm all for being kind to homosexuals. But you keep equating our disdain for homosexual behavior with hatred. That's not based in fact. Someone told you to think that way. Show me where I said the word "hatred" in connection with your attitude about homosexuality in this thread, and I'll stop posting in it. And for the record, the only school that taught me lies was my Catholic one. Fortunately, I saw through their crap. Well I'm glad you did to because there were plenty of lies taught there. That Catholic guilt you know. Maybe it's not in this thread...but you all have sure equated us as haters on other threads. Curvyy just said so in the one regarding the article I posted. So are we hateful to despise homosexual activity? Valentine please read the article I posted. I see you as the girl holding the fish with diversity written on it and it is so sad.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Aug 24, 2006 16:27:30 GMT -5
Hey, "do what thy will shall be the whole law". Your just like him. Ummm, sure. And I say, better I be compared to him (even with the drugs. Haha, me and drugs, that'd be the day) then be one of yous! It does not zing me as much you hope it would I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Aug 24, 2006 16:40:45 GMT -5
Hey, "do what thy will shall be the whole law". Your just like him. Ummm, sure. And I say, better I be compared to him (even with the drugs. Haha, me and drugs, that'd be the day) then be one of yous! It does not zing me as much you hope it would I'm sure. We shouldn;t be comparing Mr. Leary with you; I'm sure HE'D be ashamed to be compared with such Hippiness.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Aug 24, 2006 16:43:05 GMT -5
If believing in peace means being called a hippy, then bring it!! I can act like a true hippy if I need to (campers loved it!).
;D ;D Flower power!!
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Aug 24, 2006 16:45:19 GMT -5
So are we hateful to despise homosexual activity? No. I despise pizza and I don't hate pizza-eaters. Nobody said you had to like something. I would, but you guys post articles every five seconds, I have no idea which one you're talking about, I have six thousand things to read for school and it probably says the same thing that all your other articles say. If you're alluding to Christianity with the fish, I'm agnostic, so you can keep your fishies to yourself if it's all the same. ALSO, which of you fundies wants to be interviewed for my term paper? I'm SO doing it on sexual orientation.
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on Aug 24, 2006 16:47:28 GMT -5
I have seen documentation that says the Bible was manipulated into saying homosexuality is wrong. What do you have to say about that? If the documentation is correct, and it were proved--hypothetically--beyond the shadow of a doubt correct, would you remove your stance on homosexuality, and feel guilty, as I have, of your past feelings about the orientation?
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 24, 2006 16:50:17 GMT -5
Hey, "do what thy will shall be the whole law". Your just like him. Ummm, sure. And I say, better I be compared to him (even with the drugs. Haha, me and drugs, that'd be the day) then be one of yous! It does not zing me as much you hope it would I'm sure. I don't mean to zing you. But you believe that "your way" is the way just like Leary. Right..your way?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Aug 24, 2006 16:53:36 GMT -5
I have seen documentation that says the Bible was manipulated into saying homosexuality is wrong. What do you have to say about that? If the documentation is correct, and it were proved--hypothetically--beyond the shadow of a doubt correct, would you remove your stance on homosexuality, and feel guilty, as I have, of your past feelings about the orientation? I've seen documentation that pigs can fly. Come up with somethng better than that if you want a serious response.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 24, 2006 16:54:01 GMT -5
So are we hateful to despise homosexual activity? No. I despise pizza and I don't hate pizza-eaters. Nobody said you had to like something. I would, but you guys post articles every five seconds, I have no idea which one you're talking about, I have six thousand things to read for school and it probably says the same thing that all your other articles say. If you're alluding to Christianity with the fish, I'm agnostic, so you can keep your fishies to yourself if it's all the same. ALSO, which of you fundies wants to be interviewed for my term paper? I'm SO doing it on sexual orientation. I'll PM it to you. But no hurry. School comes first. I say interview Dusty. He may not be Christian but he is a work in progress on the sexual orientation thing. Wow, what a paper you could write.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Aug 24, 2006 16:54:13 GMT -5
well, all i know of him is he did a LOT of drugs. So far, not me at all, but I'll actually trust you that the rest of the comparrison is correct.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Aug 24, 2006 16:55:07 GMT -5
Thumpy, everyone already knows pigs can fly!! sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 24, 2006 16:55:39 GMT -5
I have seen documentation that says the Bible was manipulated into saying homosexuality is wrong. What do you have to say about that? If the documentation is correct, and it were proved--hypothetically--beyond the shadow of a doubt correct, would you remove your stance on homosexuality, and feel guilty, as I have, of your past feelings about the orientation? I would never believe that the Bible would be proved wrong. Because it can be spiritually proven.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Aug 24, 2006 17:01:01 GMT -5
I'll PM it to you. But no hurry. School comes first. I say interview Dusty. He may not be Christian but he is a work in progress on the sexual orientation thing. Wow, what a paper you could write. But no! I want FUNDIES. I have no idea the specific direction the prof wants us to take, so I don't know if I can even use you, but rest assured that I will want to, if someone will step forward. My class is called Science and/or/vs Religion. My professor will LOVE you guys. School does indeed come first; I'm about 3/4 done with Galileo right now. I like it. Much more exciting than Of Plymouth Plantation. Puritan literature is so not my thing.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 24, 2006 17:05:21 GMT -5
I'll PM it to you. But no hurry. School comes first. I say interview Dusty. He may not be Christian but he is a work in progress on the sexual orientation thing. Wow, what a paper you could write. But no! I want FUNDIES. I have no idea the specific direction the prof wants us to take, so I don't know if I can even use you, but rest assured that I will want to, if someone will step forward. My class is called Science and/or/vs Religion. My professor will LOVE you guys. School does indeed come first; I'm about 3/4 done with Galileo right now. I like it. Much more exciting than Of Plymouth Plantation. Puritan literature is so not my thing. Well if you really want a Fundamentalist. I would do it. Unless you prefer someone else. My e-mail is on my profile. Wait till they get a load of me.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Aug 24, 2006 17:12:14 GMT -5
Well if you really want a Fundamentalist. I would do it. Unless you prefer someone else. My e-mail is on my profile. Wait till they get a load of me. Proper grammar is requisite, just FYI. Though I notice that you are improving in that regard. ;D
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Aug 24, 2006 18:33:23 GMT -5
Thanks...
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on Aug 26, 2006 14:08:16 GMT -5
I have seen documentation that says the Bible was manipulated into saying homosexuality is wrong. What do you have to say about that? If the documentation is correct, and it were proved--hypothetically--beyond the shadow of a doubt correct, would you remove your stance on homosexuality, and feel guilty, as I have, of your past feelings about the orientation? I've seen documentation that pigs can fly. Come up with somethng better than that if you want a serious response. One: I doubt you have. Way to trivialize your opponent without actually responding to the question. Someone missed Debate 101. Two: Again, you didn't answer the question. WHAT IF. I have lived the question, myself. And I am happier believing gay people are not sinners than believeing they are. When you approach it from the "non-sinner" angle--and I suggest you do it if only to compare your ideology to other peoples--it makes MORE sense that God doesn't believe gay people are sinners than it does otherwise. I mean, think about it. God makes gay people. But then he tells them that acting "gay" is wrong. Why? People say being gay is not natural. But it occurs in nature. Penguins, wolves, whatever. Buh? There have been said by many fundamentalists that being gay is a choice. Why would so many people actively CHOOSE to be gay when they are currently one of the most hated, most yelled at, most misunderstood groups currently? Why would ANYONE actually CHOOSE to subject themselves to the veneom people like biblethumper spew about them? If I were gay, and it was a choice, and I heard about gays being stoned to death by teenagers, or heard from "sources" that gays are more likely to molest children, or heard that gays can't marry, or heard that the current administration hates gays, or heard anything else in this vein, WHY OH WHY would I STAY gay?
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Aug 26, 2006 14:24:58 GMT -5
I'm gonna try and guess what the "Christian" answer will be (no matter how much it doesn't make sense).
AHEM, "Their too much in love with there sin!!" (improper grammar added for reality)
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Aug 26, 2006 16:37:18 GMT -5
Revk said: "Did God intend for some children to be born without limbs, or mentally retarded, etc etc?
Did God intend for hermaphrodites to be born with TWO genders?
No; however, it HAPPENS, and you cannot deny that it HAPPENS."
Um... I thought God was infallible. If He didn't intend for people to be born that way, then why were they?
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on Aug 26, 2006 21:46:26 GMT -5
God? Infallible? Me thinks the Rev is getting confused. See how hard it is with an anti-homosexuality stance? It's hard to actually HOLD UP because God does so many things that also do what people say homosexuality is bad for doing (doesn't make babies, confuses genders, etc).
|
|
|
Post by onlytruechristian on Sept 25, 2006 21:45:36 GMT -5
This response is a tad late, but you people disgusted me into not coming here for a while. And where is MY love? Where's yours, mister "thinks homosexuals are in a lower caste than you"?
Also, I had to look up humanism on wiki just to know what you were talking about, and though I'm not totally against humanists from what I've read, I got all my info from the Bible, and the context of the Bible. Let me ask you, how many times have you read the Bible in its entirety and compared it to its own historical context, against its various translations, and formed your own opinion of where the meaning is? And compared to that, how many times have you just taken for granted your ministers or your friends weren't just pulling you around by their own biases?
I call you out to look up these homosexuality references. I won't even make you reread the Bible if its so much of a chore for you. I call you out to look them up, compare them to their historical contexts, their original translations, and then come back and PM me or post a whole thread dedicated to it. The only condition is that you open your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong. Hit this as objective as you can be, and consider any and all sources equal in validity. You'll be surprised how much more blurry that line you drew in the sand is. You might not be able to see it any more.
I ask that you do not assume I am less than thou just because I am new to this board. I consider my soul to be my primary concern in life, and I've done more to tend to it than most. ________________
Onward and upward! As for that whole born with the sins of the father thing, I think you're forgetting that was done away with in Ezekiel. Past that point, God doesn't condemn people's progeny for things they have done. Though by the laws of physics and genetics which God put in place, we may condemn our children to have our own problems to a certain tendancy.
But what you've got to realize is that God gives everyone a conscience, that still small voice that helps us know what is wrong and what is right, and as far as I've ever seen, that still small voice has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality. Its the opression and the need to be "normal" that usually forces a homosexual to switch to at least acting heterosexual. Its pure shame, something that didn't exist before the fall.
If you want to prove to me that homosexuality is wrong, then you need to prove to me that a soul can have a male or a female appendage, and if you do that, then you prove that somehow God is both male and female, as we are all a part of him.
Maybe what you're seeking is a defect that happens before the soul is attached to the body as a result of sin. I've heard alot of homosexuals refer to themselves as a gender in another gender's body. I heard one of your own say today that heredity is not just biological, but spiritual. It was in explanation of how Jesus could have been from a specific geneology if he wasn't a result of the seed of Joseph. Perhaps the homosexuality you're seeing isn't actually a sin at all, but a mistake which resulted from sin.
You say sin corrupted the gene pool. Well, couldn't it have corrupted it in a way that made us so we would be born of the incorrect gender? I can't see how you could stick with your argument and say that it could not be this way. And if this is the case, then we should be condemning equally those who are born with physical defects like down syndrome or achondroplasia. That just doesn't make sense.
Honestly, there is one hole in my argument, and I intend to fill it now. I know if I don't address it I'll get the question "what if a homosexual does not feel the way you describe, that they are the wrong gender?" Should I then say that they are willfully sinners? No. There are many reasons that could lead them to that conclusion, and only a small portion of them would be considered sinful. Accepting and embracing what you are both physically and spiritually is not a wrong thing to do, though we must all realize that we are imperfect in some ways and constantly strive for change. Otherwise, being of the opinion that there is just plain nothing wrong with it isn't wrong either, because the only real evidence we can put against that urge is that of the biological, and you said yourselves that the gene pool has been affected by sin, and as such could have been affected in a way that made gender a statistical chance instead of a certainty. ______________
My whole argument boils down to this: If you want to tell me that "the Bible tells me so," then you go right on ahead. You just remember that phrase when others come to point out as inadequacies the things about you that you think are right, and they do it biblically. If you keep an objective bias, you'll find that most distinctions are made by you, not God.
Furthermore, when God says something is important, God says something is important. He usually doesn't cover it up as an enigma wrapped in a mystery. If he didn't hit on it, its up for us to decide personally, live, and let live.
|
|
|
Post by lifeandliberty on Sept 27, 2006 0:11:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by andre on Jan 23, 2007 23:53:49 GMT -5
Can you be a homosexual and not lust? Clearly the main issue here is lust... not just perversion, which is being attacked in all fronts on this thread.
The 1st issue: Lust is adultery of the heart. If you lust you are an adulterer according to the bible and according to Jesus (because motive and intention matter to God not just actions but mere thoughts as well)
Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Now Homosexuality is wrong because it’s clearly adultery according to this verse. All adulterers will inherit the lake of fire, there is no clean adultery, it is hideous putrid in the eyes of God, just as much as idolatry is, whenever you take something and hold it more dear than God, its idolatry. When a gay man holds up another man more dear than God, the main issue is idolatry, which is putrid, and hideous in the eyes of God. The second issue is the sexuality of the whole ordeal, this man not only has knocked down God out of the place of reverence and endearment that God requires of us but he’s put a sexual object in His place, this is a most unholy thing, a most lawless thing, and damnation will be its inheritance for those that don’t repent of their lawlessness.
The 2nd Issue: perversion, is not the weightiest matter, it is something that our society has brought out the most, and put the most emphasis on, its used to abuse and mock men and women…but the lust, adultery, and idolatry, are huge nasty and horrid and decrepit and putrid, in God’s eyes, much more than the idea of a man’s orientation, who cares about sexual orientation/preference when you are going to hell for lust and adultery and idolatry. Stop defending lust, you can’t be a Christian if you don’t agree that it’s wrong. Stop defending adultery, Stop defending idolatry…the bible is clear, Thou Shall have no other Gods before me, Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not covet, Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image (even in your mind), Thou shall not bare false witness. There will come a day where every thought and action and the intention of the heart of a man will be judged as we are told in the inerrant scriptures, the holy bible, those who choose lawlessness will not be spared the wrath of God.
Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Jan 24, 2007 10:18:04 GMT -5
I see where you're coming from with the adultery angle, rather than adressing homosexuality as its own sin. I think that the "adulterous" message might very well gety ou better reactions on the street than the "h0m0s burn in h3ll!!11!" sort of thing that often gets bandied about.
That being said, I'm not sure I go for the idolatry charge. How do you justify that gay men have replaced God with an idol? Many gay men in committed relationships would seem to no more have replaced God with an idol than any married straight man who enjoys sex with his wife. Sure, their earthly object of affection is of a different sex than that of the married man, but I think it's roughly equivalent...nobody ever accuses a straight married man of idolatry. I think the same hold's true for the charge of "lust"; it's most likely something many people, gay and straight, are guilty of, and I'm not sure how the person's being gay makes him more lustful.
Back to adultery. If a man is married to another man, is monogamous, and doesn't lust after anyone else, then doesn't that remove the charge of adultery? Again, it seems many gay men most likely are adulterous, but no more than many straight men. I don't see why a gay man would be more guilty of adultery than a straight one.
|
|
|
Post by brobreaud on Jan 24, 2007 18:54:31 GMT -5
God does not create anyone homosexual. He could then be charged with unrighteousness and injustice for condemning them to hell. Jesus said, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:" Matthew 15:19 Sin is a choice.
"Monogamous" gay committed relationships are unnatural and sinful. Cannot be compared to heterosexual married sex. Still, an unrepentant heterosexual adulterer or fornicator will go to the same hell as an unrepentant homosexual.
Brobreaud
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Jan 24, 2007 19:15:35 GMT -5
Is there a reason you put quotes around monogamous? Did I misspell the word?
I do believe gay people are born that way, but it's fine with me for you to make any spiritual claim you like regarding gays. So long as you don't try to put into law that gays can't marry, etc. and don't get nasty or abusive in your preaching then it doesn't much bother me.
|
|
|
Post by brobreaud on Jan 24, 2007 19:31:39 GMT -5
I put "monogamous" in quotes, because most male homosexuals have scores to hundreds of partners (read their literature) throughout their lives.
You can't "ban" gay marriage because gay "marriage" doesn't exist.
I don't get nasty or abusive preaching to homosexuals. As with any other, I tell them, unless they repent, they will perish.
Brobreaud
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Jan 24, 2007 19:36:00 GMT -5
Is there a reason you put quotes around monogamous? Did I misspell the word? I do believe gay people are born that way, but it's fine with me for you to make any spiritual claim you like regarding gays. So long as you don't try to put into law that gays can't marry, etc. and don't get nasty or abusive in your preaching then it doesn't much bother me. Mahatma, there is a video on youtube of Mark Cahill witnessing in Atlanta at a Gay/Lesbian festival. He is talking (not screaming) with a homosexual man and his statement is that most of the homosexual men he knows say they don't want to be the way they are.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Jan 24, 2007 19:53:48 GMT -5
I put "monogamous" in quotes, because most male homosexuals have scores to hundreds of partners (read their literature) throughout their lives. You can't "ban" gay marriage because gay "marriage" doesn't exist. I don't get nasty or abusive preaching to homosexuals. As with any other, I tell them, unless they repent, they will perish. Brobreaud Well...it exists in Massechusetts. As far as saying most gay males have hundreds of partners, I think that's at very best a gross generalization. Certainly there are gay men who sleep around, just as there are straight men who do the same. But what do you mean by "their literature?"
|
|