homosexuality is an abomination

A Believer said:

"No one is born gay. According to Paul
it is NOT natural." Im not sure Paul is the best source when it comes to whether someone is Born Gay or not.

*Exactly*

Click to expand...

One is born a sinner.

+

afnospam said:

One is born a sinner.

Click to expand...

So, um, you believe homosexuality has a genetic component?

afnospam said:

One is born a sinner.

+

Click to expand...

Words cannot describe how ignorant that is...

Why? I would agree

You would agree with me or him?

And ignorant was a poor choice of a word to use, that I admit. Spur of the moment post while trying to do a bunch of other things, doesn't work.

Inconsiderate is the word I was looking for.

The gay people were BORN with this homosexuality. Yeah, let's consider them sinners and have 'em sent to Hell because they were born a certain way.

I am incorporating Christian beliefs into this post to answer from a Christian perspective. I could say, "I'm Athiest, i don't believe God punishes sinners" but for the sake of argument:

God is supposed to be a just God. Is sending someone to Hell for being born with certain physical attractions just?

God may say being gay is a sin but he creates everyone so it doesn't make sense that he would make someone a sinner.

i would understand if you were trying to argue that God gave gay people freedom of choice and they chose to be gay and thus be a sinner (even though I don't believe that is possible).

Everyone is made in God's image. So he would not make a gay person.

We are all born sinners - homosexuals, hetrosexuals, men, women, children. Romans 3:23 says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." For those of us who have kids, you know that at a very young age they have some untaught ability to learn to use deception and lying to influence what they desire. Our sexual impulses are similar - we all have them and we all desire to act on them. In an individual who is able know how there desires influence them, what you act on is your choice. 1 Cornithians 6:12 says "Everything is permissible for me–but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me–but I will not be mastered by anything." The question is, does one's desire for sin lead them into action, or a quite repause and not acting on the temptation? The writer of Jude says "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7). I believe for those of us who struggle with sexual temptation or identity, we should cling to the power of Christ's redemption and not let our sin be uncontrolled.

Man-o-man. This topic is one that just keeps going, isn't it?

What is amazing to me is that anyone can read the original post and take it seriously. Do people think at all any more?

First, it takes the story in Genesis of god creating the animals and Adam naming them and uses IT as evidence. Ok, help me out here. People really believe that this happened? Really? You can believe that God created 10-million-plus (still discovering them) species of animals and Adam named them all.

God: OK, Adam, just quit whining and try to stick with me here. We are on our 18,000th type of beetle. What do you think? And don't try some stupid scientific name on me this time. Lets keep this real. I was getting board so I made this one to roll dung into little balls (laughing).

Adam: Uh! Does 'poop-ball-rolling beetle' work for you?

God: Let's come back to this one, shall we... How about this deep-sea dwelling worm thingy that looks like a big tube. It lives by deep-sea vents and eats those millions of little thingies you haven't named yet.

Adam: In the deep-wha by the who? Dang! I could really use some help here!

Then the story continues with the whole rib story. Woah, if I were a woman, that written-by-men story would really tick me off! But look, it comes in the same story with the animal naming thing. Should we really take it seriously?

Then we move on to the whole be 'be fruitful (no pun intended) and multiply' thing being an indication against it because homosexual sex can't cause children. These same people will then go and participate in any number of non-reproductive 'lustful' acts that aren't about conception, from kissing to oral sex to whatever else, and they condone anything from birth-control to 'natural family planning' and say it is ok. Think here people. If you are condemning sex that is not for procreation, then you yourself are only allowed to have sex when you are trying to have a baby AND you can only do those things that actually have the potential to create a child. ALL of the other stuff is out, OK.

Then we come to the whole choice issue. What is being stated is that people are born hetero (I assume God is hetero because we are made in his image, but there is no Mrs. God, so why would he care. But there is his baby's mama...). Then people CHOOSE to be gay. I am hetero and I would never ever ever choose to be gay. I am not attracted to men. Now, my friend, who comes from the same background as me, does find men attractice. So how are you saying that can be? Are you homosexual and finding a way to keep from acting on it even though it can't be becuse God didn't create you that way? Bisexual? What reason would someone have for COOSING to have sex with a same-sex partner to whom they are not attracted? Hmmm. Would it be so that self rightious phobics could treat them like ****, drag them though the dirt, try to limit their freedoms, chain them to posts and beat them to death, or spit on them? Well, none of these sound like good reasons to me.

Some people refuse to think. They refuse to even consider what they themselves are arguing. And as to the idiot thing, I think you know how i feel...

Homosexuality is still a choice whether you like it or not.
Scientists have found the obese gene, that makes people fatter....but that dosen't necessarly make a person fat, if that person exercises all the time.

I have a genetic blood disorder, anemia intermediate form(Thank God it's not full form), which means I have less blood count in my system. Technically that would have meant that it'd would be really tough for me to play sport as well as keeping warm.
As for keeping warm, I wear more clothes. But for endurance, I had to work much harder and surprisingly my haemoglobin within each blood cell has more than normal the capacity, plus my blood cells are slightly larger than a normal blood cell. Which means the glucose and oxygen levels have adapted to the loss of blood counts. I have to thank God for this, else I'd be sitting on a computer all day.

It is possible, something as physical as my condition to change, as to a homosexual to change to a hectrosexual. And it does exist, theres a guy back in my old church that was gay then ungaied....

...so please, you can change and it is definately a choice as far as I'm concern.

Icystwolf said:

Homosexuality is still a choice whether you like it or not.
Scientists have found the obese gene, that makes people fatter....but that dosen't necessarly make a person fat, if that person exercises all the time.

I have a genetic blood disorder, anemia intermediate form(Thank God it's not full form), which means I have less blood count in my system. Technically that would have meant that it'd would be really tough for me to play sport as well as keeping warm.
As for keeping warm, I wear more clothes. But for endurance, I had to work much harder and surprisingly my haemoglobin within each blood cell has more than normal the capacity, plus my blood cells are slightly larger than a normal blood cell. Which means the glucose and oxygen levels have adapted to the loss of blood counts. I have to thank God for this, else I'd be sitting on a computer all day.

It is possible, something as physical as my condition to change, as to a homosexual to change to a hectrosexual. And it does exist, theres a guy back in my old church that was gay then ungaied....

...so please, you can change and it is definately a choice as far as I'm concern.

Click to expand...

Yet you still fail to regognize the fallacy of your argument. If one is not born gay, then there is no logical motivation for being so, nor does it make sense for someone to engage in something they find abhorrent by choice. It absolutely does not make sense. If you are straight, would you go have sex with a man?

The whole 'ungaid' argument is equally short sighted. Do you not realize that there is every type of person out there. Some like women, some men, some both and every shade in between. For some it is easier to 'switch' as you put it, but it isn't really switching. No matter how much therapy you send me to, I ouwld never find other men sexually attractive. That is just how I am. The same is true for a purely gay person.

defiantchild said:

According to Romans 1:27 homosexuality is unnatural. It is one of the reasons Soddom and Gomorrah were destroyed. God hates the sin of homosexuality as much as he hates any other sin. He loves the sinner, but hates the sin.

Click to expand...

Not true. God hates the sinner as well as the sin, as shown by several Bible verses.

"These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19)

The last two clearly speak of the person and not the actions. It is the person who 'soweth discord among brethren' and 'speaketh lies' that is an abomination. It could have said it is an abomination to lie or sow discord, but instead it says the person who does it is an abomination. This is clear.

"The burden of the Word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob. And I HATED Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage to waste for the dragons of the wilderness." (Malachi 1:1-3)

God hated Esau. There is no way you can deny that.

"God is a just judge and God is angry with the wicked everyday." (Psalms 7:11)

He is angry with the wicked. Not the sins of the wicked. The wicked themselves.

"The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity." (Psalm 5:5)

Once again, God hates more people!

"The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul HATETH" ( Ps. 11:5 )

Wow, that's harsh. Think about insane people who have disorders that require them to destroy things. They may smash windows or even hurt themselves. Why must God hate them?

Regardless, I have shown that not only does your God not love everyone, he hates quite a few of us.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by defiantchild

According to Romans 1:27 homosexuality is unnatural. It is one of the reasons Soddom and Gomorrah were destroyed. God hates the sin of homosexuality as much as he hates any other sin. He loves the sinner, but hates the sin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then why aren;t liars killed? And why don't I drop dead for lusting? And for saying, "Oh my God!" once in a while? I'm still here...

Ditto to everything said by Firscherscherling, that convo between God & Adam you made up was so hilarious

draper said:

Then why aren;t liars killed? And why don't I drop dead for lusting? And for saying, "Oh my God!" once in a while? I'm still here...

Ditto to everything said by Firscherscherling, that convo between God & Adam you made up was so hilarious

Click to expand...

Thanks. But you notice something?...no responses...

Must be out degaing someone...

What is amazing to me is that anyone can read the original post and take it seriously. Do people think at all any more?

Click to expand...

Some people refuse to think. They refuse to even consider what they themselves are arguing. And as to the idiot thing, I think you know how i feel...

Click to expand...

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

If you are condemning sex that is not for procreation, then you yourself are only allowed to have sex when you are trying to have a baby

Click to expand...

You must not necessarily intend to have a baby, but it must be open to the possibility. This obviously is not possible with sexual relations between two members of the same sex.

I assume God is hetero because we are made in his image

Click to expand...

Being made in the image and likeness of God has nothing to do with our physical nature, but that is a topic for another thread.

Now, my friend, who comes from the same background as me, does find men attractice. So how are you saying that can be?

Click to expand...

There could be hundreds of reasons such as lifestyle, brain chemistry, sub-conscious etc. You would be ignorant to say that any two people grow up under the exact same circumstances.

What reason would someone have for COOSING to have sex with a same-sex partner to whom they are not attracted?

Click to expand...

Im not sure of the point you are trying to make, but there would be no reason. If it is a choice then you choose to be attracted to them. You would be choosing to change your sexual orientation, not just your actions.

Hmmm. Would it be so that self rightious phobics could treat them like ****, drag them though the dirt, try to limit their freedoms, chain them to posts and beat them to death, or spit on them? Well, none of these sound like good reasons to me.

Click to expand...

The ignorance is spewing from this statement. I will not dignify it with a rebuttal.

I am not claiming that I think it is a choice, because I do not know myself. However, I find it funny that you claim logic and reason are on your side, when most of your statements are ill-founded or devoid of reason.

Then why aren;t liars killed? And why don't I drop dead for lusting? And for saying, "Oh my God!" once in a while? I'm still here...

Click to expand...

Draper, don't twist his words. He only claimed it was a contributing factor, he never stated that they were struck down solely for being gay.

ObjectiveReality said:

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

You must not necessarily intend to have a baby, but it must be open to the possibility. This obviously is not possible with sexual relations between two members of the same sex.

Being made in the image and likeness of God has nothing to do with our physical nature, but that is a topic for another thread.

There could be hundreds of reasons such as lifestyle, brain chemistry, sub-conscious etc. You would be ignorant to say that any two people grow up under the exact same circumstances.

Im not sure of the point you are trying to make, but there would be no reason. If it is a choice then you choose to be attracted to them. You would be choosing to change your sexual orientation, not just your actions.
The ignorance is spewing from this statement. I will not dignify it with a rebuttal.

I am not claiming that I think it is a choice, because I do not know myself. However, I find it funny that you claim logic and reason are on your side, when most of your statements are ill-founded or devoid of reason.


Draper, don't twist his words. He only claimed it was a contributing factor, he never stated that they were struck down solely for being gay.

Click to expand...

So, oral sex, touching a woman's breasts, kissing, fondling...well, pretty much everything is out except penile insertion into the ******. Sorry, buyt that is what you are saying. I hope you are sticking to it.

Being made in the image of God has whole heck of a lot to do with it. If I am made in the image of God, then you are saying God has a *****. For what reason does God have a *****, exactly? Why does God have hands? For what purpose? Feet? Eyes? These are all unecessary physical characteristics to an all powerful God. Useful, however, for an earth-dwelling, evolved being.

You can't claim brain chemistry as a cause for homosexuality. that would make it God-created, not a choice. And the point I am trying to make is that I CANNOT be attracted to a man. I am not opposed to it. Wouldn't bother me. Just don't have it. If you can choose to be attracted to a man and a woman, then you are bisexual. You should learn to accept yourself as such.

Christians shouldn't call those they disagree with ignorant. The argument I make isn't hard to understand. Homosexuals are hated in our society plain and simple. What you are saying is that someone would choose to have sex with a person to whom they are not attracted with the reward being opression and hatred. That makes no sense. Not hard to understand at all.

I find this all entirely logical. Must be Satan in me.

Why no response and personal attack in reference to my naming of the animals skit? Don't you want to call me ignorant again?

BLACK! You're it!


ADDED: Amazing to me that on this board we can't use anatomical terms like p-e-n-i-s. Can't we all grow up a little?

Firscherscherling said:

Yet you still fail to regognize the fallacy of your argument. If one is not born gay, then there is no logical motivation for being so, nor does it make sense for someone to engage in something they find abhorrent by choice. It absolutely does not make sense. If you are straight, would you go have sex with a man?

The whole 'ungaid' argument is equally short sighted. Do you not realize that there is every type of person out there. Some like women, some men, some both and every shade in between. For some it is easier to 'switch' as you put it, but it isn't really switching. No matter how much therapy you send me to, I ouwld never find other men sexually attractive. That is just how I am. The same is true for a purely gay person.

Click to expand...

Actually no, you failed to recognise my argument. I specifically stated that if a person is born gay, they still have a choice to becoming gay or not gay, just as likely as a person born with the obese gene who has a choice of being fat or fit, or a person like me to wither every winter or boost my blood status.

All it is, is that it's harder for a person with the obese gene to become fit, or a person like myself, work harder to overcome my disease, and for a person who's born gay to overcome gainess.

I never mentioned about switching, switching was manifested upon your own interpertation. I never switched to gaining more endurance, it needs a lot of work. The ungaied person back at my old church, spent around 6months reading the Bible and slowly but painfully change he's thoughts.

People can change, my blood status scientifically shouldn't have changed but it did. If a person can overcome that problem, I'm very certain God will notice it and reward him for it.

Icystwolf said:

Actually no, you failed to recognise my argument. I specifically stated that if a person is born gay, they still have a choice to becoming gay or not gay, just as likely as a person born with the obese gene who has a choice of being fat or fit, or a person like me to wither every winter or boost my blood status.

All it is, is that it's harder for a person with the obese gene to become fit, or a person like myself, work harder to overcome my disease, and for a person who's born gay to overcome gainess.

I never mentioned about switching, switching was manifested upon your own interpertation. I never switched to gaining more endurance, it needs a lot of work. The ungaied person back at my old church, spent around 6months reading the Bible and slowly but painfully change he's thoughts.

People can change, my blood status scientifically shouldn't have changed but it did. If a person can overcome that problem, I'm very certain God will notice it and reward him for it.

Click to expand...

Actually, you specifically said this:

Quote:
And it does exist, theres a guy back in my old church that was gay then ungaied....

You even made up your own word for it; ungaid. Which, by the way, makes me laugh really hard every time I read it.

This is not a statement that the man was gay and chose not to act on it. It is a statement that the man was gay and he chose not to be gay anymore. Sorry, but there is a big difference. Do you still have your disorder, or did you choose not to have it and it magically went away?

If you are saying that you think God does create gay people then the discussion changes. It seems that you are saying, yes, people are born gay (why God does this we have no idea) but they should never act the way God predisposed them to act. They should be celebate for their entire lives.

Is that it?

Firscherscherling said:

Actually, you specifically said this:

Quote:
And it does exist, theres a guy back in my old church that was gay then ungaied....

You even made up your own word for it; ungaid. Which, by the way, makes me laugh really hard every time I read it.

This is not a statement that the man was gay and chose not to act on it. It is a statement that the man was gay and he chose not to be gay anymore. Sorry, but there is a big difference. Do you still have your disorder, or did you choose not to have it and it magically went away?

If you are saying that you think God does create gay people then the discussion changes. It seems that you are saying, yes, people are born gay (why God does this we have no idea) but they should never act the way God predisposed them to act. They should be celebate for their entire lives.

Is that it?

Click to expand...

Fine....he degaied!
And secondly, I still have that disorder. If you read my post carefully you would have realised it has been compensated not magically disappear.

God creates all kind of people, but it's a challange as Christians to change themselves to be acceptable to God, not change his words to be acceptable to any heathen lifestyle.

As for making up words, I do have a habit for those...lol...theres just not enough words in my head to find the right word for it.
So can we agree on the word ...degay?

Icystwolf said:

Fine....he degaied!
And secondly, I still have that disorder. If you read my post carefully you would have realised it has been compensated not magically disappear.

God creates all kind of people, but it's a challange as Christians to change themselves to be acceptable to God, not change his words to be acceptable to any heathen lifestyle.

As for making up words, I do have a habit for those...lol...theres just not enough words in my head to find the right word for it.
So can we agree on the word ...degay?

Click to expand...

OK. I guess I still don't get what you are saying.

A: A man is created by God with a 'disorder' called homosexuality. The man can and should change his physiological make-up to not be homosexual any longer.

B: A man has a blood disorder. He can't change it, that is how he was created.

Why the double standard?

By the way, I know you still have the blood disorder. Rhetorical question.

Sorry, I can't agree with you on the term 'degay' as I find it offensive. Hilarious, but offensive.

Firscherscherling said:

OK. I guess I still don't get what you are saying.

A: A man is created by God with a 'disorder' called homosexuality. The man can and should change his physiological make-up to not be homosexual any longer.

B: A man has a blood disorder. He can't change it, that is how he was created.

Why the double standard?

By the way, I know you still have the blood disorder. Rhetorical question.

Sorry, I can't agree with you on the term 'degay' as I find it offensive. Hilarious, but offensive.

Click to expand...

Essentially what I'm saying is, a gay person can change to a hectro person.

How that relates to my condition is, I wanted to do things during winter. I wanted to know how if feels like to do tai chi out in the cold. So I made a choice, and started training hard for the last yr, to build my body up. So in that case, I made a choice to change myself instead of watching only TV during the winter. Just as a gay person wants to become Christian, they'd need to abide by the rules and change.

So in my condition, even though I have the disease, I can be as though I don't have the disease. Just like a gay person, they can change even though they may be gay inside, they would have changed to prefer the opposite sex.

As for the word being offensive or not, what do you call a gay person, giving himself self discipline and treatment to be a hectro?
ungay, degay, unhappied?

you know degay is the right word, but being offensive means that anywords relating to the meaning is also offensive.

Icystwolf said:

Essentially what I'm saying is, a gay person can change to a hectro person.

How that relates to my condition is, I wanted to do things during winter. I wanted to know how if feels like to do tai chi out in the cold. So I made a choice, and started training hard for the last yr, to build my body up. So in that case, I made a choice to change myself instead of watching only TV during the winter. Just as a gay person wants to become Christian, they'd need to abide by the rules and change.

So in my condition, even though I have the disease, I can be as though I don't have the disease. Just like a gay person, they can change even though they may be gay inside, they would have changed to prefer the opposite sex.

As for the word being offensive or not, what do you call a gay person, giving himself self discipline and treatment to be a hectro?
ungay, degay, unhappied?

you know degay is the right word, but being offensive means that anywords relating to the meaning is also offensive.

Click to expand...

Clearly you don't understand how it feels to be gay. I don't copletely understand either, but I am hetero (not hectro) and I know that I cannot and would never find men attractive. If I were bisexual, I could and would find them attractive. A purely gay man can no sooner train himself to find women sexually attractive than he could train himself to find a dead fish sexually attractive. If you feel you could choose one way or the other, then again I tell you that you are bisexual. A bisexual person can make a choice to have sex exclusively with one gender or the other. They cannot train themselves to find one sex or the other unattractive, but they can choose not to have sex.

As far as degay goes I will try to illustrate my perspective with thei rediculous analogy:

You have a blood disorder and I think you are defiling God's temple by not choosing to get rid of the disorder. You need to change yourself to not have it anymore. It's called deanemeizing yourself. Can we agree on deanemeizing as the word for what you need to do?