Forcing the Chruch to accept homosexuality..

[KCKID]

Have I missed something here? I mean ...isn't a homosexual simply someone who is sexually attracted to another person of the same gender? This is what I always thought that 'homosexual' meant.

However ...the way I'm reading 'homosexual' here with the scores of 'Amen' smileys and size 8 fonts, exclamation points and the bolding of every other word whenever someone celebrates someone else dissing homosexuals, then I've obviously got it wrong. Does the 'homosexuality' being discussed here have anything to do with the Church (or the Chruch as carelessly used in the thread title) being forced to give its approval to terrorists that have explosives strapped around them? Is that what a 'homosexual' is? If so, I can see why some of you would be most concerned for the Chruch and the well-being of its members and their children. THIS is serious stuff!
So, I will most certainly add my 'AMEN!' to rid the Chruch of this menace.

Hmmm . . .I really DID think that a homosexual was merely someone who was sexually attracted to another of the same gender. Well, you live and learn . . .

 

[Jase]

Often those most violently opposed to homosexuals have some underlying homosexual tendencies. I wonder if there is any truth to that.

 

[onemorequestion]

No, you were responding to your own misreading of the post and of the meaning of the statement in context.
My compassion, (or your compassion, for that matter) for the victims does not change the facts, nor does the fact that they were Christian make it an act of hatred against Christianity and your questioning it only serves to show that you have no point and need to cofuse things emotionally to hide that fact.

Again, I was responding to a posting that can be so calloused about the slaughter of innocent young people.

"Won't somebody think of the children!"

We are Christians we Evangelicals. We are thinking of the children. As in not debauching them. As in not putting stumbling blocks before them that encourage them to engage in immorality.

Buffalo Chips! Disagreement with your conclusions and irritation at your attitude is not harrassment or attack.

The liberal positions have been so thoroughly disproven, one needs wonder why they are still propped up?

As I said earlier, we would be happy to ignore you (or even enter into fruitful discussion) if you didn't go out of your way to be seen as rude and intrusive.

Rude and intrusive? Marriage and Christian appropriate sexual behavior has been defined very well since Jesus walked Jeruslam and the disciples started writing letters to Churches from Judea to Rome. It is the gay/liberal theological intrusions that have attacked the Church. It is impossible to ignore the proponents of this attack on orthodoxy. Would that we could, would that it never existed. But alas, we must contend for the faith against it.

Additionally, only those who do things like protest funerals and disrupt events are "attacked."

Not "additionally" but . . . OK.

But many of these people have duped otherwise peaceful Christians into believing that an "attack" on them is an attack on all Christians.

Liberal theology is just humanism with a new paint job. Otherwise known as a wolf in sheep's clothing. That defines attack.

It's scare tactics that work. It worked in the Fourties, it worked in the Fifties,

What's working now, because of liberalism, is that society is decaying into a Sodom and Gomorrah state. In the Forties and Fifties, one in four teen girls didn't have an STD. There was no concept of fatherless households as an iconic condition.

. . . it worked against human rights for Blacks in the Sixties, it worked against human rights for women in the Seventies, and in all cases, it was eventually seen as the ham it was.

Inner-cities are infested with violence and feminism isn't all that good for women's health. STD's, fatherless homes and abortions are the fruit of feminism, which is the offspring of liberalism.

It is working today against gays, but it will eventually be seen to be just as much of a sham.

The progression of evils on the world's stage SINCE the Fifties and Sixties, called civil rights issues, has the world crumbling into chaos in less than a century.

I don't think so, since many of those who (you claim) are "attacking" Christianity are Christians.

Per Jesus. Per peter, Per Jude, John, James and Paul.. I couldn't agree with you more. BUT, notice which "Christians" are supported by non and anti Christians? Secularism and liberalism cannot be seperated. And they don't seem to want to be.

If anything "fundamentalist Christian" is not narrowed enough. There are lots of Christians who would meet the definition of "fundamentalist" who are not the target of any persecution, and know that.

Yes I do. But there are many decent Christians attacked every day if they dare speak out against liberalism infecting the Church as it does society.

A Christian should preach the Gospel by protesting the funerals of Christian soldierss who died as heroes?

WWJD?

A Christian should preach the Gospel by disrupting traffic, and attempting to start a riot when the authorities politely ask them to simply step out of the flow of traffic before continuing their tirade?

Jesus disrupted traffic. So did the Apostles and some Disciples. The authorities killed them. Except John and some disciples.

It is not the message that causes the reaction, it is the messenger. Do you really want to hold these up as examples of proper Christian behavior?

That's odd coming from a person that presents same gender marriage and homosexuality as acceptable Christian behavior. And I must add, with absolutely zero biblical reasons to do so.

There are two parts of that question: "force" and "accept"; and there are multiple ways to "accept homosexuality."

There is no way to accept homosexuality in the Christian context of acceptance. It is a worldy behavior and is shown as such by some much support from the anti and non Christian crowds it gets.

Accept that it exists? That's a fact. Whether or not I like it I have to accept facts. There is no question of for or against.

There are many evils that exist. None of which should find support for them in Christianity. None of which should be ignored, especially when they enter the Church.

Accept that homosexuals are people, and simply as people, they should be accorded all the dignity that I would hope others accord me because I'm a person? I would hope anyone would be for that.

People are people. Homosexuality is a behavior or a desire. Bible-affirming Christians do not have to play this game by the rules of liberalism.

Accept that God does not condemn homosexuality, per se?

Are you speaking for God? Be that as it may, it is maybe not condemned as a thought, and it could be easily seen to be a reprehensible thought process as well, per Jesus.

I do hope that more and more of the Church will come to recognize that truth. That they will learn to study context as well as prooftext.

What hubris? "We" have studied and studied all that liberalism props up and found it lacking orthodoxy to a degree that sickens the soul. And/or worse.

Force? Is it force to hold discussion with them? Is is force to pray for them?

Our conversations and "prayers" are called hate speech. It is clear that there is no agreement that can be reached other than the inevitable decaying of society.

I don't see any force, nor any attempt to use the law to control the Church (which is what I assume you actually mean by force).

We have seen this in Canada and Sweden. Both what anyone would call, "liberal" societies. And, the hate crimes legislation is shaping up to attack Christian truth.

Every proposed law I've seen that could in any stretch of the imagination be connected with "championing" gays contains exceptions for religious organizations and many of them also include exceptions for personal religious convictions.

In 100% reality, we have seen the steady march of liberalism stampeding to crush to the life out of the Church. Now truly, I am not afriad of that happening completely, but I am saddened by how many will be crushed, but even moreso by those that will leave the Church to join the secular forces so hostile towards the Chuch founded by the blood of Jesus and His saints.

If you want to have a civil "conversation," then we must in all honesty, describe the sides on which we stand. It is more than clear what they are.

 

[KCKID]

Often those most violently opposed to homosexuals have some underlying homosexual tendencies. I wonder if there is any truth to that.

One thing that I will say with all confidence is that it's highly unlikely that anyone would become so militant in their attitude against gays as some do on this forum simply because 'the Bible sez'. So, what does this suggest?

By the way, I'm not supposed to be associating with you because you're considered to be a danger to the Chruch . . .

 

[onemorequestion]

Originally Posted by OllieFranz

No, you were responding to your own misreading of the post and of the meaning of the statement in context.
My compassion, (or your compassion, for that matter) for the victims does not change the facts, nor does the fact that they were Christian make it an act of hatred against Christianity and your questioning it only serves to show that you have no point and need to cofuse things emotionally to hide that fact.
​

Again, I was responding to a posting that can be so calloused about the slaughter of innocent young people.

<B>

"Won't somebody think of the children!"

</B>

We are Christians we Evangelicals. We are thinking of the children. As in not debauching them. As in not putting stumbling blocks before them that encourage them to engage in immorality.

Buffalo Chips! Disagreement with your conclusions and irritation at your attitude is not harrassment or attack.

The liberal positions have been so thoroughly disproven, one needs wonder why they are still propped up?

As I said earlier, we would be happy to ignore you (or even enter into fruitful discussion) if you didn't go out of your way to be seen as rude and intrusive.

Rude and intrusive? Marriage and Christian appropriate sexual behavior has been defined very well since Jesus walked Jeruslam and the disciples started writing letters to Churches from Judea to Rome. It is the gay/liberal theological intrusions that have attacked the Church. It is impossible to ignore the proponents of this attack on orthodoxy. Would that we could, would that it never existed. But alas, we must contend for the faith against it.


​

Additionally, only those who do things like protest funerals and disrupt events are "attacked."

Not "additionally" but . . . OK.

But many of these people have duped otherwise peaceful Christians into believing that an "attack" on them is an attack on all Christians.

Liberal theology is just humanism with a new paint job. Otherwise known as a wolf in sheep's clothing. That defines attack.

It's scare tactics that work. It worked in the Fourties, it worked in the Fifties,

What's working now, because of liberalism, is that society is decaying into a Sodom and Gomorrah state. In the Forties and Fifties, one in four teen girls didn't have an STD. There was no concept of fatherless households as an iconic condition.

. . . it worked against human rights for Blacks in the Sixties, it worked against human rights for women in the Seventies, and in all cases, it was eventually seen as the ham it was.

Inner-cities are infested with violence and feminism isn't all that good for women's health. STD's, fatherless homes and abortions are the fruit of feminism, which is the offspring of liberalism.

It is working today against gays, but it will eventually be seen to be just as much of a sham.

The progression of evils on the world's stage SINCE the Fifties and Sixties, called civil rights issues, has the world crumbling into chaos in less than a century.

I don't think so, since many of those who (you claim) are "attacking" Christianity are Christians.

Per Jesus. Per peter, Per Jude, John, James and Paul.. I couldn't agree with you more. BUT, notice which "Christians" are supported by non and anti Christians? Secularism and liberalism cannot be seperated. And they don't seem to want to be.


​

If anything "fundamentalist Christian" is not narrowed enough. There are lots of Christians who would meet the definition of "fundamentalist" who are not the target of any persecution, and know that.

Yes I do. But there are many decent Christians attacked every day if they dare speak out against liberalism infecting the Church as it does society.


​

A Christian should preach the Gospel by protesting the funerals of Christian soldierss who died as heroes?

WWJD?


​

A Christian should preach the Gospel by disrupting traffic, and attempting to start a riot when the authorities politely ask them to simply step out of the flow of traffic before continuing their tirade?

Jesus disrupted traffic. So did the Apostles and some Disciples. The authorities killed them. Except John and some disciples.

It is not the message that causes the reaction, it is the messenger. Do you really want to hold these up as examples of proper Christian behavior?

That's odd coming from a person that presents same gender marriage and homosexuality as acceptable Christian behavior. And I must add, with absolutely zero biblical reasons to do so.

There are two parts of that question: "force" and "accept"; and there are multiple ways to "accept homosexuality."

There is no way to accept homosexuality in the Christian context of acceptance. It is a worldy behavior and is shown as such by some much support from the anti and non Christian crowds it gets.

Accept that it exists? That's a fact. Whether or not I like it I have to accept facts. There is no question of for or against.

There are many evils that exist. None of which should find support for them in Christianity. None of which should be ignored, especially when they enter the Church.


​

Accept that homosexuals are people, and simply as people, they should be accorded all the dignity that I would hope others accord me because I'm a person? I would hope anyone would be for that.

People are people. Homosexuality is a behavior or a desire. Bible-affirming Christians do not have to play this game by the rules of liberalism.

Accept that God does not condemn homosexuality, per se?

Are you speaking for God? Be that as it may, it is maybe not condemned as a thought, and it could be easily seen to be a reprehensible thought process as well, per Jesus.

I do hope that more and more of the Church will come to recognize that truth. That they will learn to study context as well as prooftext.

What hubris? "We" have studied and studied all that liberalism props up and found it lacking orthodoxy to a degree that sickens the soul. And/or worse.

Force? Is it force to hold discussion with them? Is is force to pray for them?

Our conversations and "prayers" are called hate speech. It is clear that there is no agreement that can be reached other than the inevitable decaying of society.

I don't see any force, nor any attempt to use the law to control the Church (which is what I assume you actually mean by force).

We have seen this in Canada and Sweden. Both what anyone would call, "liberal" societies. And, the hate crimes legislation is shaping up to attack Christian truth.


​

Every proposed law I've seen that could in any stretch of the imagination be connected with "championing" gays contains exceptions for religious organizations and many of them also include exceptions for personal religious convictions.

In 100% reality, we have seen the steady march of liberalism stampeding to crush to the life out of the Church. Now truly, I am not afriad of that happening completely, but I am saddened by how many will be crushed, but even moreso by those that will leave the Church to join the secular forces so hostile towards the Chuch founded by the blood of Jesus and His saints.

If you want to have a civil "conversation," then we must in all honesty, describe the sides on which we stand. It is more than clear what they are.
​

 

[OllieFranz]

Often those most violently opposed to homosexuals have some underlying homosexual tendencies. I wonder if there is any truth to that.

August 1996 Press Release
​

WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.


Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale.

​

(Both groups were shown both gay and straight erotica. Their response to the erotica was tested by self-reporting and by a device that measured tumescence. On the self reporting, both groups responded similarly. Mostly reporting that they became aroused by the straight inappropriate content but not by the gay inappropriate content. In three of the cases, the tumescence test matched the self-reporting closely. Both straight inappropriate content cases, and the non-homophobe/gay inappropriate content case. In the homophobe/gay inappropriate content case, though, despite the self-report that they were not aroused, the tumescence test showed that they were. Since they knew that they were being measured, we can only conclude that they were in denial)

Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety.

​

In other words, either the were lying (perhaps even to themselves) about their interest and arousal, or their reaction was one of anxiety, and they truly were homophobes, they became physically aroused not because they were sexually stimulated, but because they were terrified (that is, the arousal was a side effect of the fight-or-flight adrenaline rush).

Link

Psychology Today's copy of the original article published in Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Now, the sample size is small, and as far as I know, the research has not yet been repeated and verified, but it is both revealing and suggestive.

 

[KCKID]

August 1996 Press Release
​

WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.


Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale.

​

(Both groups were shown both gay and straight erotica. Their response to the erotica was tested by self-reporting and by a device that measured tumescence. On the self reporting, both groups responded similarly. Mostly reporting that they became aroused by the straight inappropriate content but not by the gay inappropriate content. In three of the cases, the tumescence test matched the self-reporting closely. Both straight inappropriate content cases, and the non-homophobe/gay inappropriate content case. In the homophobe/gay inappropriate content case, though, despite the self-report that they were not aroused, the tumescence test showed that they were. Since they knew that they were being measured, we can only conclude that they were in denial)

Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety.

​

In other words, either the were lying (perhaps even to themselves) about their interest and arousal, or their reaction was one of anxiety, and they truly were homophobes, they became physically aroused not because they were sexually stimulated, but because they were terrified (that is, the arousal was a side effect of the fight-or-flight adrenaline rush).

Link

Psychology Today's copy of the original article published in Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Now, the sample size is small, and as far as I know, the research has not yet been repeated and verified, but it is both revealing and suggestive.

Well, well ...whaddya know . . .

 

[[serious]]

Its a matter of life and death.Dont dilute.When the bible quite clearly says homosexuals wont inherit the kingdom,it means exactly what it says.A lot of false reasoners in this place.
If your conscience says otherwise,best you start another schism.Just dont call it Christianity.

The next verse lumps drunkards in with the noninheriters. Are you equally concerned about alcoholics? The rate of alcoholism is twice that of homosexuality, so shouldn't it be twice as important an issue?

 

[J Bentliff]

The next verse lumps drunkards in with the noninheriters. Are you equally concerned about alcoholics? The rate of alcoholism is twice that of homosexuality, so shouldn't it be twice as important an issue?

I agree completely, it also lists obesity at one point, 1/3 Americans are obese according to recent research, when there are starving people Pakistan, these, to me, just seem like much bigger issues than whether or not two men can love each other, which in the end of the day we cant prove or disprove, surely greed is clearly wrong, then why is it ignored?

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

The next verse lumps drunkards in with the noninheriters. Are you equally concerned about alcoholics? The rate of alcoholism is twice that of homosexuality, so shouldn't it be twice as important an issue?

I think chronic gossips are included in that verse aren't they? I mean if there's more alcoholism in America than Homosexuality, then what about Gossip? What individual hasn't sat down for a juicy tidbit or 10 with the neighborhood grandma?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Why is there a need for liberally minded people to have God or The Whole of Christianity to accept Homosexuality?

Why not just be Gay, and shrug off what the bible or church says?

Why do we have to believe what you believe?

For those of you in the Church, do you not understand that even if you can silence what the bible says of homosexuality specifically. that Homosexuality is still considered a sin because at it's core it's sex outside the confines of marriage. Without Book Chapter and verse as to the permissibility of sexual activity outside the confines of a sanctified marriage, special permission for gay sex, or an example of a sanctified same sex marriage. a doctrine that permits homosexuality can not represent the will of God. As a member of the church why do you represent a doctrine that does not represent God? To Whom do you serve if not God? Do you not see a problem with a system of belief that doesn't represent the one you claim to represent? Is a righteousness based in popular morality what you believe to be what dictates the will of God?

The responses I have seen and answered from people who represent themselves as members of the church are, to say the least are the most disheartening.
Especially after their efforts have been brought into the light of scripture.

because they want to have their behavior validated in order to make themselves feel better and confirmed. ..They don't want anyone ruining the blissful state of their ignorance.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The next verse lumps drunkards in with the noninheriters. Are you equally concerned about alcoholics? The rate of alcoholism is twice that of homosexuality, so shouldn't it be twice as important an issue?

I agree completely, it also lists obesity at one point, 1/3 Americans are obese according to recent research, when there are starving people Pakistan, these, to me, just seem like much bigger issues than whether or not two men can love each other, which in the end of the day we cant prove or disprove, surely greed is clearly wrong, then why is it ignored?

In all fairness, alcoholics and fat people aren't constantly in the media demanding special treatment. Most have the sense to be embarrassed when their behavior gets them in trouble and most of them are seeking help.

You don't see most alcoholics or obese people going "I was BORN this way!" even though their disease can actually be genetic. Yes, some of them do try to excuse their behavior, but imagine the reaction if they said "you can't change me because this is how I was born" - that's essentially what the driving argument behind homosexuality is. Yet, we have 12 step programs and detox and weight loss clinics and camps for alcoholics and obesity.

Saying those sins are ignored is a rather poor strawman. Just because they're not the sins in the media doesn't mean that churches aren't talking about them.

 

[drich0150]

You guys are missing the point completely. It is not whether or not we struggle or fall into sin, it is what we do when we do fall into sin that is important. Homosexuality is being declassified as a sin therefore it will not be repented of.. None of the other "Sins" sinful nature are in question. It is only the sin of homosexuality that is been given this pop culture honor. We all sin, and in turn we are all expected to repent of that sin, but why or how can one do this if what he does has been declassified as sin by the popular culture he is living in?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You guys are missing the point completely. It is not whether or not we struggle or fall into sin, it is what we do when we do fall into sin that is important. Homosexuality is being declassified as a sin therefore it will not be repented of.. None of the other "Sins" sinful nature are in question. It is only the sin of homosexuality that is been given this pop culture honor. We all sin, and in turn we are all expected to repent of that sin, but why or how can one do this if what he does has been declassified as sin by the popular culture he is living in?

and let's not even limit that to homosexuality. Sexual immorality on the whole is given a pass from society. It's a "do what feels good and right to you" attitude.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

You guys are missing the point completely. It is not whether or not we struggle or fall into sin, it is what we do when we do fall into sin that is important. Homosexuality is being declassified as a sin therefore it will not be repented of.. None of the other "Sins" sinful nature are in question. It is only the sin of homosexuality that is been given this pop culture honor. We all sin, and in turn we are all expected to repent of that sin, but why or how can one do this if what he does has been declassified as sin by the popular culture he is living in?

that is what I was trying to say earlier. People simply don't like being told they are wrong, or in the wrong..Having it de-classified as a sin will bring confirmation, rapport, and validation. As I said earlier, ignorance is bliss and they don't want contrition ruining that blissful state or making them feel ..*gasp*.. humble and repentant.

 

[ivebeenshown]

and let's not even limit that to homosexuality. Sexual immorality on the whole is given a pass from society. It's a "do what feels good and right to you" attitude.

Exactly. Promiscuity is found in every avenue. Oral sex, whatever orientation involved, is touted as a social norm (in the USA at least.)

 

[Jase]

In all fairness, alcoholics and fat people aren't constantly in the media demanding special treatment.

Equality is not special treatment and you know it. No gays are demanding to be better, merely the same. Separate but equal never is.

You don't see most alcoholics or obese people going "I was BORN this way!" even though their disease can actually be genetic.

Well, we know the general cause of alcoholism and obesity - neither of which are due to hormonal imbalances in prenatal development. Homosexuality is more like hair color, eye color, or skin color. Obesity is usually caused by poor diet and lack of exercise. Alcoholism may have some biological influence, but I've never met a child who at 3 years old knew they were an alcoholic. That, however, is a common occurrence for gays.

Yes, some of them do try to excuse their behavior, but imagine the reaction if they said "you can't change me because this is how I was born" - that's essentially what the driving argument behind homosexuality is. Yet, we have 12 step programs and detox and weight loss clinics and camps for alcoholics and obesity.

Sexual orientation cannot be changed in the overwhelming majority of individuals. This is a fact, supported by the entire scientific community. Just because fraud organizations like NARTH tell you it can be changed, does not make it so.

Saying those sins are ignored is a rather poor strawman. Just because they're not the sins in the media doesn't mean that churches aren't talking about them.

Actually, the churches are not talking about them, since they would be condemning their whole congregation. I seriously doubt Pastors cover sermons targeted at all his obese Christian audience in the pews.

It's far easier to target groups that you can't relate to, then to look at yourself in the mirror. That's why homosexuality is violently attacked, while obesity, greed, hypocrisy, divorce, adultery etc. are ignored.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Homosexuality is more like hair color, eye color, or skin color.

So are you suggesting sexual orientation is genetic? Have scientists confirmed and identified the specific genetic cause?

 

[Hairy Tic]

Well said. I would hope that the above will not go ignored.

## Thanks It'll probably be shot down in flames, w/ no time for the crew to bale out

 

[KCKID]

and let's not even limit that to homosexuality. Sexual immorality on the whole is given a pass from society. It's a "do what feels good and right to you" attitude.

*sigh*