Homosexuality is a sin, get over it...

[Woman of Faith]

Where does Christ use language like this in the Bible?

I do not recall him ever telling anyone to GET over anything. And, as we are told that the servant is not above his master, I would hesitate to take a tone which is more condemnatory than his, if I were you.

Fwiw, the phrase; 'hate the sin but love the sinner' is, imo, unChristian. There is no room for hatred in Christ, in God, nor in our faith.

There is no room for hatred in Christ, in God, nor in our faith.

I STRONGLY disagree with this statement. If God did not hate then we would all be condemned. God HATES the fact that satan deceived Adam and Eve. God HATES the fact that their act of rebellion separated them, and us, from fellowship with HIM. He HATED it so much, and LOVED us so much that he sent Jesus to die for us. God HATES it when people reject Jesus, and thereby reject His forgiveness. God HATES it when a person's spirit has to live in suffering for all eternity for that rejection of Christ. I proudly say that hate is a characteristic of God.

Don't forget, hate is not the opposite of love, indifference is.

 

[seanHayden]

OObi and other's like him, will not stand the test of time, because most Christians will gradually understand the truth.

The time is coming very soon, where Christianity will lose many of it's former ideas, the bible will be stripped of everything. The gospels will be considered plagiarized, and Christ's existence will come into question. Those who base there faith on literal beliefs, will loose it all. Many of these things will occur in our lifetime, but most Christians are unwilling to look to see that they are starting to occur now. But all this is God's will, because we have ignored his message in the gospels for a long time.

True believers will find strength, as the words of Christ are presented in a new light. And those who cling to ideas of OObi and others, will be washed away in the flood.

Christianity has been in the dark about the true message of the gospels for a long time, because individuals like OObi cover their eyes and yours as well.

A time will come when all is revealed, and when we have lost hope, and belief, we will find it again, greater and more beautiful than we have ever known before. For all that is hidden, will be revealed.

God bless, for the Kingdom of God is nigh.

Brother, please don't speak a false prophesy.

Can we not reason together and find what is the truth?

Can we not now empty ourselves of pride and discuss this issue without animosity?

I think we can and we should.

I am willing to present a case against homosexuality, and willing to hear you present yours, may God show what is correct.

Is a man not created to be with a woman, and the woman created to recieve the man?

Lets start here, and if you have an argument against this, then please present your case. May God show what is right.

 

[Konkurrent]

No god that is called allah is the same as my YHWH.

That's one opinion. I don't believe they're the same either, but I can't prove that a Muslim is wrong about that.

My morality? No, we are to be bound by God's morality.

But which God? Mine? Yours? The Mormon's? The Hindu's? Who's right? How do you prove it?

And those who refuse to be bound by His morality will face His wrath, and rightly so.

So you're saying it's not necessary for the government to enforce the wrath, since God's going to take care of it.

You say you prefer to respect others opinions. Would you respect the opinion of someone who told you that he believes it is good to molest children?

They can have whatever opinion they want. Crime does not "morality" as a basis, logic is enough. The key difference here (that most anti-gay activists never see) is that children cannot legally consent to anything, least of all sex. Adults can.

Unless all children are emancipated at birth the comparison is moot.

Would you respect that belief?

I do not agree with the belief. I do not, however, believe that beliefs should be legislated. It should never be illegal to be a pedophile. It should, however be illegal to rape or molest a child. Since it is not possible for a child to consent to any sexual conduct (by nature of them not being able to legally consent to anything of that sort) all action on pedophile beliefs is criminal. Possession of those beliefs is not.

How could you respect that belief without condoning it?

By not legislating the possession of the belief, merely the criminal action it may inspire. Homosexuality is not a crime and there is no legal basis for it to be made one. The only basis for criminalizing homosexuality is religion, and therefore has no place in law.

Do you really hear what you are saying?

Yes. You do not.

 

[itoldyounoalready]

!!! How do you know how old I am?




If anyone was interested they would read my op and my earlier posts and find that this was not a thread on bashing homosexuals, as so many indiviuals so kindly make it out to be, but rather, it was a thread that I set in place to condemn the condoning of sin. Homosexuality is a sin, and it should not be accepted. Love the sinner, not the sin. I'm not talking about kicking a gay our of your community, or any other hostile thing. Treat them with love, like Jesus would. But this thread was about how people are accepting and condoning sin, and that shouldn't be.



Your saying that I'm the one stripping the Bible from what it is, and you are the one that is a proponent of homosexuality and preaching that God is one too? I'm lost?



No god that is called allah is the same as my YHWH.

I read your earlier post and I read other user's earlier post also, notice how I didn't mention any names, i didn't explicitly say you, so don't take personal offense, and any topic that people have "strong" convictions is going to touch people in some sort of way that people are going to react either adversely or with strong support, people are going to say things that are strong and in some cases aspecially with this hurtful, or argumentative.

 

[invisible trousers]

Has anyone seen Jesus around here?

Anyone?

 

[woobadooba]

But which God? Mine? Yours? The Mormon's? The Hindu's? Who's right? How do you prove it?

This is a Christian's only forum, right? Why would you ask me such a question?

So you're saying it's not necessary for the government to enforce the wrath, since God's going to take care of it.

What kind of question is this? Why are you trying to trip me up? What spirit is encouraging you to ask such questions?

They can have whatever opinion they want. Crime does not "morality" as a basis, logic is enough. The key difference here (that most anti-gay activists never see) is that children cannot legally consent to anything, least of all sex. Adults can.

You're missing the point. If you say you respect a person's opinion, then in essence you are agreeing that it is a respectful belief. Thus you are condoning it.

So do you condone the practice of homosexuality? Do you see it as a good thing?

I do not agree with the belief. I do not, however, believe that beliefs should be legislated. It should never be illegal to be a pedophile. It should, however be illegal to rape or molest a child. Since it is not possible for a child to consent to any sexual conduct (by nature of them not being able to legally consent to anything of that sort) all action on pedophile beliefs is criminal. Possession of those beliefs is not.

So will you condemn God for bringing judgment down upon such people in the day of His wrath?

 

[ReformedChapin]

Are you implying that two men can't love one another unless homosexuality is somehow involved? The homosexual act is still sin, but love between two men is not always sexual. That's called an "anachronism". It's also a fallacy of misrepresentation.

People give me a head-ache

 

[hithesh]

Brother, please don't speak a false prophesy.

It's not a prophesy at all sean, it's seeing what's occurring now, and noting how these things will grow in the future. You're not going to hell for not believing anything I say . But you will realize the truth in my words, soon enough.

I am willing to present a case against homosexuality, and willing to hear you present yours, may God show what is correct.

Is a man not created to be with a woman, and the woman created to receive the man?

God's creation come in every variation possible. Children are born with eyes, which they cannot see with, feet they cannot walk with. Woman are born, without the ability to procreate.

A rational individual who looks at the science of sexuality, and is familiar with gays and lesbians, understand that their sexuality is not a choice, same as my heterosexuality is not a choice. We even know that god creates individuals with two sex organs (and of course some say they are the result of demons), if the bases for your opposition is paul, and verses from the OT, then their is nothing to reason with, because you believe they spoke absolutes.

I cannot argue you with you, if you say homosexuality is wrong because a few verses in the bible says it is. If you believe homosexuality is wrong for reasons outside of the text, then we can reason together.

I understand your convictions shawn (because they are based on beliefs that are not your fault), and I should apologize for showing any animosity because you have them. I know that perhaps you will never come to my side on this one issue, but i do know that the number of christians who are own my side are growing and never declining, and that gives me hope.

You are always my brother, I do not believe you're a sinner because you feel the way you do.

 

[woobadooba]

I've wasted enough time in here...

I desire to go where I can find Jesus

 

[seanHayden]

hithesh

I am unsure whether you have agreed or disagreed that men where created to be with women and women created to recieve the man.

I don't want to delve into other issues until I understand your stance on this.

 

[hithesh]

Your saying that I'm the one stripping the Bible from what it is, and you are the one that is a proponent of homosexuality and preaching that God is one too? I'm lost?

No dear OObi, you will not be the one stripping the Bible .

You're the reason why it will be stripped, to reveal the truth, and it is all in god's will.

God bless your heart, for you serve a purpose for his divine will as well.

 

[intricatic]

OObi and other's like him, will not stand the test of time, because most Christians will gradually understand the truth.

The history of philosophy, theology, and society disagrees with you.

 

[hithesh]

hithesh

I am unsure whether you have agreed or disagreed that men where created to be with women and women created to recieve the man.

I don't want to delve into other issues until I understand your stance on this.

I do not understand god's purpose for everything. Will i be able to understand why he allows the serpent to exist, who eventually kills a child? Will i able to understand why a child is born, to be raped and killed a few years later? Will I be able to understand why some of us are born to wealth and privilege, and others are born to starvation and death? Will i be able to understand why children are born with two sex organs? All i know is that all is created by his will.

God gave me the ability to reason, the compassion to help the less fortunate, the ability to understand. With reason and love, I can see, as well as most rational individuals can see, that homosexuality is not a choice, or a sin.

I praise god, for seeing the seeds of compassion are growing among us believers as we become more accepting as time goes on, and I praise god, for you as well.

God bless you dear brother.

 

[hithesh]

Are you implying that two men can't love one another unless homosexuality is somehow involved? The homosexual act is still sin, but love between two men is not always sexual. That's called an "anachronism". It's also a fallacy of misrepresentation.

The question arose because a another person on this forum, said that he does not seek to ban members of the KKK from getting married because the marriage is not a sin.

Since the bible defines the sexual act as a sin, and not the marriage of two men as a sin, why should we then say homosexual marriage is a sin, and seek to legally place a ban on it, but not use the same line of logic for others we consider to be sinners.

My original question was directed to a particular individual, who understood what I was implying.

 

[hithesh]

The history of philosophy, theology, and society disagrees with you.

Ah, so I guess you don't see that the number of Christians who support gay rights are increasing? as well as the number of Christians who do not believe all portions of the bible should be taken literally (and this includes the Pope and Billy Graham)?

Christianity is changing before your eyes, and you disagree with me?

 

[intricatic]

The question arose because a another person on this forum, said that he does not seek to ban members of the KKK from getting married because the marriage is not a sin.

Since the bible defines the sexual act as a sin, and not the marriage of two men as a sin, why should we then say homosexual marriage is a sin, and seek to legally place a ban on it, but not use the same line of logic for others we consider to be sinners.

My original question was directed to a particular individual, who understood what I was implying.

Ah, but it's still a fallacious argument. It's the archetypical model that's sinful, in essence. The sin is not in loving one another, but the form that love takes. If two KKK members were getting married, this is a far cry from two men getting married - unless both KKK members are also men. Would this be double-discriminatory? I should think not. Marriage is not an institute designed for this function, by nature. You can say that's hateful, but this is also fallacious as you have no idea how I treat people in my daily life - you make a presumption based on extremely limited knowledge if you chose to take this route.

 

[intricatic]

Ah, so I guess you don't see that the number of Christians who support gay rights are increasing? as well as the number of Christians who do not believe all portions of the bible should be taken literally (and this includes the Pope and Billy Graham)?

Christianity is changing before your eyes, and you disagree with me?

No, I do see the members of the Church who fall into subjective postmodern doctrines which are incredibly reminiscent of the existential spree that boomed in the '60s, then died in the '70s increasing, though.

 

[intricatic]

Besides, the sin that would be associated with KKK members is actively punished by our government, is it not? And rightly so. It causes harm not only overtly to society as a whole, but subtly to a minority group. It's justified. Taking the same action we take against KKK members and applying it to homosexuals would not be justified in the least, and would, in fact, be incredibly abusive.

 

[Konkurrent]

This is a Christian's only forum, right? Why would you ask me such a question?

Probably because it hadn't occurred to me to behave as though anyone who doesn't agree with me shouldn't be allowed to live their life however they wish as long as it doesn't violate law.

This particular section of the forum is for Christians only. But in case you hadn't noticed, not even all of us agree on everything. If we can't agree to the moral standard we hold ourselves to, who are we to enforce a standard upon those who don't even believe as we do?

What kind of question is this? Why are you trying to trip me up? What spirit is encouraging you to ask such questions?

I would call it the "spirit of curiosity". You seem to be proposing that we police the conduct of consenting adults because God is going to punish them. But that seems a bit like double-jeapordy to me.

You're missing the point. If you say you respect a person's opinion, then in essence you are agreeing that it is a respectful belief. Thus you are condoning it.

No. You're missing the point. I'm not concerned with the respect of an individual's opinion. I'm concerned with respecting someone's right to have an opinion. I'm concerned with the Thought Police mentality that is involved with "respecting" or "not respecting" someone's opinion.

So do you condone the practice of homosexuality? Do you see it as a good thing?

I don't condone or condemn it. It's not my place and it's not my job. I'm not sure, honestly, whether it is "good" or "bad" and I'm not the Judge anyway. You see I'm not homosexual. So there's no reason for God to tell me whether or not homosexuality is a sin. I have met homosexual Christians that have said that they do not feel it is a sin, and I've met some who say it is.

I cannot conclusively prove who is right and who is wrong. But it's an activity that happens with consenting adults and does not "harm" or "help" anyone who does not willingly participate. I can't for the life of me see any reason to try to stop it any more than I see a reason to try to stop consenting adults of opposite gender from having relationships.

So will you condemn God for bringing judgment down upon such people in the day of His wrath?

I'm not sure where you come up with this stuff. Where have I presumed to have any authority to speak on God's motives, let alone his judgement? I'm not the one saying "God hates this", "God shouldn't do that", or "God will do such-and-such". God will do whatever he wants to do. My perception of right and wrong has nothing to with what right and wrong is. It doesn't matter what any of us think, it matters what God knows.

God cannot be unjust, since He is the measuring stick by which justice is measured. If He were to appear unjust it would be because we have the flawed perspective - no other reason.

So no, I'm nowhere near arrogant enough to even think of condemning God for anything. I'm not superior to Him, I don't pretend to know his mind.

 

[hithesh]

Ah, but it's still a fallacious argument. It's the archetypical model that's sinful, in essence. The sin is not in loving one another, but the form that love takes. If two KKK members were getting married, this is a far cry from two men getting married - unless both KKK members are also men. Would this be double-discriminatory? I should think not. Marriage is not an institute designed for this function, by nature. You can say that's hateful, but this is also fallacious as you have no idea how I treat people in my daily life - you make a presumption based on extremely limited knowledge if you chose to take this route.

We are not discussing the function of nature, the question was are two men marrying wrong by scripture, or is it just the sexual act that is considered wrong?

Scriptures in the bible that oppose homosexuality speak of the sexual act, but do not mention all that is external to that act, that is relevant to homosexuals of our society today. Men at the time of writing did not foresee, the way we view homosexuality today.

Earlier I recall when you read about Paul sharing his possession, you said he did so because he erroneously thought the second coming was going to occur in his life time, if we admit paul is capable of errors, why would we not assume he was unable to understand the nature of homosexuality, the way we understand it now?

And in the same sense, we do not carry over the morality that was accepted in the old testament, in our society today.