Flawed Logic of Gay Christians

[catlover]

This is making me sick...

Is someone forcing you to post here-or is posting like an adult something not possible?

 

[catlover]

And you dear one, are very correct.
The only thing someone can do is warn you.
Free will makes the human essense...a God given right.
To which no one can change another person, but the person themself.

There is nothing to warn her about-

 

[Zecryphon]

Is someone forcing you to post here-or is posting like an adult something not possible?

Why is this person not allowed to freely express how she's feeling? You chastize her for not posting like an adult when she's done nothing wrong. I don't see you posting like an adult. I see you hearing a statement you don't like and pikcing on someone for it. Yeah, that's real adult behavior there.

 

[Hentenza]

Mod Hat On
​

The posts are getting personal. Stick to the topic and not each other. If this continues I will close this thread.

 

[MercyBurst]

lol...

xlanna,

The girl claims more than one gay sex partner and swears that isn't promiscuous.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

As for the prodical son, he had nothing at all... not even a home. Slaves were normally those who were kept.
If he was a hired man, he wouldnt have literally lived with the pigs.

You are reading something into the text that isn't there. I think it is much more likely that the Prodigal was working as a day laborer, like those hired to work in the vineyard in another of Jesus' parables (Matt 20:1ff).

This is, of course, taking the thread way off topic.

My point was that there were in fact slaves who were captured in war, and bought and sold in biblical times. There were captive slaves as well as bond slaves.

Other than that, I have no argument with what you say.

 

[Zecryphon]

xlanna,

The girl claims more than one gay sex partner and swears that isn't promiscuous.

Well how could it be promiscuous? I'm sure all 3 of them are involved in a committed and consensual relationship. Give it enough time and soon rape will cease to be a sin and it will just be considered agrgressive sex.

 

[WarriorAngel]

There is nothing to warn her about-

The full Bible is for warning and instruction.

To which it says God gave them up to reprobate sense. IE...to indulge in the sins markedly mentioned means that God removed His grace from them.
And they could no longer discern right from wrong because He let them do as they choose. [to give them up]

Therein lies the obstacle, and therein lies the decision.
For those who would act out the sins listed by Paul with full knowledge of those sins - should so as the Apostles exhorted all of us to do...To repent of our sins.... and then seek forgiveness.

Repentence and forgiveness brings us back into the graces of God Who helps us avoid all temptations whether they be of this nature or of the many others.

I am certain you are familiar with Romans 1 and Corinthians.
So I dont need to go through them again. However, i think ppl misunderstand or overlook the concept of God giving them up to reprobate sense.

Let's delve more closely to the word reprobate. Here is the actual definition in the dictionary.

rep·ro·bate

[rep-ruh-beyt]noun, adjective, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun 1.a depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person: a drunken reprobate.
2.a person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation. –adjective
3.morally depraved; unprincipled; bad.
4.rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation. –verb (used with object)
5.to disapprove, condemn, or censure.
6.(of God) to reject (a person), as for sin; exclude from the number of the elect or from salvation.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reprobate

 

[WarriorAngel]

You are reading something into the text that isn't there. I think it is much more likely that the Prodigal was working as a day laborer, like those hired to work in the vineyard in another of Jesus' parables (Matt 20:1ff).

This is, of course, taking the thread way off topic.

My point was that there were in fact slaves who were captured in war, and bought and sold in biblical times. There were captive slaves as well as bond slaves.

Other than that, I have no argument with what you say.

This is a digression.
But dont forget the psalms about the Lament of Sion.
Even tho taken as slaves by war...
They were entitled to live in the melting pot society with pagans [which was their punishment] but they freely could worship and believe the way they choose.

 

[DMagoh]

If God so despises homosexuality, why does he make some people gay?

If God so despises drunkedness, why does He make some people alcoholics?

 

[DMagoh]

As a consequence of the false dichotomy created by Protestantism (you're either a perfect Christian or you're not Christian at all), there's division and no room for debate. Just incessant yelling.

I sure wish you would stick to the topic and quit using this as a forum to bash protestants. I've already mentioned to you why your church's "traditions" cant be trusted.

"Traditions" give us things like "indulgences", with the church charging money for them. And even charging money for them in advance of the sin! [I'll pay this fee, and then I can go sleep with Jane Doe].

Also, Catholics didn't decide that Mary was without sin until 1854. Some people thought it before, others didnt, but it wasn't defined as dogma until 1,854 years after the birth of Christ. The doctrine of papal infallibiity was not defined until 1870.

Protestants wonder why God allowed us to go almost 2,000 years without defining these 'traditions'. Traditions can get you in trouble - just ask the Pharisees.

Now, do you want to post on topic, or would you rather go somewhere else and debate tradition and scripture?

 

[WarriorAngel]

If God so despises drunkedness, why does He make some people alcoholics?

The misconception that God makes us sinful in any certain way is just that, a misconception.

Due to the fallen nature of mankind, and the desire to know good and evil knowledge, all of us have to overcome worldly attentions and put our minds back to God.

Whether or not we be: lustful, murderers, drunkards, homosexual, adulterers, thieves [et al] ...that means we allow a tendency, it doesn't mean God made us that way.

God allows us free will, and thru the fall the prince of the world would have us believe God doesn't exist, or that He made us sinful on purpose.
What actually happened is that God came and died so we could repent the age old sins and overcome them thru His grace.
That we could receive forgiveness in full, and He would remember our sins no more... if we repented in heart...and continuously sought to please Him and avoided the sins we know cause us to fall from His grace.

ALL sins come from satan. ALL forgiveness comes from God.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

If God so despises drunkedness, why does He make some people alcoholics?

Apples, oranges.

Homosexuality is an orientation.

Alcoholism is a disease.

 

[OllieFranz]

If God so despises drunkedness, why does He make some people alcoholics?

But no one is born an alcoholic. They may be born with a predisposition to become an alcoholic, but if they never take that first exessive drink[sup]1[/sup] they will not develop a propensity for drunkenness[sup]2[/sup]. On the other hand many gays are born with different sensibilities from others of their gender and can be distinguished from the others long before their first sexual experience.

People who can be so distinguished and who almost always grow up to be gay have been around in all societies. In the Ancient Middle East such a person was called a saris.

Actually there were two different types of person that were called by that name. A man-made saris was a eunuch, and the word saris is usually translated eunuch. But the literature of the time distinguishes from the man-made eunuch a natural-born saris. He is physically whole, but he is different. The negative stereotype has him weaker than real men, and seducing handsome young men. Some religious leaders advocate a program to cure him.

Jesus Himself aknowleges the existence of these two types of "eunuch" when He introdces a new, spiritual, kind in Matthew 19:12. All He has to say about the natural-born type is that they were made that way "from their mother's womb."

[sup]1[/sup]Some people claim that for someone strongly enough pre-disposed to alcoholism, the first sip is exessive. I don't know that it is not, but even so, if the person never takes that first drink, he will not become a drunkard.

[sup]2[/sup]Some claim that an addictive personality will find something to take over his life, and if it is not alcohol, it might be drugs, or something else. I tend to agree. But they are still not born addicted. A saris is born a saris, Jesus said so.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

I sure wish you would stick to the topic and quit using this as a forum to bash protestants.

I have no problem in pointing out what I think to be the theological causes of human behavior and thought. If my claim about the dichotomy in Protestantism and its consequences are not true, I would like to hear a counter-argument. Making claims about Catholicism's history does not refute my argument.

"Traditions" give us things like "indulgences", with the church charging money for them. And even charging money for them in advance of the sin! [I'll pay this fee, and then I can go sleep with Jane Doe].

That was certainly a problem in the Church's history, but it was never Church doctrine. In fact, many corrupt priests who attempted to sell indulgences were sought for arrest. Again, I never claimed the Church to be infallible in practice. It is a Church of sinners, after all.

Also, Catholics didn't decide that Mary was without sin until 1854. Some people thought it before, others didnt, but it wasn't defined as dogma until 1,854 years after the birth of Christ. The doctrine of papal infallibiity was not defined until 1870.

Protestants wonder why God allowed us to go almost 2,000 years without defining these 'traditions'.

Catholics wonder the same of every single Protestant doctrine. What year was the reformation, again? By your logic, your own beliefs are suspect.

Now, do you want to post on topic, or would you rather go somewhere else and debate tradition and scripture?

You are the one debating tradition and Scripture. I brought it up to illustrate Catholics view the question of homosexuality from an entirely different system of belief. A poster asked how the Church could determine Scriptural questions. I answered by Tradition. You disputed the nature of that Tradition. You are welcome to continue debating if you'd like.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

When God says something is an abomination it doesn't make much sense to defend it, does it?

A. nowhere does the Bible say homosexuality is abomination... certain passages have been translated that way, but there is far from a consensus that "homosexual" in the modern context, is an accurate or valid translation of the original text

B. God doesn't call anything abomination, old testament human authors do, but thats not the same thing.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You don't think gays come here to meet other gays. That's pretty naive.

On this forum, a lesbian said she didn't need to go to a bar when she could come to a forum like this to meet her next partner.....

and that equates to "gays coming here to hook up?"

The girl claims more than one gay sex partner and swears that isn't promiscuous.

so anyone with more than one sexual partner in their life isn't only incapable of monogomy now, but is also necesarily promiscuous?

The word re-definition project rolls on...

 

[katautumn]

*headdesk* If we're going to call out homosexuality as an abomination, then we also need to call out heterosexual intercourse during a woman's menstruation as an abomination.

 

[Caylin]

Well how could it be promiscuous? I'm sure all 3 of them are involved in a committed and consensual relationship. Give it enough time and soon rape will cease to be a sin and it will just be considered agrgressive sex.

We are in a committed and consensual relationship. None of us sleep around indiscriminately. Your attempts to compare poly to rape are laughable indeed.

 

[OllieFranz]

On this forum, a lesbian said she didn't need to go to a bar when she could come to a forum like this to meet her next partner.....

I don't recall any such statement, but I don't often recall specific responses that go off on a tangent if they don't get too many responses of their own and derail the thread.

However, my sarcasm alarm is going off like crazy. If someone says they "don't need to" do X because they are doing Y, they are often being sarcastic to someone who implied that Y involves X-like activity. In this case, I suspect that the statement was made in response to an over-the-top remark such as "This forum is becoming a hook-up place for gays," or "A lot of gays come on this forum to tempt confused young Christians with SSA's to abandon Christianity and go out and fornicate."