Homosexual agenda

Originally posted by dnich163
Well for goodness sake, I'm surprised to encounter a thread on homosexuality in this day and age.
Considering that homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time along with the oldest profession.
Osacr Wilde was such a master of words, but I wouldn't discriminate against his writings on the basis of his homosexuality.

There is undoubtedly truth in his writing.

David

Click to expand...

For the same reason one should not discard the KJV simply because King James was a homosexual.

"loss of religious fundamentalism."

Hmm..so government should regulate this huh?

Originally posted by rapturebaby
Homosexual laws

Landlords will be required to accept homosexuals as tenants (already the law in some places).
* State laws against sodomy and other unnatural acts will be overturned.
* Private organizations such as the Boy Scouts will be required to accept a gay scoutmaster.
* Employers will not be allowed to reject applicants because they are gay.1
* Public media will be either prevented or pressured not to broadcast or to print even Bible declarations against sexual perversions--no freedom of speech on this issue.
* Companies will be required to extend marital benefits to employees who live in a same-sex relationship.2
* States might be required to legitimize same sex marriages.
* One who openly upholds biblical truth on these issues will be subject to discrimination.3
* Schools will be required to encourage acceptance of sexual diversity and parental guidance in these matters will be ignored.
* Churches will lose their tax-status and become subject to lawsuits when they reject or discipline practicing homosexuals

Click to expand...

OH - MY - GAWD!

You mean to tell me that those dirty queers want to rent an apartment and get a job?  What?!  They want health benefits too!  Not on my watch!
 

What is your thoughts concerning the agenda of the homosexual community?

Click to expand...

My thoughts cannot be properly displayed here without bringing upon my banment.  But I will say I think this hateful drivel is disgusting.

It's remarkable how vile people that have promised themselves to an all-loving God can be towards others that are different.

Originally posted by Starscream

It's remarkable how vile people that have promised themselves to an all-loving God can be towards others that are different.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is.  But I am not so sure they promised themselves to Jesus.  Many seem to be more attached to the vicious, homicidal deity who was a bachelor on Mt. Sinai.  The one that killed the Egyptians, opened up the earth and swallowed the people who didn't worship him, had his people kill women and children and hamsters who happened to be in the wrong place and the wrong time, etc...  They seem to forget the revelation of the God who showed love and mercy and compassion (to all but the religious right of his day) and who told them to follow his example.

Originally posted by Smilin
What are my thoughts?  sounds like the same 'hate talk' aimed towards Blacks, Chinese, and Native Americans.  tsk, tsk, after you and those like you stamp out the 'homosexual agenda'...what's next...will you come after the 'Native American' agenda?

Oh yeah..let's don't forget the 'Jewish Agenda' and Hitlers 'final solution' to that.

YOU sicken me. 

Click to expand...

I don't think that rapturebaby necessarily advocates this, but just wanted to bring it up for discussion. Don't kill the messenger, Smilin.

I think you've misunderstood Romans; it's not restricted to hypocrites, but rather, to everyone who judges, because none of us can claim to be better than another sinner; our sins, too, offend God.

Click to expand...

No, I have not misunderstood Romans.  And I would agree that the teachings do not neccessarily apply to the believer, making him a hypocrite as well.  Any sinner who pick up the bible and reads it should be able to gain positive insight on how to live his life.   

Was Paul only referring to the sin of hypocrisy or Judgment at the begining of ch. 2? 

In Ch.1 of Romans, do you really think that Paul was just warning the people to not stray from righteousness, because of what they would fall into, and not because the practices they were doing were wrong.... ?

 

What I get from it: People who turn from God will return to pagan rituals, and this separates them from God and eternal life

Click to expand...

Does this then not apply to today?  Do we have "pagan rituals" anymore?  If we do, what would you say they are?

 

So really it's a win/win situation. Social acceptance and equality for all people and a loss of religious fundamentalism.

Remind me to send my cheque to the ACLU right away.

Click to expand...

Havoc, I sense some sarcasm in your reply. From what I see, hear and read religious fundamentalism is going the way of the pony express my friend. I hear and read about churches who are arguing over what they should accept and are ignoring scripture. Why are they afraid to remain and hold on too what the Bible teaches? Church organizations are struggling with the fact that they can not call sin exactly what it is, SIN. We have justify it, legalize it, socialize it, memorialize it, sympathize it, and so on.

As I have said before, I don't think that people practicing homosexuality have a hidden agenda to do away with religion or some secretive undermining of our government or anything like that. I think they should all have the same rights as any heterosexual when it comes to employment, housing, healthcare benefits. The government has no right in limiting these benefits. As Christians, I think we look stupid trying to fight it. Why? Homosexuals are humans too, they deserve there equal right.

I will stand firm as a Christian in my beliefs in the scripture that God believes it to be wrong and a sin. If a gay man or women walks into my church, I am going to love them and share the gospel with them. I am not going to condemn them but, give and show them love. Will I accept there sexual practice and tell them that its ok. No. You may ask what if they never change? Well that is something that we have to accept. Many people who come to Christ and want to quit smoking or drinking or other habits, some are able to stop, others have a very bad addiction and may never be able to stop, and to expect some one to change over night I think is wrong. Am I saying that to be gay is an addiction? For some yes for some no. The two people that I know who are now gay, one is gay the other is Bi. They both made decisions to enter into those sexual practices.

That's all I can tell you.

Originally posted by Leviathan

In Ch.1 of Romans, do you really think that Paul was just warning the people to not stray from righteousness, because of what they would fall into, and not because the practices they were doing were wrong.... ?

Click to expand...

Well, it's certainly very similar to Job 36:1-14, which makes basically the same point. Keep in mind the logical ordering Paul uses:

* They knew God.
* They turned *away* from God.
* *because* of this, they fell into sin.

Now, given that everyone involved *would* have been pagan before converting, and would have gone back to that pagan faith when deconverting, and that what Paul describes is pretty much a perfect match for the rituals they would have gone to... I think it's specifically about those people, and does not necessarily tell us of a general judgement on same-sex behaviors.

Remember the early church commentator who observed that, by saying the men turned *from* women, *to* men, Paul "denied them any excuse".

Does this then not apply to today?  Do we have "pagan rituals" anymore?  If we do, what would you say they are?

Click to expand...

I would say that, unless it's intended as an act of worship, it's not the same thing.

"I think it's specifically about those people, and does not necessarily tell us of a general judgement on same-sex behaviors.
"

And you'd be leaving out the context The lusts were wrong and were already there, so because of them doing peagan rituals he gave them over to their evil lusts and allowed it to happen. The lusts were evil and wrong to begin with because homosexuality is wrong, though this is not the topic of dicussion now is it?

Originally posted by Outspoken

And you'd be leaving out the context

Click to expand...

No, he's doing the exact opposite -- picking the context up.

Verses 22-23 describe the people making idols. Paul would have been familiar with the cult practices of the surrounding pagan religions, which included both making idols, and temple prostitutes (like the kind that are condemned in Deuteronomy).

From verses 22 and 23 we can conclude that the context of the passage is the pagan ritual practices. How else are you supposed to read this? God made them homosexual because they rejected him? Everyone who rejects God is a homosexual? Why was homosexuality in particular singled out in this section?

So if Paul is talking about the cult prostitution and the other sexual cultish practices of the pagan religions in the area, this has nothing to do with a consensual relationship between two people.

What "context" are you talking about that makes this apply to all same-sex relationships regardless of circumstance?

-Chris

Originally posted by Outspoken
"I think it's specifically about those people, and does not necessarily tell us of a general judgement on same-sex behaviors.
"

And you'd be leaving out the context The lusts were wrong and were already there, so because of them doing peagan rituals he gave them over to their evil lusts and allowed it to happen. The lusts were evil and wrong to begin with because homosexuality is wrong, though this is not the topic of dicussion now is it?

Click to expand...

This is begging the question; logically, you're *starting* from the premise "homosexuality is wrong", and using it as the basis for an interpretation of the passage, from which you conclude... that homosexuality is wrong. But that's totally circular. We need to start by reading the passage *without* assuming that homosexuality is wrong, and see which explanations we can come up with for it.

Does anyone else see the way that wording is very important here?

I am not going to condemn them, but i will give and show them love.

I am not going to condemn them, and i will give and show them love.

My homosexual agenda is usually to be able to spoon my wife after we fall asleep in bed and sometimes, we're thinking maybe New Year's Eve, share more intimacy, hopefully after the kids've gone to bed.

Beyond that, it would be helpful if allegedly "Christian" parents of gay kids would stop abusing them, throwing them out on the streets, or locking them up in psychiatric facilities. It would be so much better for all concerned. I am mentoring a queer 16 y/o whose Dad is in prison for raping her and yes, it did happen after he found out she was queer. It is somewhat difficult to teach her to be a productive member of society given all that has happened to her. She would be perfect for the military if they'd drop their archaic 'don't ask don't tell' rule but she is the type who won't fit into the closet easily.

I would like to be able to have the same rates for health insurance, income tax, etc. as heterosexual couples. And pity the poor naive junior nurse who ever tries to bar me from my wife's hospital bed if she's ever in one.

Anna Quindlen once referred to the struggle for gay rights as wanting 'the right to be ordinary'. That was very accurate. And therein is the true meaning of 'gay agenda'.

Strong agreement on the abuse.

One of the rules of thumb I have: If a kid has been kicked out of his home by his parents, a Christian should be someone the kid would feel comfortable coming to seeking shelter and comfort. You will notice I don't specify *why* the kid was kicked out; I honestly think it shouldn't matter. Gay? Wrong skin color? I don't care. The kid should feel safe coming to me for shelter and comfort, and should be justified in this trust.

"logically, you're *starting* from the premise "homosexuality is wrong", and using it as the basis for an interpretation of the passage"

that is taken from the Old testiment why should I forget something I've already been taught? The problem is you want to change or twist and turn the text around, and I won't allow that, sorry.

No, even the interpretation of the old testament is resting on this premise; people who approach it with different expectations get different results.

I don't buy the OT argument; the only rule I've ever seen for exactly how we tell moral laws from ritual cleanliness laws was "it's a cleanliness law if a majority of middle-class Americans would like to be allowed to break it". No other rule proposed actually seems to reliably make predictions.

The OT never once even hints at same-sex relations between women, I might point out; that is 100% added in by us. The text never mentions it.

"No, even the interpretation of the old testament is resting on this premise; people who approach it with different expectations get different results."

No, its not, its very clear in the passage and backed up by the NT very clearly. You can twist words all you want, I'm not buying

"The text never mentions it."

LOL because its ment to be generic. "one small step for mankind" man that Armstrong boy sure is sexist..LOL

"It's meant to be generic". I see. So, we never add *anything* to the text, except that sometimes we treat a specific claim as generic, and sometimes we treat a generic claim as specific, but that's not interpretation, because it's "obvious" to us in a way precisely opposite what was "obvious" to another denomination.

I do love being a Protestant. Catholics don't get to have this much fun.

"I see. "

As always seebs you love to leave out the major details, its called context.

It is always curious to me that "context" is only brought into the picture on precisely those verses which, if taken at face value, would not say what we want them to say.