Gay preaching on proper sexuality: Born Gay

[one11]

Love is a sin? Where in the Bible does it say that?


...there simply is no safe way to handle the situation.

Scenario:

Little Johnny: I have a mommy and a daddy, and so does Susie. How come Pete has two mommies when my Mommy and Daddy say that is a sin and God says it's wrong?"

Teacher: Where does it say in the Bible that love is a sin?

Little Johnny: Huh? Love is not a sin, my Mommy and Daddy said having two married mommies is a sin.
​

Let's keep it Little Johnny for now.

Yes, there could be issues about a safe way to handle the situation because the teacher would be pitting her/his views against little Johnny's parents view of it being a sin. I think more than likely, Little Johnny will stand up for his parents until he's older and decides for himself. But there is also the bigger possibility of Little Johnny thinking the teacher is calling his parents liars.

There could be all kinds of issues along the way, no matter what age, but especially making the child suspicious of his own parents. This could involve attacks on trust in the child's mind in regards to his own parents, couldn't it?

 

[OllieFranz]

Let's keep it Little Johnny for now.

Yes, there could be issues about a safe way to handle the situation because the teacher would be pitting her/his views against little Johnny's parents view of it being a sin. I think more than likely, Little Johnny will stand up for his parents until he's older and decides for himself. But there is also the bigger possibility of Little Johnny thinking the teacher is calling his parents liars.

There could be all kinds of issues along the way, no matter what age, but especially making the child suspicious of his own parents. This could involve attacks on trust in the child's mind in regards to his own parents, couldn't it?

If you are going to quote me, please don't change my words. Not everyone goes back to the previous post to see if I actually did say what you claim I said. In this case, the changes are minor, but it does change both the intent of my post and the dynamics of the situation. In your scenario, it sounds too much like your version of Johnny (combining Johnny and Joey into a single person) was coached by his parents to ask the question just so he could then declare that his parents have passed judgment on Pete's mothers.

And the teacher must say something. If she remains too "non-committal," she might seem to be in complete agreement with Joey's parents, then she is in danger of having the same implied "your parents are liars" worries with Pete and his mothers. (It's odd that you were worried about the teacher inadvertantly driving a wedge between Joey and his Christian parents, but did not give token mention to the other side of the coin with Pete and his mothers.)

 

[one11]

If you are going to quote me, please don't change my words. Not everyone goes back to the previous post to see if I actually did say what you claim I said. In this case, the changes are minor, but it does change both the intent of my post and the dynamics of the situation. In your scenario, it sounds too much like your version of Johnny (combining Johnny and Joey into a single person) was coached by his parents to ask the question just so he could then declare that his parents have passed judgment on Pete's mothers.

And the teacher must say something. If she remains too "non-committal," she might seem to be in complete agreement with Joey's parents, then she is in danger of having the same implied "your parents are liars" worries with Pete and his mothers. (It's odd that you were worried about the teacher inadvertantly driving a wedge between Joey and his Christian parents, but did not give token mention to the other side of the coin with Pete and his mothers.)

Oh sorry, I think I fixed the post and put up scenario.

From my understanding of your first post where you presented a scenario, it never said it was a planned discussion in front of the whole classroom. You may have, but I missed that.

But, my point was actually directed towards how a teacher would handle or discuss the word sin in regards to same sex couples whether brought up in a spontaneous question just out of the blue or during a planned discussion were it brought up by a Christian, Muslim, Jewish child?

I don't think a teacher is allowed to say what you claimed: "The Bible says love is a sin?" because a child of that age is too young to discuss theology with any teacher. A child is simply going to go by what his family says including older siblings, any grandparents in the home, etc.

 

[OllieFranz]

Oh sorry, I think I fixed the post and put up scenario.

From my understanding of your first post where you presented a scenario, it never said it was a planned discussion in front of the whole classroom. You may have, but I missed that.

No, my scenario was an unplanned one brought up by Johnny. But as I said, though, if the subject of Pete's parents, or another similar couple had been discussed at home, then it would not arouse the same sort of curiosity to cause him to ask that question,since the discussion at home would have given him an answer. So, if the same child raised the question who said that according to his parents it was sin, as in your revised scenario, it could only be because he was coached to bring it up in that way so that he could pass on his parents' condemnation of the other child's parents

But, my point was actually directed towards how a teacher would handle or discuss the word sin in regards to same sex couples whether brought up in a spontaneous question just out of the blue or during a planned discussion were it brought up by a Christian, Muslim, Jewish child?

That would depend on the circumstances. If he used the word just because it's the word he knows for a poor decision or defiant action you can answer as though he had used a religiously neutral word in asking the same question. If it appears that he was coached to be confrontational, that would require a more direct approach. It is a delicate balance between being direct and being circumspect in this instance, and I honestly don't think I am equipped to do so. That is why I am not teaching.

I don't think a teacher is allowed to say what you claimed: "The Bible says love is a sin?" because a child of that age is too young to discuss theology with any teacher. A child is simply going to go by what his family says including older siblings, any grandparents in the home, etc.

I did not claim the teacher should say that. It is that you and AlAyeti assume that because Marian and Rose are a couple, that they are doing something that you consider to be a sin, and It looks as though you are also implying that they are doing it openly in front of children.

As far as the children know (and as far as our own certain knowledge is concerned, for that matter) the only thing we know they are doing together is living in the same house and raising Pete, who knows them as his parents. The teacher did not tell Johnny that they were having sex, so all Johnny knew was that they love one another, and so if you want to have Joey (or even Johnny) claim they are sinning you, need to explain what he thinks they are doing that is the sin. Either it is their love. Hence my question to you (not the teacher's question to Joey), "Where does the Bible call Love a sin? Or Joey was coached by his parents to deliberately disrupt the class if the subject came up.

 

[one11]

No, my scenario was an unplanned one brought up by Johnny. But as I said, though, if the subject of Pete's parents, or another similar couple had been discussed at home, then it would not arouse the same sort of curiosity to cause him to ask that question,since the discussion at home would have given him an answer. So, if the same child raised the question who said that according to his parents it was sin, as in your revised scenario, it could only be because he was coached to bring it up in that way so that he could pass on his parents' condemnation of the other child's parents

I did not claim the teacher should say that. It is that you and AlAyeti assume that because Marian and Rose are a couple, that they are doing something that you consider to be a sin, and It looks as though you are also implying that they are doing it openly in front of children.

The question of sin could arise in numerous scenarios from children of various religious faiths and at all ages. And it's not necessarily true that a child is being confrontational but merely wants to know what his teacher thinks of Pete having two mommies when his Mommy and Daddy say it's a sin.

I never said it was a sin. In my scenario, Little Johnny is asking the sin question.

What I see are parallel rights running alongside each other and how to solve that, is what I was questioning, and like you, I see no easy solution. One can't just keep sending children to the principal's office because they have questions regarding sin, unless the school bans the use of the word sin altogether which infringes upon the rights of others beliefs.

 

[OllieFranz]

The question of sin could arise in numerous scenarios from children of various religious faiths and at all ages. And it's not necessarily true that a child is being confrontational but merely wants to know what his teacher thinks of Pete having two mommies when his Mommy and Daddy say it's a sin.

I never said it was a sin. In my scenario, Little Johnny is asking the sin question.

What I see are parallel rights running alongside each other and how to solve that, is what I was questioning, and like you, I see no easy solution. One can't just keep sending children to the principal's office because they have questions regarding sin, unless the school bans the use of the word sin altogether which infringes upon the rights of others beliefs.

Maybe I saw some confrontation in your attitude that was not there. I apologize. I still think that the specific scenario where it is the same child who raises the first question and who quotes his parents on sin does not feel natural as totally spontaneous, but I do agree that there are spontaneous ways that the question of sin can arise. If it is totally innocent, then often the teacher can get away with answering the question with a religiously neutral synonym for sin and pretend that the child had also usede the neutral word. In totally spontaneous incidents I'd estimate that you can get away with that approach almost half the time.

The other half of the time with spontaneous incidents, and all the time in incidents where the parents have groomed the child to ask leading questions, the teacher's job is more difficult, and I can't think of a solution I'd be happy with sharing as advice for that teacher.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To OllieFranz,

Love is a sin? Where in the Bible does it say that?

Sorry I will have to take you to task on that as we have already established we do not see the same understanding of God’s love in the Bible, so you can’t expect to ask the question to anyone except yourself.
It was a very good question by one11, how would you handle another’s belief without infringing of that belief. Your response doesn’t acknowledge the other belief system but questions where it can exist because of your belief system.
Your answer shows me you wouldn’t handle another’s belief system and that you would be intolerant of it… which is fair enough as I am intolerant of yours.

AlAyeti claimed that the original exchange was "sexualizing" the child. No sex was mentioned. Indeed, the child presumably does not have a concept of sex, if the parents are honestly trying to shelter him from "sexualization" as Al claims.

Pete has a mommy and a daddy, he couldn’t have been conceived without both so the idea of two mommies or two daddies which the homosexual movement is promoting, is damaging dysfunctional thinking to our children.

If his parents told him that "It's a sin" for a girl to love another girl or a boy to love another boy,

As has been said, it was for the love of the Fatherland some Nazis did what they did. So you see one has to know what one means by love and sin.

It doesn’t depend on fanaticism, but reality.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Activist,

First, you are making an assumption that my views are "contrary to God’s word" since you don't know what I might or might not have said.

No I am making the assumption on what you have said.
So do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That’s actually from the Bible, the word of God or is it the word of God you don’t believe?

Further, while my views might disagree with your interpretation of Scripture--to which you are entitled--they are not necessarily "contrary to God’s word" unless you are caliming taht you have a lock on understanding God's word.

I haven’t given any interpretation of scripture I have quoted what scripture says. My interpretation could be that 1 Corinthians 6 says nor homosexual offenders will inherit the Kingdom but means the big red bus went up the hill.
Alternatively I could claim that although it says homosexual offenders will not inherit the Kingdom it means they will.
So I would say the only one of us who could possibly claim interpretation would be yourself and that it wouldn’t be interpretation if it didn’t recognise what God’s word says.

They disagree that it is against the law? My understanding is that most paedophiles are fully aware that what they are doing is a crime.

They know its against the law but they don’t see anything wrong with it.
Again my experience would cast doubt on the research you cite, unless you are talking interpretation again.
I have also met adulterers who do not think adultery is wrong or harmful and thieves who do not think stealing is wrong. They aren’t likely to see your views as the ultimate truth.

But my comments were specifically addressing the comparison of paedophilia to homosexuality. You have no logical link.

On the contrary I have a logical link as adultery and homosexual offenders are both sin and a barrier to the Kingdom of God as you see from 1 Corinthians 6.

According to your interpretation of God's word.

No God’s word says what it says, yours is therefore disbelief of God’s word under the deception of interpretation.
I am laughing at your remarks about interpretation, if you can claim what the Bible says means the opposite of what it says then if someone said they were gay I could think that meant they were straight.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Jase,

What authority would you be talking about? You have no legitimate authority other than to pubicly speak against whatever you want. You are not in a position of power.

Who said? Jesus said to His disciples.. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” I am one of His disciples

 

[AlAyeti]

Love is a sin?

Where in the Bible does it say that?

Numbers 25

 

[Zebra1552]

Num 25:1 While Israel was staying at [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tim, the people began to have sexual relations with the women of Moab.
Num 25:2 These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods.
Num 25:3 Thus Israel yoked itself to the Baal of Peor, and the LORD's anger was kindled against Israel.
Num 25:4 The LORD said to Moses, "Take all the chiefs of the people, and impale them in the sun before the LORD, in order that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel."
Num 25:5 And Moses said to the judges of Israel, "Each of you shall kill any of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor."
Num 25:6 Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman into his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the Israelites, while they were weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
Num 25:7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he got up and left the congregation. Taking a spear in his hand,
Num 25:8 he went after the Israelite man into the tent, and pierced the two of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly. So the plague was stopped among the people of Israel.
Num 25:9 Nevertheless those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand.
Num 25:10 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying:
Num 25:11 "Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites.
Num 25:12 Therefore say, 'I hereby grant him my covenant of peace.
Num 25:13 It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of perpetual priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the Israelites.'"
Num 25:14 The name of the slain Israelite man, who was killed with the Midianite woman, was Zimri son of Salu, head of an ancestral house belonging to the Simeonites.
Num 25:15 The name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cozbi daughter of Zur, who was the head of a clan, an ancestral house in Midian.
Num 25:16 The LORD said to Moses,
Num 25:17 "Harass the Midianites, and defeat them;
Num 25:18 for they have harassed you by the trickery with which they deceived you in the affair of Peor, and in the affair of Cozbi, the daughter of a leader of Midian, their sister; she was killed on the day of the plague that resulted from Peor."


Mind pointing out where that is?

 

[I-can-see]

What the?! Over 900 replies, and NOTHING has changed >.>

Gay = Wrong....there, the end.

Period.

No mas.

 

[Zebra1552]

Define gay.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To OllieFranz,
What do you mean 'mind pointing out where it is'. You and other pro-gay posters have been claiming homoSEXuality is love, but when SEXual relations are referred to you then mysteriously dont seem to recognise the link you proposed.

Numbers 25 shows that not only are wrong ideas of sexual activity not love, but God cannot stand them. Jesus NT teaching also indicates all sin leads to death, though many liberals who promote same sex relations dont even recognise that either. Neither adulterers, nor prostitutes nor homosexual offenders will inherit the Kingdom.

Again it is noted that you dont seem to have the detailed critcistim of Numbers 25 that you have for all the passages that exclude and condemn same sex relations.

 

[OllieFranz]

Scenario:

Little Johnny: I have a mommy and a daddy, and so does Susie. How come Pete has two mommies when my Mommy and Daddy say that is a sin and God says it's wrong?"

Teacher: Where does it say in the Bible that love is a sin?

Little Johnny: Huh? Love is not a sin, my Mommy and Daddy said having two married mommies is a sin.
​

Let's keep it Little Johnny for now.

Yes, there could be issues about a safe way to handle the situation because the teacher would be pitting her/his views against little Johnny's parents view of it being a sin. I think more than likely, Little Johnny will stand up for his parents until he's older and decides for himself. But there is also the bigger possibility of Little Johnny thinking the teacher is calling his parents liars.

There could be all kinds of issues along the way, no matter what age, but especially making the child suspicious of his own parents. This could involve attacks on trust in the child's mind in regards to his own parents, couldn't it?

I just noticed that you've edited this post yet again, changing the scenario even further from what we were discussing in the immediately following posts. This is dishonest of you. Especially since you have the teacher bringing up the Bible, when we had already discussed that I brought up the Bible with you in this thread and the teacher did not bring up the Bible in class.

If you have to change the context of our conversation to make me sound insensitive, and outright pigheaded just to make your position sound like a voice of reason, one has to wonder just how confident you are of that position.

 

[OllieFranz]

To OllieFranz,
What do you mean 'mind pointing out where it is'. You and other pro-gay posters have been claiming homoSEXuality is love, but when SEXual relations are referred to you then mysteriously dont seem to recognise the link you proposed.

Numbers 25 shows that not only are wrong ideas of sexual activity not love, but God cannot stand them. Jesus NT teaching also indicates all sin leads to death, though many liberals who promote same sex relations dont even recognise that either. Neither adulterers, nor prostitutes nor homosexual offenders will inherit the Kingdom.

Again it is noted that you dont seem to have the detailed critcistim of Numbers 25 that you have for all the passages that exclude and condemn same sex relations.

I have not given a "detailed criticism of Numbers 25" because I have not had the opportunity to comment on that post at all. But now that I have had the opportunity, I must agree with Godschild that there is nothing in it to indicate that love is a sin. It seems to indicate that mixed marriage is a sin, and that if Boaz's neighbors took the same attitude as Phineas, then they would have killed Boaz, Ruth, and Obed in her womb.

As far as "wrong ideas of sexual activity" is concerned, how did Joey get any ideas about sexual activity? AlAyeti says that Christian parents want to shelter their children from "sexualization" and in all of my scenarios, the "idea of sexual activity." So the only way they can interpret the statement that Pete's mommies are living in sin is that their love is a sin.

Add to that the fact that Joey's parents are declaring that Pete's mommies are guilty of a sin when they have no way of knowing whether or not there is any "sexual activity" going on in the first place.

 

[one11]

I just noticed that you've edited this post yet again, changing the scenario even further from what we were discussing in the immediately following posts. This is dishonest of you. Especially since you have the teacher bringing up the Bible, when we had already discussed that I brought up the Bible with you in this thread and the teacher did not bring up the Bible in class.

If you have to change the context of our conversation to make me sound insensitive, and outright pigheaded just to make your position sound like a voice of reason, one has to wonder just how confident you are of that position.

I did NOT EDIT THE POST AGAIN period!

I thought YOU brought up the Bible as the answer the teacher would give. See posts #919 and #920.

Copy of your answer here:

Originally Posted by one11

Little Johnny: I have a mommy and a daddy, and so does Susie. How come Pete has two mommies and no daddy?"

Teacher: Your mommy fell in love a boy, your daddy. Pete's mommy fell in love with a girl, Pete's other mommy.

Little Johnny: But, my Mommy and Daddy say that is a sin.


What if that happens, and I'm sure it will. How will teachers handle another's belief without infringing on that belief?

_______________________________________________

YOUR ANSWER HERE:

​

Love is a sin? Where in the Bible does it say that?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To OllieFranz,

It seems to indicate that mixed marriage is a sin, and that if Boaz's neighbors took the same attitude as Phineas, then they would have killed Boaz, Ruth, and Obed in her womb.

Er no, the people of God were seduced by sexual relations with the unbelievers. They also then acknowledged other gods.
What this shows as far as your argument goes is that love and sex are not the sa,me thing.

As far as "wrong ideas of sexual activity" is concerned, how did Joey get any ideas about sexual activity?

Well they knew the law.

AlAyeti says that Christian parents want to shelter their children from "sexualization" and in all of my scenarios, the "idea of sexual activity." So the only way they can interpret the statement that Pete's mommies are living in sin is that their love is a sin.

Pete doesn’t have two mommies. A mommie is a woman. Sorry dysfunction overload.

 

[OllieFranz]

To OllieFranz,
Er no, the people of God were seduced by sexual relations with the unbelievers. They also then acknowledged other gods.
What this shows as far as your argument goes is that love and sex are not the sa,me thing.

Well they knew the law.
Pete doesn’t have two mommies. A mommie is a woman. Sorry dysfunction overload.

A mommy is a woman who is the legal parent of a child. If an unwed mother gives her child up for adoption and a Christian couple adopt and raise him are they or or they not his Mommy and Daddy?

 

[OllieFranz]

To OllieFranz,
Er no, the people of God were seduced by sexual relations with the unbelievers. They also then acknowledged other gods.
What this shows as far as your argument goes is that love and sex are not the sa,me thing.

Well they knew the law.

What is the law that little Joey knows? AlAyeti says his parents are sheltering him from "sexualization," so he does not know about sex. What does he think that Joey's mommies are doing that's wrong?

And you still haven't answered the question of how Joey's parents can accuse Joey's mommies of sexual sin when they have no way of knowing what sex, if any is going on between them?