Homosexuality

[kellyc]

that's what i thought also. for some reason i thought someone said in this thread it was forbidden.

 

[Bro.T]

that's what i thought also. for some reason i thought someone said in this thread it was forbidden.

The thing is, it comes down to just having some understanding in the
lord, cause moses was married to an Ethiopia, but moses was a proven
servant of the lord. Now solomon dealt with women from different
races and he began to turn away from the lord. Solomon had 700 wives
and 300 concubines.

Ezra 10:2 - And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam,
answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and
have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope
in Israel concerning this thing.

Ezra 10:3 - Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives,
and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble
at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

Just a little example.

 

[Ghettoflame]

This posted in another thread by me, in response to another:

Well all the answers given were on the mark. BUT my question to you who placed the question WHY DID YOU?
Why should someone's sexuality or orientation or practice determine their eligibility to attend a Bible study class... To me that is just laughable and sad.
She has been upfront more than many hetero's would about where she is at... She is under no obligation to even have to disclose what she has.
Jesus said Come unto to me all who are weary and heavy laden. NO MENTION OF SUITABILITY OR HAVING TO MEET A STANDARD.
how on earth do you think non believers view this... i know how i as a christian view this. Cringe material....

I see what's going on here. The thread starter doesn't want to reject the woman for living a former lesbian lifestyle, but at the same time, it is important to know who you're dealing with. If the person is turning away from the lifestyle, cool; if they persist and insist that you support it because they figure that it must be right for them to be that way, no.

I understand the woman who was brought up because I turned away from the same thing (except I am a man who struggled with lust of both men and woman). The world keeps saying "it's genetic! It's who you are! You are an inborn bi/homo/whatever-sexual". Personally, I knew that there were elements in my life that caused my to become physio/psychologically messed-up, specifically my sexuality, so it didn't matter what Oprah or Rosie said.

I don't if it was a likely cause, but I was molested as a kid; also "raped" because I was forced to have sexual relations with other males and possibly females at the age of 4, approximately. I didn't exactly understand at that age, so it took me years to spill the beans.

It all started when I was a kid, trying to act like a girl for no good reason. I associated girl's responses to sexual activity as the greatest freedom and feeling, so I tried to mimic female behavior. I associated women's beauty as the only beauty, so I tried to be beautiful like how women would be, specifically with the attempt to be as close to being a woman as possible. I even fantasized that I was a woman, associating being a woman with less responsibility, receiving more sympathy and more free to express oneself.

Basically, I was becoming lustful, perverted and foolish.

This affected my mind so badly that I pretty much "became" a closeted bisexual, and at times, plain homosexual. I also was a closeted transexual, which how it all started: being a woman, a sexual recipient in my mind, which was the Devil's playground. I have tried explaining this to atheist friends... only one listened. I learned to never talk to non-believers who aren't open to faith.

People have to grow out of all sexual perversions because it's a stronghold of the mind. The best thing for anyone struggling with these things to do is this: recognize the source and stray any and all behavior, activities and influences that support unnatural desires.

 

[Bro.T]

Is gay the new black?
Marriage ban spurs debate

NEW YORK – Gay is the new black, say the protest signs and magazine covers, casting the gay marriage battle as the last frontier of equal rights for all.
Gay marriage is not a civil right, opponents counter, insisting that minority status comes from who you are rather than what you do.

The gay rights movement entered a new era when Barack Obama was elected the first black president the same day that voters in California and Florida passed referendums to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying, while Arizonans turned down civil unions and Arkansans said no to adoptions by same-sex couples.
Racism was defanged by Obama's triumph, leaving gays as perhaps the last group of Americans claiming that their basic rights are being systematically denied.
"Black people are equal now, and gay people aren't," said Emil Wilbekin, a black gay man and the editor of Giant magazine. "I always have this discussion with my friends: What's worse, being a black man or a black gay man?"
"Civil rights have come much further than gay rights," he said. "A lot of people in the gay community have been condemned for their lifestyle and promiscuity and drugs and sex, so it's odd that when they want to conform and model themselves after straight people and have the same rights for marriage and domestic partnership and adoption, they're being blocked."

In a cover story for the Advocate magazine titled "Gay is the New Black," Michael Joseph Gross wrote, "These past few years we've made so much progress that we'd begun to think everybody saw us as we see ourselves. Suddenly we were faced with the reality that a majority of voters don't like us, don't think we're normal, don't believe our lives and loves count as much or are worth as much as theirs."
Yet even some gay leaders are reluctant to directly tie their fight to the African-American legacy. They acknowledge significant differences in the experiences of gays and blacks, ranging from slavery to the relative affluence of white gay men to the choice made by some gays to conceal their sexual orientation, which is not an option for those with darker skin.
"I believe we are very much in a modern-day civil rights struggle," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization.
"We liken some of the experiences that we have had and will have to the (black) civil rights struggle. We also are enormously respectful of the differences," he said. "What we are best served doing is when we take lessons from the civil rights experience and apply them to our work."
Complicating the issue is the domination of minority politics by blacks and Latinos, who can be less than friendly to gay issues.
In the vote on Proposition 8 in California, which repealed gay marriage, about 70 percent of blacks favored the ban, according to an exit poll; Latinos' close vote may have favored it, though the poll's small sample left some uncertainty. In Florida, 71 percent of blacks and 64 percent of Latinos favored a similar ban.
Opposition to gay rights often has a religious basis, and blacks and Latinos are more churchgoing than society at large. Twenty-six percent of blacks attend religious services more than once per week, compared with 16 percent of Latinos and 14 percent of whites, according to a 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
"I do not consider (gays) to be a minority in legal and adjudicated terms, the same way people who only like to eat broccoli with butter aren't a minority," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. "We can't categorize things according to behavior. It's based on ethnicity, on who we are rather than what we do."
"Who am I to say that you weren't born that way ... (but) sexual activity, what you do, who you sleep with, is your business," Rodriguez said. "That's between you, your lover, and the good God Almighty in heaven. I don't want to know. Let's leave sexual activity in the bedroom. The government shouldn't be legislating what we do behind closed doors between two consenting adults. And to compare it to the African-American struggle, to me that's an abomination."
So is gay the new black, or did the election define a new and unique set of gay challenges?
"The gay fight for marriage has its own integrity, its own background," said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. "The experience of blacks in the United States is very different. ... I don't think it helps the fight for equality to make that claim."

Cherlin says that fight began in the 1980s when the AIDS epidemic unfolded. Gay partners had few rights to help their ailing loved ones, visit them in hospitals or inherit their property, which led to the push for civil unions.
Today, only Connecticut and Massachusetts permit gay marriage, and a few states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant some rights of marriage. Galvanized by the stinging Nov. 4 defeat in liberal California, the marriage movement is now as much symbolic as practical.
"There was a shift in the '90s, from rights to the symbolism of being married," Cherlin said. "This is not primarily a battle about rights now. If it was, all you'd be hearing about is domestic partnerships. Now it's at two levels simultaneously. One is the level of rights; the second is the level of symbols."
One symbol that some see missing from the gay rights movement is a figurehead. There are famous people who are out and proud, such as Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., or Ellen DeGeneres. But "we don't have our Martin Luther King or Malcolm X or Barack Obama," Wilbekin said.
Yet the nature of activism has changed since the days when King proposed the idea of a mass march on Washington. The recent nationwide gay protests were instigated by a Seattle blogger who set up a Web page three days after the California vote.
And in some ways, gays see Obama himself as a symbol of gay progress — even though he opposes gay marriage.
Obama is in favor of civil unions, and during his victory speech, when he included gays in his description of America, it made them feel part of the historic racial milestone.
Solmonese said that the election defeats of Nov. 4 have inspired a level of gay activism not seen since the early days of the AIDS epidemic. "That is buoyed by equal parts anger and rage about Proposition 8," he said, "but also hope and inspiration about doing something that for a long time we didn't think possible — like electing Barack Obama as our president."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081130...e_new_black;_ylt=Alrvi05yObNjyO5qSC5vAXms0NUE

 

[Ghettoflame]

Gay /= black. You can look at my skin and see that I am black. Black is not who I am, just my genetic makeup. Gay is not genetic nor identity; it's a psychological status.

I can't speak for others, but from experience as well as an increase in knowledge, I am against homosexuality, NOT homosexuals, who are people, nonetheless.

Why is it that people conclude that any opposition to homosexuality is motivated by bigotry? I have gay/bi friends whom I love, plus I have dealt with homosexuality myself (primarily bisexuality, but there were times when I had lust for men and felt a lack of connection with women), but I don't hate them, although I do not support the lifestyle.

How many have gotten into error is by thinking that if someone commits a homosexual act, they are a homosexual. This is wrong. If I try smoking a cigarette am I smoker? No, not unless I continue in it. What if I did continue for five years but then quit and never smoke again, am I still a smoker? No, because I don't PRACTICE smoking.

You could have been a homosexual for years, but if you accept salvation you are cleansed and your nature is changed. You, the real you, the spirit man will no longer want to commit homosexual acts. There flesh might want to because of a unrenewed mind, but not there human spirit. They may even stumble with that same sin and if they commit it God will forgive them.

This speaks of a part of my life right there.

Whats up with this:
- Sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife
- Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable. Solomon, the wisest king of all, had over one thousand
- Slavery and sex with slaves
- Marriage of girls aged 11-13
- Treatment of women as property

The Bible also forbids:

- Interracial marriage
- Birth control
- Discussing or even NAMING a sexual organ

1. a-Proverbs makes it clear that prostitution is wrong for males as well. b-Leviticus gave us a raw picture of biased laws, not what was clearly Gods' will.

2. Solomon's wives screwed him over. The law permitted it, but that doesn't mean that God did.

3. Same as #1b

4. In those times, people got married at young ages. Go back 250 years and you'll see this.

5. Same as #1b

6. The bible does not forbid interracial marriages; it forbids unison with those foreign to the faith. In the context, those foreign to the faith were foreign to the God's people. Besides, Paul was mixed, nationally.

7. We don't know that, but we do know that killing babies is wrong, and I can prove all day that abortion is murder.

8. If it's for the purpose of being impure or obscene, yeah, guess so.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Is gay the new black?
Marriage ban spurs debate

NEW YORK – Gay is the new black, say the protest signs and magazine covers, casting the gay marriage battle as the last frontier of equal rights for all.
Gay marriage is not a civil right, opponents counter, insisting that minority status comes from who you are rather than what you do.

The gay rights movement entered a new era when Barack Obama was elected the first black president the same day that voters in California and Florida passed referendums to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying, while Arizonans turned down civil unions and Arkansans said no to adoptions by same-sex couples.
Racism was defanged by Obama's triumph, leaving gays as perhaps the last group of Americans claiming that their basic rights are being systematically denied.
"Black people are equal now, and gay people aren't," said Emil Wilbekin, a black gay man and the editor of Giant magazine. "I always have this discussion with my friends: What's worse, being a black man or a black gay man?"
"Civil rights have come much further than gay rights," he said. "A lot of people in the gay community have been condemned for their lifestyle and promiscuity and drugs and sex, so it's odd that when they want to conform and model themselves after straight people and have the same rights for marriage and domestic partnership and adoption, they're being blocked."

In a cover story for the Advocate magazine titled "Gay is the New Black," Michael Joseph Gross wrote, "These past few years we've made so much progress that we'd begun to think everybody saw us as we see ourselves. Suddenly we were faced with the reality that a majority of voters don't like us, don't think we're normal, don't believe our lives and loves count as much or are worth as much as theirs."
Yet even some gay leaders are reluctant to directly tie their fight to the African-American legacy. They acknowledge significant differences in the experiences of gays and blacks, ranging from slavery to the relative affluence of white gay men to the choice made by some gays to conceal their sexual orientation, which is not an option for those with darker skin.
"I believe we are very much in a modern-day civil rights struggle," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization.
"We liken some of the experiences that we have had and will have to the (black) civil rights struggle. We also are enormously respectful of the differences," he said. "What we are best served doing is when we take lessons from the civil rights experience and apply them to our work."
Complicating the issue is the domination of minority politics by blacks and Latinos, who can be less than friendly to gay issues.
In the vote on Proposition 8 in California, which repealed gay marriage, about 70 percent of blacks favored the ban, according to an exit poll; Latinos' close vote may have favored it, though the poll's small sample left some uncertainty. In Florida, 71 percent of blacks and 64 percent of Latinos favored a similar ban.
Opposition to gay rights often has a religious basis, and blacks and Latinos are more churchgoing than society at large. Twenty-six percent of blacks attend religious services more than once per week, compared with 16 percent of Latinos and 14 percent of whites, according to a 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
"I do not consider (gays) to be a minority in legal and adjudicated terms, the same way people who only like to eat broccoli with butter aren't a minority," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. "We can't categorize things according to behavior. It's based on ethnicity, on who we are rather than what we do."
"Who am I to say that you weren't born that way ... (but) sexual activity, what you do, who you sleep with, is your business," Rodriguez said. "That's between you, your lover, and the good God Almighty in heaven. I don't want to know. Let's leave sexual activity in the bedroom. The government shouldn't be legislating what we do behind closed doors between two consenting adults. And to compare it to the African-American struggle, to me that's an abomination."
So is gay the new black, or did the election define a new and unique set of gay challenges?
"The gay fight for marriage has its own integrity, its own background," said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. "The experience of blacks in the United States is very different. ... I don't think it helps the fight for equality to make that claim."

Cherlin says that fight began in the 1980s when the AIDS epidemic unfolded. Gay partners had few rights to help their ailing loved ones, visit them in hospitals or inherit their property, which led to the push for civil unions.
Today, only Connecticut and Massachusetts permit gay marriage, and a few states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant some rights of marriage. Galvanized by the stinging Nov. 4 defeat in liberal California, the marriage movement is now as much symbolic as practical.
"There was a shift in the '90s, from rights to the symbolism of being married," Cherlin said. "This is not primarily a battle about rights now. If it was, all you'd be hearing about is domestic partnerships. Now it's at two levels simultaneously. One is the level of rights; the second is the level of symbols."
One symbol that some see missing from the gay rights movement is a figurehead. There are famous people who are out and proud, such as Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., or Ellen DeGeneres. But "we don't have our Martin Luther King or Malcolm X or Barack Obama," Wilbekin said.
Yet the nature of activism has changed since the days when King proposed the idea of a mass march on Washington. The recent nationwide gay protests were instigated by a Seattle blogger who set up a Web page three days after the California vote.
And in some ways, gays see Obama himself as a symbol of gay progress — even though he opposes gay marriage.
Obama is in favor of civil unions, and during his victory speech, when he included gays in his description of America, it made them feel part of the historic racial milestone.
Solmonese said that the election defeats of Nov. 4 have inspired a level of gay activism not seen since the early days of the AIDS epidemic. "That is buoyed by equal parts anger and rage about Proposition 8," he said, "but also hope and inspiration about doing something that for a long time we didn't think possible — like electing Barack Obama as our president."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081130...e_new_black;_ylt=Alrvi05yObNjyO5qSC5vAXms0NUE

I call this liberal rhetoric.

black =/= gay

BTW interracial relationships are not banned in scripture so this connection is moot.

 

[Ghettoflame]

I call this liberal rhetoric.

black =/= gay

BTW interracial relationships are not banned in scripture so this connection is moot.

Nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Ouch! That sounds painful! Well, then I won't ask you to help me get the speck out of mine (and it's really bugging me too!).

Wow musg be something going around. I have symptoms of fear and trembling, regarding my salvation, that leave me little time to sit in judgement of others.

 

[Bro.T]

Lets read a little law before we take a look at this youtube brother and sisters....


Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 24:22)

One manner of law for Israel, as well as for the rest of the sons of Adam.

Let’s back up to Leviticus the 18th chapter and start at the 22nd verse.​

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: (Leviticus 18:22-24)

Note what the scripture says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Note something else in this set of scriptures. "Defile not yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you." This statement should have a person shaking in their boots. When the Lord cast out the Canaanites, He sent the children of Israel into these countries to cast these nations out because of sin.

The sons of Jacob did not go alone to do battle. His mighty angels went with them as long as they kept themselves from sin. This is not a game sisters and brothers; the God of the creation is serious. When He returns at His second coming He will deal with man face to face. We must keep ourselves from willful sin.

But, people try to make excuses for everything that is contrary to the word of God. As seen by modern medicine’s explanation of homosexuality: "With the birth of modern psychiatry, homosexuality came to be viewed widely as less a sin than a sickness. This attitude derived from unscientific research into the origin and nature of homosexuality, unscientific because based solely on studies of maladjusted psychiatric patients. Theories arising from such research suggested that disorders in family relationships, particularly mother-son relationships, give rise to homosexual behavior. Such theories, based on the assumption that homosexuals are necessarily psychologically abnormal, are not convincing. Quote from Grolier multimedia encyclopedia).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owumKXf3-BI&feature=related

 

[thriftyEvie]

let's put it this way, God made Adam and Eve, he did not make Adam and Steve, he did not take rib from Adam to make Steve, he took from Adam to make Eve. Point taken?

 

[Mrs Butterworth]

Oh my tanzel, I just watched that video. Looks like Oprah has converted another lost soul, how heartwarming. Looks like the new spin on homosexuality and religion is to replace the word religion with the word spiriturality. People with spiriturality are obviously very deep, and are therefore of higher moral character then us biggoted ignorant pigs who are religious. Oh we are so evil! I think we should abolish religion because of the horrible evil it promotes in its people and opt for the new spiriturality that is to come.

Ok, ok, enough of the sarcastic rant. I wil quit for now. For anyone new here who has not read my rants before, believe me when I tell you I was not being serious up there. By the way I intended to aim that rant at those who spin religion not at homosexuals. I get frustrated when people spin religion (to almost 180 degrees) and make it evil. They think their way is better because it sounds like it is better, and it usually takes a few decades to prove that it isn't better. In the meantime they are condecending at the very least, and imposing their will on us politically and socially at the worst. I believe that religion can cause problems, but abolishment of religion is not the solution.

Some of this treatment is the fault of the Christian church. Had they treated homosexuals and other people who had a problem with various sins the way Jesus treated those who had problems with sin, we would not be experiencing such a backlash. Futermore very few ever spoke out against those who were abusing homosexuals and other people who struggle with sin. Even today Christians don't get it. Jesus came to save, not condem (paraphrase of John 3:17). He loved and accepted people who were struggling, not the sin, but the person. He wanted to help them.

Many years ago, when the AIDS epidemic was just starting, a local church in Washington D.C. went down to a gay bar and handed out condoms and aids awareness information. They cared about the people and their health. They wanted these people to not contract the disease. This church that did this was not a Christian church, not in the least bit. Shame on us.

When that epidemic started, Christians could have found ways to help and care for people, but instead they chose to proclaim that the disease was God's wrath on them. This made the whole epidemic worse. People were afraid to seek treatment.

Welcome to the future people. If Christians don't start apoligising and repenting of past sins, like the horrible treatment of homosexuals, and if they don't start loving and treating people with decency, we are going to be the ones labeled as the evil ones who need to be abolished. We are the ones who need to start demonstrating what real spiriturality is. We need to show people what the love of God is.

 

[Bro.T]

Oh my tanzel, I just watched that video. Looks like Oprah has converted another lost soul, how heartwarming. Looks like the new spin on homosexuality and religion is to replace the word religion with the word spiriturality. People with spiriturality are obviously very deep, and are therefore of higher moral character then us biggoted ignorant pigs who are religious. Oh we are so evil! I think we should abolish religion because of the horrible evil it promotes in its people and opt for the new spiriturality that is to come.

Ok, ok, enough of the sarcastic rant. I wil quit for now. For anyone new here who has not read my rants before, believe me when I tell you I was not being serious up there. By the way I intended to aim that rant at those who spin religion not at homosexuals. I get frustrated when people spin religion (to almost 180 degrees) and make it evil. They think their way is better because it sounds like it is better, and it usually takes a few decades to prove that it isn't better. In the meantime they are condecending at the very least, and imposing their will on us politically and socially at the worst. I believe that religion can cause problems, but abolishment of religion is not the solution.

Some of this treatment is the fault of the Christian church. Had they treated homosexuals and other people who had a problem with various sins the way Jesus treated those who had problems with sin, we would not be experiencing such a backlash. Futermore very few ever spoke out against those who were abusing homosexuals and other people who struggle with sin. Even today Christians don't get it. Jesus came to save, not condem (paraphrase of John 3:17). He loved and accepted people who were struggling, not the sin, but the person. He wanted to help them.

Many years ago, when the AIDS epidemic was just starting, a local church in Washington D.C. went down to a gay bar and handed out condoms and aids awareness information. They cared about the people and their health. They wanted these people to not contract the disease. This church that did this was not a Christian church, not in the least bit. Shame on us.

When that epidemic started, Christians could have found ways to help and care for people, but instead they chose to proclaim that the disease was God's wrath on them. This made the whole epidemic worse. People were afraid to seek treatment.

Welcome to the future people. If Christians don't start apoligising and repenting of past sins, like the horrible treatment of homosexuals, and if they don't start loving and treating people with decency, we are going to be the ones labeled as the evil ones who need to be abolished. We are the ones who need to start demonstrating what real spiriturality is. We need to show people what the love of God is.

I agree Mrs. Butterworth......Jesus said Luke 5:32 - I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

I also have been tressing thefact that people don't repent, but what people don't understand is that there is a judgement at the end of this rode. People, you must give up a lifestyle where sin has dominion, (ruler ship) over you.

1 Corinthians 6:9 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Ephesians 5:5 - For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

 

[nhisname]

Yes homosexuality is a sin..but it makes me very angry when christians will treat and act like they are dogs just because they are gay...but would never ever preach to their heterosexual neighbor that is shacking it up with their gf/bf or having sex before marriage is all im getting at...where the thread about heterosexual premarital sex huh? You dont see that..many christians are double standard!! They wont talk to the man that has multpile female sexual partners but they will jump with a powerful "CONVICTION" when they see a man walking down the street holding another man's hand..what i am saying is if you gona preach about sexual immortality..then preach all grounds...child molestation, adultery, premarital sex ( whoever it may be gay or straight) and stop soley singling out homosexuals to "preach" to!

All sex ouside of marriage is wrong. The homosexuals have an agenda that I do not agree with...legalizing homosexual unions... In short they are trying to redefine what marriage is. This is totally against what God ordained to be holy. We as Christians are to uphold God's word as truth...this is not judging.

 

[Bro.T]

All sex ouside of marriage is wrong. The homosexuals have an agenda that I do not agree with...legalizing homosexual unions... In short they are trying to redefine what marriage is. This is totally against what God ordained to be holy. We as Christians are to uphold God's word as truth...this is not judging.

Hey nhisname.....You are right Paul said in Cor 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

Jesus said...in Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

[bithiah2]

in the Word there is a whole list of practices, attitudes and behaviours that will cause a person to be rejected by God. homosexuality is not the only one. pride, lying, cheating, hating, prejudice, murder, drunkeness, greed, lust (of all kinds)...and the list goes on and on.


now don't hate because i told the truth. and if you don't like it, take it up with Almighty Jah.

 

[Spirit_Star]

[FONT=&quot]A sin is a sin to God. We humans like to try and categorize a sin as being worse or not as bad but to God a sin is a sin. Yes I am sure there will people in heaven who were formerly homosexuals. Will all formerly homosexuals be in Heaven? No but neither will all formerly straight people. I use the word formerly since in the after life people aren’t going to have romantic relationships.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Bro.T]

Serious business.....brother and sisters

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
"….they shall surely be put to death..." Being that we are under the new covenant, which are the same laws that were given to Moses, no man is clean enough to put anyone to death, the Lord will take care of that Judgment.​

He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses (Hebrews 10:28.)​

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31).​

For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (Hebrews 10:26-27)

 

[GlennK]

I really think there needs to be an acceptance of homosexuals. I have a lot of gay friends, and they are real people looking for what's real in life. They are really hurting people.

I have no idea how to bring them into the God's kingdom. If I were to bring them to a Bible study I imagine people would feel uncomfortable around them when people out they're gay. I think the gays would know how to act, but still...

how do you bring in people to God's kingdom when their identity is a sin -- a sin they think they were born with and that there's no helping it? it's pretty complicated.

 

[thriftyEvie]

We are not the judge, nor we should we be judging anyone on the board.
-If you are a gay or a Lesbian, you can not be a Christian, period.
It is totally against the Lord. Being gay is totally wrong in the eyes of the Lord.
(besides it's sick)

 

[GlennK]

We are not the judge, nor we should we be judging anyone on the board.
-If you are a gay or a Lesbian, you can not be a Christian, period.
It is totally against the Lord. Being gay is totally wrong in the eyes of the Lord.
(besides it's sick)

wow, close-minded much, huh.
so shallow. you need to check your attitude little girl. there are lots of hurting gay people out there Jesus is trying to reach and that's what you have to say? i do not approve. gay people struggle with Christianity because of people like you, even though they want to become one so bad, they struggle with their sexuality and that's what they need help with, not the necessarily the Christian part. you need to check yourself little girl.