Major Evangelical Adoption Agency Will Now Serve Gay Parents Nationwide

[SilverBear]

If sin is sin (as hedrick rightly says), then it seems....I dunno, discriminatory?....to single out LGBTQ people as being unique sinners among all the other sinners who regularly inhabit churches.
Ringo

if God so disapproves of homosexuals he could just stop making them

 

[SilverBear]

It...look at the post closely, you'll figure it out.



Did you not reject facts and documents?
And are you certian the facts and documents on your end of this are all truth?

the fact is the author of the study you cited misrepresented what he was studying and then arbitrarily change the results to get a different outcome.

 

[SilverBear]

I'd like to point out that when Paul refers to nature he doesn't mean what animals in the forest do. He's referring to what is "natural" for humans.

In Romans Paul writes ἀφέντες φυσικὴν. which means uncharacteristic or against the nature of that person . If he was referring to what is "natural" for humans he would have written ενάντια στο νόμο or cenántia sto nómo

 

[Kenny'sID]

the fact is the author of the study you cited misrepresented what he was studying and then arbitrarily change the results to get a different outcome.

We covered that...do you know that his reasoning for doing so was flawed?

He aparently thought he had good reason.

 

[Belk]

We covered that...do you know that his reasoning for doing so was flawed?

He aparently thought he had good reason.

Are you seriously asking if we can state that misrepresenting data and changing results to reflect a desired outcome is flawed reasoning?

 

[Erik Nelson]

if God so disapproves of homosexuals he could just stop making them

the fact is the author of the study you cited misrepresented what he was studying and then arbitrarily change the results to get a different outcome.

Misrepresenting the Bible's views to get a different outcome?

 

[rjs330]

No, but he who thinks he is without sin is deceiving himself.

Furthermore, I'd guess that the most serious sins are the ones that a person doesn't recognize, and thus doesn't repent or try to change. Again, if you stop focusing just on sexual sin, but look at Jesus' teachings as a whole or even the entirety of Paul's lists, I'd bet just about all Christians not only commit sin, but repeatedly commit sins that they don't admit.

That's not to say that we should accept that, but I think it's something that God is going to forgive. I hope and believe that even people who try to exclude gays from the church can be saved.

That's not the point. The religious point of this discussion IS on homosexuality and particularly in the church.

And as ANY sin that takes place in a believers life it can lead them away from God.

Jesus teachings on the whole certainly indicate this.

God will not and does not automatically forgive unrepentant ongoing sin. And I quoted the scripture to show that. There is also this.

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. I John

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. Colossians

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians

So we see that unrepentant continual sin will separate us from God. Remember this is a matter of WILL. The bible also tells us that we as believers do commit sin. But we also ask for forgiveness. In the context of THIS conversation, a Christian cannot be a practicing homosexual and remain forgiven. For they are making a practice of sinning.

Just like any believer who makes a practice of continual sin of any kind. They are in grave danger. I'm not the judge of when that occurs. I don't judge in the sense of determining when God let's them go. I am a judge when recognizing sin in a person's life. Just like you and other believers may be the judge to recognize sin in mine. I do not get to decide when a person has crossed the line of receiving the wrath of God and no longer part of his kingdom. I don't have that right. But God does.

 

[rjs330]

My bold. To be clear, you just kinda repeated your argument.

Neither God, nor his amazing creation ALWAYS works with "reasonable explanation". You can certainly be within your rights to say "I don't know for sure".

Then we could assume that God initially (ie....before Eve was considered) didn't want humans to procreate?

You are asking questions that are interesting things to consider. But God doesn't answer.

oh wow. Definitely, definitely not.

2. The declaration was that God knew man needed a companion. No animal could meet man's need and God created the woman out of the man. Why? I have no idea. God doesn't say. We can speculate all we want, but won't come up with an answer. As God says his ways are not ours and his thoughts are not ours. Who can know the mind of God? Not me. If he doesn't tell.me, I'm certainly not going to make some declarative statement as to what God was or wasn't thinking. It would be wise for you to do the same. Because you are then trying to place your intellect on par with God's.

Rest assured I am doing NO such thing. I can't handle God's intellect and while a guess may be fun, I'd never put any weight or faith behind it.



It should also be noted that the sole premise of your argument against homosexuality is really on the basis of "can't procreate".

Ultimately though, you can get into a VERY interesting discussion on the implications there. A big one in my mind: God's people are traipsing about the Middle East and eventually get to settle down. The problem is that they have a LOT of neighbours who are heavily populated. God (obviously) is aware that homosexuality is not going to strengthen the numbers of the people of Israel.

The issue for me is that it breaks down the ENTIRE human experience to "procreation" and that the entirety of our existence (as it relates to our sexuality/gender) is to make babies. I just don't think God made us so 1 dimensional.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure why you would assume anything about what God wanted. I think that would be entirely inappropriate. What God DID command was for them to procreate.

If God doesn't answer the question you can wonder. But there is no answer where it comes to the question. And speculation is quite meaningless and to try and say God did this because is placing yourself into the mind of God. Which is innapropriate. Speculation is meaningless.

Homosexuality is a violation of the nature of man as God created him. As a religious argument.

As a natural argument the species cannot exist without procreation. Thus it remains against nature.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

We covered that...do you know that his reasoning for doing so was flawed?

He aparently thought he had good reason.

No he didn't have good reason flawed.

 

[SilverBear]

We covered that...do you know that his reasoning for doing so was flawed?

He aparently thought he had good reason.

deception is never a good reason

 

[Kenny'sID]

deception is never a good reason

Show me what you're talking about in context, and let me see if it's as you claim, or if there is a bit more to it.

 

[Speedwell]

As a natural argument the species cannot exist without procreation. Thus it remains against nature.

And since those few in society who do not procreate because they are homosexuals so interfere with our natural need as a species to procreate, we are justified in depriving them of their civil rights and treating them as a despised minority? Yet somehow hetero couples who use birth control and never intend to procreate are not subject to that "natural argument."

 

[Kenny'sID]

No he didn't have good reason flawed.

Proof?

 

[SilverBear]

Show me what you're talking about in context, and let me see if it's as you claim, or if there is a bit more to it.

Why? You already said you don't care about any evidence

 

[rjs330]

And since those few in society who do not procreate because they are homosexuals so interfere with our natural need as a species to procreate, we are justified in depriving them of their civil rights and treating them as a despised minority? Yet somehow hetero couples who use birth control and never intend to procreate are not subject to that "natural argument."

No I don't think so. We shouldn't despise anyone. We shouldn't deprive people of their constitutional rights. Which includes homosexuals and those that are religious. Where things get hairy in this context is when religious rights butt heads with homosexuals rights. Neither side should press upon the other. For example religious people shouldn't try and make laws against homosexuals. And homosexuals shouldn't try and force religious people to violate their religious freedom.
If I were a cake maker I would make the wedding cake. But I also believe homosexuals shouldn't force me to make one if I didn't want to.
As far as this thread is concerned I don't believe anyone should pass any law outlawing homosexuals from adopting. I also don't believe any law should be passed forcing religious organizations to allow hosexuals to adopt from them. I say leave each other alone.

We"be gone too far in the area of demanding governmental action in forcing people to do this or that or not do this or that. Biblically speaking the Bible tells us to live peaceably with all men as much as it is possible. Unbelievers will do what they do and even if they were forced by law to not act a certain way they still wouldn't be saved. So what's the point? Laws don't save people's souls. On the flip side unbelievers should have enough respect for the deeply held religious beliefs of some that they wouldn't demand they violate those beliefs. Go find someone who doesn't care.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why? You already said you don't care about any evidence

So, you'll stall and hope I dont ask for again? Typical.

And where did I say "I don't care about any evidencence"?

 

[SilverBear]

So, you'll stall and hope I dont ask for again? Typical.

you mean keep asking what has already been answered

And where did I say "I don't care about any evidencence"?

But, in the end, none of that matters.

 

[rjs330]

In Romans Paul writes ἀφέντες φυσικὴν. which means uncharacteristic or against the nature of that person . If he was referring to what is "natural" for humans he would have written ενάντια στο νόμο or cenántia sto nómo

I'm afraid you've entered the world of wild speculation. Paul was operating under divine inspiration which means words mean things.

Instead of providing an exegisis of the entire passage let's just look at the particular one you are interested in.

Paul uses the words thnleiai or females and arsenes or males. So it's not a single persons nature. He is speaking in broad terms of makes and females. Plural.

Secondly the words are psusuknv xpnsiv which is natural use or function. Women changed their natural function to go against nature or native condition. Paul goes further as an explanation by pointing out that men leave the natural function OF THE FEMALE and burn in desire for other males. He has declared there is a natural function of each for the other. The male natural function is for the female and vice versa. Males and females turn from that natural use function to change or leave that function. So you see it's not "born with" the nature of a homosexual. It's an actual LEAVING or CHANGING the function of use of men for women and women for men.
He talks of the difference if desire or passion which leads one to leave it change their natural use of women for men and men for women to women for women and men for men.
Men committing shameful acts with men. The acts are the leaving that which is the natural use of women to commit those acts with other men.
In this case God has given them up to a reprobate mind. A mind that God cannot approve and must be rejected by Him. They don't have God in their knowledge. Thus anything the homosexual says or does to justify their behavior comes from that reprobate mind. In Romans 1:21-23 Paul explains the problem. Because of the rejection of God their thinking is futile and their minds are senseless. Their thinking is dark. They assert wisdom but are actually fools. This is why they have changed their natural use and function.

 

[Kenny'sID]

you mean keep asking what has already been answered


But, in the end, none of that matters.

Lol, so predictable, its starting to look like there was a bit more to your defense, as in, you never had one. There's no other reason to continue to stall answering the question.

I won't ask again as your intent to not answer on the grounds it may incriminate, is very clear.

I saw no correlation between your link and my stating I don't care about any evidenece, so unless you are willing to post a valid, exact comment where I made the claim, it appears you are not being truthful...again.

 

[SilverBear]

Lol, so predictable, its starting to look like there was a bit more to your defense, as in, you never had one. There's no other reason to continue to stall answering the question.

Considering that i already have that is a great relief

I won't ask again as your intent to not answer on the grounds it may incriminate, is very clear.

incriminate who? the researcher that faked data or you for continuing to try to there are ethical reasons for faking research

I saw no correlation between your link and my stating I don't care about any evidenece, so unless you are willing to post a valid, exact comment where I made the claim, it appears you are not being truthful...again.

the truth remains that the author of the study you cited faked data and you don't care