A View On Homosexuality...

[stray bullet]

I think the only reason you have suspiscions is because you don't want to believe. To clarify,I had homosexuals desires that I dealt with for years..I was in a long term relationship with another woman. I left that relationship and through God's grace and mercy I was finally delivered of those desires.
Now how much more simpler would you like it??

Thanks
So you were bisexual, ended a relationship with a woman, found a way to surpress your desires (or tell yourself you weren't having them) and started exclusively dating men.

btw- I wanted to believe so very badly. I thought I could make it go away. I blamed myself for it. I hated myself for it. I thought I was going to hell for it.

I'm rather sick of lying to myself.

 

[kdet]

Thanks
So you were bisexual, ended a relationship with a woman, found a way to surpress your desires (or tell yourself you weren't having them) and started exclusively dating men.

btw- I wanted to believe so very badly. I thought I could make it go away. I blamed myself for it. I hated myself for it. I thought I was going to hell for it.

I'm rather sick of lying to myself.

Well, you completely misrepresented what I said. Which is exactly why I hesitated to engage you to begin with in this discussion.
You are going to believe what you want..and it is clear to me that you'd rather believe the lies of Satan than believe in the hope that God offers.

 

[stray bullet]

Why is it so much easier for you to accept that there is no way out than to accept that God can and does offer a way out? You seem to want nothing but excuses for why you can't change....well you know what? You can't! None of us can change ourselves...only God can change us.

Maybe what is important is the fact that I believe in God, not that I have romantic and sexual feelings for guys.

Maybe I want to be happy and not have to suffer with the lie that I was bad for what I was.

I don't want to be who I am, but I don't want to go back to who I was. That was far worse.

 

[GMRELIC]

That's really not true. God has and can cure people from homosexual desires.

And God can and has cured people from Cancer but not everyone who has it,
are those that are not cured lesser Christians, Did they not have enough faith, Were some of them so much better Christians that he cured them but not the others?

 

[stray bullet]

Well, you completely misrepresented what I said. Which is exactly why I hesitated to engage you to begin with in this discussion.
You are going to believe what you want..and it is clear to me that you'd rather believe the lies of Satan than believe in the hope that God offers.

Believe what lies? How about the lie that my feelings are evil? That I can either change or go to hell? The lie that I'm not good enough to be a Christian like so many of you tell me over and over. How about the worst lie of all, that I am not good enough for God. The one so many people here spew under the guise of love and Christianity?

I don't think I can change, but I can have faith in God and in the fact that like any good Father, I will be accepted for who I am.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : jazzbird

You are wrong about what I want for homosexuals. The fact is, I used to say it was okay. I wanted it to be okay. I supported my gay friends in their lifestyle. But when I came to God honestly, I couldn't deny Truth. Yes, I want my gay friends to know God. That is ultimately what I want.

How big of you.



Again we run across the word “lifestyle” and again with the implication that the gay “lifestyle” is somehow different than anyone else’s.



I think stray bullet aptly pointed out that your desire to have your gay “friends” meet God (well your god at least) is limited by your desire to dictate just how one does meet with or has a personal relationship with the Divine.

Everything in this world is not true. My heart breaks for my friends. I am not a homophobe or a hate-monger - but I'm also not a relativist. I know you don't agree but that is where I'm coming from.

I have never met an actual relativist.

If you know the True God of the Bible you cannot continue to live in a sinful lifestyle. I believe that one can have homosexual tendencies and be saved - most definetely, but I don't believe they can disregard what the scriptures say regarding the homosexual lifestyle and continue on in that sin.

So since you claim to know the “true” god and also claim that accomplishing this prohibits one form sinning you are saying that you personally do not sin.

One of my best friends is very spiritual and a homosexual. He cannot reconcile his desire for God with his lifestyle, and he's choosing his lifestyle over God. He doesn't really understand God, and he tries to justify his actions, but he can't fully.

It sounds like he is choosing to be honest.



When you say “he doesn’t truly understand God” you are saying he is not doing what I personally demand.

I know it has to be the most difficult thing to choose when you feel it is such an inherent part of you. I can't imagine being told that I would have to leave my husband, who I love so deeply, in order to follow Christ. I can't imagine it.
I'm not trying to make light of what the homosexual has to deal with.

If we choose to follow Christ, we all must forsake ourselves. We all have to make choices. We have to deny our sinful nature and strive to be like Christ

that is your belief. That is not the beleifs of others.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : PatrickM

Funny you say that considering the myriads of groups out there with documented proof of ex-homosexuals being "cured" as you put it.

Not to mention the Masters and Johnson study which found a 65% success rate, including a five year follow-up study.

Masters and Johnson (1979): (am looking for link to actual study) This study claimed an impressive conversion rate of 50 to 60% which was maintained for 5 years after treatment. Unfortunately, only five of the 67 participants (7%) began the study with a homosexual orientation. From the available data is quite possible that none of these five converted to heterosexuality.



Ultimately the best estimates for “conversion” are still around 0/04% and no of these organizations actually claims that anyone’s sexual orientation changes.

 

[MissFirerose]

Well, you completely misrepresented what I said. Which is exactly why I hesitated to engage you to begin with in this discussion.
You are going to believe what you want..and it is clear to me that you'd rather believe the lies of Satan than believe in the hope that God offers.

Someone having a different view than you on something relating to what God does and does not approve of does not automatically make them pawns of Satan.

 

[stray bullet]

Someone having a different view than you on something relating to what God does and does not approve of does not automatically make them pawns of Satan.

You obviously don't know a lot of fundamentalists

 

[kdet]

Someone having a different view than you on something relating to what God does and does not approve of does not automatically make them pawns of Satan.

As I've pointed out to you before, this is not simply MY opinion but the opinion of most major denominations including the Catholic Church. ANd I also disagree with you about who is the pawns of Satan...whoever is not of God is for Satan. Satan can lie to anyone though...even Christians. It is only through the protection of the Holy Spirit that we are protected from those lies.

 

[MissFirerose]

As I've pointed out to you before, this is not simply MY opinion but the opinion of most major denominations including the Catholic Church.

When did majority rule equal morality rule? The opinion of most major denominations including the Catholic Church used to be that interracial marriage was a sin. The opinion of most major denominations including the Catholic Church used to be that slavery was acceptable. Majority does not equal morality. The majority has been known to err.

ANd I also disagree with you about who is the pawns of Satan...whoever is not of God is for Satan.

And I'll have to disagree with you. I don't see every other religion besides Christianity as being Satanic.

Satan can lie to anyone though...even Christians. It is only through the protection of the Holy Spirit that we are protected from those lies.

Yet, your particular interpretation of the Bible does not equal the undeniable truth. Personally, I see the devil as something people created to place the blame. You can belive such a thing exists, but I personally want to take full responsibility for whatever mistakes I make in my life.

 

[PatrickM]

The original post must have been correct, as no one here has even attempted to debate the merits of it.

It has deteriorated into a "I feel" subjective discussion. Pity, as the original post had many good points. Must be better for some to continue with their head in the sand.

 

[Miss Shelby]

The original post must have been correct, as no one here has even attempted to debate the merits of it.

Maybe that's because it resembles spam, and the thread starter hasn't even been back to this thread.

Must be better for some to continue with their head in the sand.

Oh that's real nice.

Michelle

 

[kdet]

When did majority rule equal morality rule? The opinion of most major denominations including the Catholic Church used to be that interracial marriage was a sin. The opinion of most major denominations including the Catholic Church used to be that slavery was acceptable. Majority does not equal morality. The majority has been known to err.


LOL..well I have never heard of the Catholic church saying that interraciall marriage was a sin..I'd like to see some proof of that. And most churches did not condone slavery...you are mistaken in that also.


And I'll have to disagree with you. I don't see every other religion besides Christianity as being Satanic.


Well that is YOUR opinion isn't it?

Yet, your particular interpretation of the Bible does not equal the undeniable truth. Personally, I see the devil as something people created to place the blame. You can belive such a thing exists, but I personally want to take full responsibility for whatever mistakes I make in my life.

Again most religions believe in a evil deity that tempts us in this life...let me remind you of an excellent quote...all the devil has to do to win is convinve people he doesn't exsist.

 

[PatrickM]

Maybe that's because it resembles spam, and the thread starter hasn't even been back to this thread.

Well, regardless of where the author is, his facts are still here. Attacking the messenger is not an answer. Do you have any answers?

Oh that's real nice.

You mean like calling someone's post "spam"?

 

[Miss Shelby]

Well, regardless of where the author is, his facts are still here. Attacking the messenger is not an answer. Do you have any answers?

It was quite long. And I don't think he meant to engage in discussion about it, or he would have returned to the thread. Calling it spam wasn't an insult. Spam is when you post some big long article, pontificating rather than discussing, and do not return for follow up participation.

As for it being factual, he posted a bunch of Scripture and gave HIS interpretation. That hardly constitutes fact. I agree with some of what he said, and I also disagree with some of it.

I added my 2 cents. I said I thought people could be born homosexual. That's really all I have to say.

Michelle

 

[PatrickM]

It was quite long. And I don't think he meant to engage in discussion about it, or he would have returned to the thread. Calling it spam wasn't an insult. Spam is when you post some big long article, pontificating rather than discussing, and do not return for follow up participation.

"Pontificating" is not an insult???? Aren't threads started for the sole purpose of discussion? And if only by the author, why do others all over these threads join in?

As for it being factual, he posted a bunch of Scripture and gave HIS interpretation. That hardly constitutes fact. I agree with some of what he said, and I also disagree with some of it.

Do you consider literal, original Greek translations, historical statements, etc., "interpretations"?

I'm guessing you did not read the entire post, merely skimmed it to get the idea you wanted to engage in a nebulous debate. "Don't confuse me with facts".

 

[Miss Shelby]

I'll see ya later Patrick. You have a good day.

 

[MissFirerose]

LOL..well I have never heard of the Catholic church saying that interraciall marriage was a sin..I'd like to see some proof of that.

Since the US has generally been concidered a Christian nation....

As recently as 1991, the National Opinion Research Center found that 66 percent of white Americans polled opposed a close relative marrying a black man.

Mixed-race marriages were illegal in their home state of Virginia, just as they were in many states in the South. When they returned home, she was arrested. A 1922 anti-miscegenation law stated that if blacks and whites intermarried, punishment was one to five years in prison.

A Gallup Poll indicated in 1965 that 42 percent of Northern whites supported bans on inter-racial marriage, as did 72 percent of southern whites.

Seems like it was the majority to me.

And most churches did not condone slavery...you are mistaken in that also

Do you have any proof for the church's historical stance on slavery?

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America. 1,2

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina. 3

"I give my daughter, Joyce Falkner, present wife of John Falkner, of the county of Fayette and State of Virginia, a negro girl by name of Gemima otherwise called Mima. I give her to the above Joyce together with said Mima's increase forever and for the only use of the said Joyce, to will and dispose of as to her seemeth fit, hereby revoking all other claims of right or title to the said Gemima alias Mima of her increase forever." The 1791 will of Toliver Craig, disposing of his assets (and children of his assets) in the event of his death. 4

References:

1. Dunbar Rowland quoting Jefferson Davis, in "Jefferson Davis," Volume 1, Page 286

2. Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66. Available at: http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~hoemann/jdinaug.html

3. Ref. Dr. Ricahrd Furman, "Exposition of the views of the Baptists relative to the coloured population in the United States in communication to the Governor of South-Carolina," (1838), at: http://www.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rcd-fmn1.htm

4. Jo Thiessen, Ed., "Slave Entries in Wills, Deeds, etc.," at: http://www.mindspring.com/~jogt/kygen/slavedoc.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm

Late 17th century: The institution of slavery was a integral part of many societies worldwide. The Roman Catholic church only placed two restrictions on the purchase and owning of slaves: They had to be non-Christian.
They had to be captured during "just" warfare. i.e. in wars involving Christian armies fighting for an honorable cause.

Late in the 17th century, Leander, a Roman Catholic theologian, wrote:
"It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture...It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pass into the ownership of the captors... All theologians are unanimous on this." 13

We have been unable to find anyone other than St. Augustine and Bartholomew De Las Casas, opposing the institution of slavery prior to this time. People considered it quite appropriate for one person to own another human being as a piece of property. Paul's comment in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free...for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." did not appear to have been followed, except perhaps spiritually. Neither were the statements by Jesus about treating one's fellow humans accepted and applied.

1667: The Virginia Assembly passes a bill which denied that a Christian baptism grants freedom to slaves.

1680: The Anglican Church in Virginia started a debate, which lasted for 50 years, on whether slaves should be given Christian instruction. They finally decided in the affirmative. However the landowners and slave owners opposed this program. They feared that if the slaves became Christians, there would be public support to grant them freedom.

The Roman Catholic church in South America insisted that slaves be allowed to marry. They forbade "promiscuous relationships between slaves as well as between masters and slaves, and it encouraged marriage instead of informal mating."

In the predominately Protestant North America, slaves were considered property and were not allowed to marry. The courts decided that a slave owner should be free to sell his property has he wished. This overturned laws which prevented slave families from being broken up and the individuals sold separately. 14

"Throughout most of the colonial period, opposition to slavery among white Americans was virtually nonexistent. Settlers in the 17th and early 18th centuries came from sharply stratified societies in which the wealthy savagely exploited members of the lower classes. Lacking a later generation’s belief in natural human equality, they saw little reason to question the enslavement of Africans." 14

The "most abominable aspect of the slave trade, was fueled by the idea that Africans, even children, were better off Christianized under a system of European slavery than left in Africa amid tribal wars, famines and paganism" 15

References:

13. Leander, "Quaestiones Morales Theologicae," Lyons 1668 - 1692, Tome VIII, De Quarto Decalogi Praecepto, Tract. IV, Disp. I, Q. 3. Quoted in Reference 17.

14. Eddie Becker, "Chronology on the history of slavery and racism," at: http://innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html
15. W.F. Page. "The Dutch Triangle: The Netherlands and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1621-1664 - Studies in African American History and Culture," Garland Publishing, (1997) Page 218. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm

Well that is YOUR opinion isn't it?

No more than YOUR opinion is yours.

Again most religions believe in a evil deity that tempts us in this life...let me remind you of an excellent quote...all the devil has to do to win is convinve people he doesn't exsist.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing.

-Edmund Burke
The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.
-Socrates

Evil does not have to be applied to a diety in order for it to exist, for evil is the absence of caring, the absence of understanding and knowledge, the absense of empathy, the absense of love. We create evil through the lack of good.

 

[Brad'sDad]

The opinion of most major denominations including the Catholic Church used to be that interracial marriage was a sin. The opinion of most major denominations including the Catholic Church used to be that slavery was acceptable. Majority does not equal morality. The majority has been known to err.

Question: Does the Catholic Church allow interracial marriages?

"There is no law of God or the Church forbidding interracial marriages, nor would there be any reason for such a law. One of the basic rights of human beings is the right to marry the person of one's choice so long as there is no obstacle to the marriage and the person freely enters the union, understanding it is lifelong."


I'm too new to give a link, but you can get more info from dioceseoflincoln.org.