Homosexuals and Bisexuals

Status
Not open for further replies.

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,872
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟68,179.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
But...God created Satan. Correct? Therefore He is capable of creating evil.

(Playing Devil's Advocate, here. And off topic to boot...)
As long as this does not cause serious derail ;)

Just to answer real quick...
God did create Lucifer who was one of the Angels of God who out of his own free will decided to disobey God. The answer is no. God did not bring about evil. Lucifer (the fallen angel) was also created good. ;)


Just for the sake of clarification.
 
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,872
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟68,179.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Or maybe God IS a God of love, but some of the people who claim to be following Him are instead using His Book selectively to satisfy their own prejudices? Because man IS fallen, and I find it far easier to believe that people can rationalize their sinful behavior, and even pass the buck to blame God for it (just as Adam did), than that the natural order was corrupted in the Fall.

My 0,2 cents of how I see what you are saying here. We all "use the book selectively" to some point.. That is given and we would not be human but God if we did otherwise ;)
Yeah Man is fallen and that does not make us "incapable" of distinguishing though what is right and what is wrong that is why we have a consciousness... to distinguish the two :right and wrong. Also yes Adam did not take responsibility but blamed it to Eve as Eve blamed it on the snake. Typical behaviour I agree but ... that would mean that this is where that "game" ends and we are all responsible for our own sins. We do not pay for his sins but our own.
 
Upvote 0

Fenny the Fox

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2009
4,147
315
Rock Hill, SC
Visit site
✟23,619.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
As long as this does not cause serious derail ;)

Just to answer real quick...
God did create Lucifer who was one of the Angels of God who out of his own free will decided to disobey God. The answer is no. God did not bring about evil. Lucifer (the fallen angel) was also created good. ;)


Just for the sake of clarification.


I agree, just wanted to see what you would actually reply with. And, as far as I see it, the simplest way I can see it anyway, is that to have good there must (logically) be evil. God simply created good. The bad part of it is kinda like a byproduct, I suppose.

Also, I just realized how ironic my playing "Devil's Advocate" in that situation was...


And, on the subject if intersex individuals, as that was not even possible to know until modern genetics, I don't think it can be expected to be represented in the bible. Although, I suppose it is possible to take some relevance from the verses in Matthew that talk of "born eunuchs", granted I think it best to leave that verse as a metaphor for celibacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philothei
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
47
Burnaby
Visit site
✟29,046.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
I agree, just wanted to see what you would actually reply with. And, as far as I see it, the simplest way I can see it anyway, is that to have good there must (logically) be evil. God simply created good. The bad part of it is kinda like a byproduct, I suppose.

Why do you need evil to have good? I mean, you say that it's logical, but I have never seen the actual logic behind it. Sure, you wouldn't have a relative comparison without both, but you can still have one without the other.

And, on the subject if intersex individuals, as that was not even possible to know until modern genetics, I don't think it can be expected to be represented in the bible. Although, I suppose it is possible to take some relevance from the verses in Matthew that talk of "born eunuchs", granted I think it best to leave that verse as a metaphor for celibacy.

If God inspired the Bible, surely he would have known about intersex folks even if the people of the day didn't. According to "prophecies" he made, he can see our future, and could have made mention of intersex.
 
Upvote 0

Fenny the Fox

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2009
4,147
315
Rock Hill, SC
Visit site
✟23,619.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Why do you need evil to have good? I mean, you say that it's logical, but I have never seen the actual logic behind it. Sure, you wouldn't have a relative comparison without both, but you can still have one without the other.

Well, you hit my point, it is only a relativistic comparison. Without a "good" you cannot consider something "evil", and vice versa. If only a "good" (as per our current view) existed, then there would never be an "evil", but without an "evil" (again, this relies on our current perception of the term) there would never be a "good".

Edit: That above is a great paradox in perception.

The determination of good and evil lies purely in perception of the comparison of the terms. For that matter, it lies purely in perception.

If God inspired the Bible, surely he would have known about intersex folks even if the people of the day didn't. According to "prophecies" he made, he can see our future, and could have made mention of intersex.
I'm one of these weird people who believe in a contextual reading, rather than fundamentalist/puritanist (that even a term?) reading.

Without modern knowledge, the idea could not even be perceived. If the idea cannot be perceived, what good would God have had in using it? Granted, I have always realized that many people today do not seem able to understand it either.
 
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,872
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟68,179.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
If God inspired the Bible, surely he would have known about intersex folks even if the people of the day didn't. According to "prophecies" he made, he can see our future, and could have made mention of intersex.
If the Bible contained "all " concepts that are unknown or "hidden" from men then do you realize how big the bible would be? The way I approach notions as those (as a theologian though) is God revealed to us what is necessary for our salvation. The bible is not a science book by no means it speaks about spiritual concepts one should know and consider growing in his relationship with God. For it says that what (even) Christ did and say are not "all' included in the Bible. So much more all things be "included" in the Bible.. The Bible is a guide book as to how we relate to God not an encyclopedia ;)
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
47
Burnaby
Visit site
✟29,046.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
If the Bible contained "all " concepts that are unknown or "hidden" from men then do you realize how big the bible would be? The way I approach notions as those (as a theologian though) is God revealed to us what is necessary for our salvation. The bible is not a science book by no means it speaks about spiritual concepts one should know and consider growing in his relationship with God. For it says that what (even) Christ did and say are not "all' included in the Bible. So much more all things be "included" in the Bible.. The Bible is a guide book as to how we relate to God not an encyclopedia ;)

But it's full of stuff that is not relevant to your salvation; knowing who begat who isn't gonna save you.

And even if it were about keeping the Bible a reasonable size, God could have had one or two passages in there that addressed modern concerns, instead of making the entire thing relate only to a small group of people for a brief time thousands of years ago. Not one mention of, say internet manners, or what we should do about global climate change; a bit of advice on that would be great right about now, and needn't take up more than a few verses.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Christ forgave the adulteress who sinned but repented. He did tell here to go and sin NO MORE....what does this tell you? That living in sin is ok? He did not judge her past but he did advice her about the future....How more obvious you think he should have been? Fornication, homosexual acts and such were against the Hebrew Law he did not agree as to the punishment...about the Law but not the Law itself. He upheld the fact that these are all sins and should be repented...



Not judging those who are sinning meaning to do likewise? hmmm.... And now ....who is judging who here....lol.... ah... human nature ....

You know, if I were in your shoes, I'd be signing off this board and on my knees right now begging Christ to forgive my presumption in judging someone He explicitly refused to judge -- when challenged to do so by the Jewish leaders, no less.

After pronouncing "Let him who is without sin among you throw the first stone," letting the crowd of accusers drift away, asking her if no one had condemned her and getting her answer, He said, Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

Apparently, Philothei, you consider yourself without sin, since you blithely have decided that the woman was a sinner worthy of condemnation. You have metaphorically cast the first stone against her, when your Lord and mine refused to condemn her, despite being called on to judge her.

Yes, he told her to sin no more. He tells all of us to sin no more. And when we fall short of that, He forgives us.

He acted out that scene -- John included tht scene in his Gospel -- specifically to deliver the message against judging the sins of others when you too are as sinful as they.

He said what the Law consists in -- not the individual commandments but the whole edifice of the Law -- "Love God with all that is in you, and love your neighbor as yourself. Act toward others as you would want them to act toward you. Strive not to judge, because as surely as you judge, you will be judged by the same measure with which you judge. If you see anyone in need, minister to them as if they were Jesus Himself, because He will count it as done or not done unto Him."

You aren't Jesus, nor even Mary, and you have no right to judge that woman when Christ Himself was at pains not to.

Nor do you have any right to judge your fellow man -- unless you want your sins judged as harshly as you judge them.

It was not the people who committed sexual sins whom Jesus held up to obloquy, but those who, secure in their own supposed righteousness, presumed to judge their fellow man. There is a lesson in that for all who have ears to hear.
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
173
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,349.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You know, if I were in your shoes, I'd be signing off this board and on my knees right now begging Christ to forgive my presumption in judging someone He explicitly refused to judge -- when challenged to do so by the Jewish leaders, no less.

After pronouncing "Let him who is without sin among you throw the first stone," letting the crowd of accusers drift away, asking her if no one had condemned her and getting her answer, He said, Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

Apparently, Philothei, you consider yourself without sin, since you blithely have decided that the woman was a sinner worthy of condemnation. You have metaphorically cast the first stone against her, when your Lord and mine refused to condemn her, despite being called on to judge her.

Yes, he told her to sin no more. He tells all of us to sin no more. And when we fall short of that, He forgives us.

He acted out that scene -- John included tht scene in his Gospel -- specifically to deliver the message against judging the sins of others when you too are as sinful as they.

He said what the Law consists in -- not the individual commandments but the whole edifice of the Law -- "Love God with all that is in you, and love your neighbor as yourself. Act toward others as you would want them to act toward you. Strive not to judge, because as surely as you judge, you will be judged by the same measure with which you judge. If you see anyone in need, minister to them as if they were Jesus Himself, because He will count it as done or not done unto Him."

You aren't Jesus, nor even Mary, and you have no right to judge that woman when Christ Himself was at pains not to.

Nor do you have any right to judge your fellow man -- unless you want your sins judged as harshly as you judge them.

It was not the people who committed sexual sins whom Jesus held up to obloquy, but those who, secure in their own supposed righteousness, presumed to judge their fellow man. There is a lesson in that for all who have ears to hear.

The gentleman you seem to attack, merely held up the scripture and printed it for you and asked your opinion of what JESUS said. He didn't make up his own value or opinion, which is what I see you yourself doing to this gentlemen in your very comments above. While I am not JESUS, I do have HIS words and as such...

International Standard Version (©2008)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God's approval.
King James Bible
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
American King James Version
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
American Standard Version
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
Bible in Basic English
Every holy Writing which comes from God is of profit for teaching, for training, for guiding, for education in righteousness:
Douay-Rheims Bible
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
Darby Bible Translation
Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;
English Revised Version
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness:
Webster's Bible Translation
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Weymouth New Testament
Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction in right doing;
World English Bible
Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness,
Young's Literal Translation
every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness,

2 Timothy 3:16
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
173
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,349.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Boy...gonna be some surprised Christians come eternity. ;)





Actually I believe it's bigoted, not racist.





...Or you could try and catch-up with society's morals, guess that's asking alot though. :)

*

Bigoted --- a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and is blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

Homosexuals could be blindly devoted to their own cause ----- is that not so? And they would be basing their opinions on what exactly --- their own feelings?
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
173
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,349.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

In other words, it is just as easy for a nation to become intolerant of comments against homosexuality, as it can be intolerant of comments that are pro-homosexual.

Which extreem do you believe to be the most likely, and to be the worse?
 
Upvote 0

beechy

Senior Veteran
Mar 24, 2005
3,235
264
✟12,390.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
In other words, it is just as easy for a nation to become intolerant of comments against homosexuality, as it can be intolerant of comments that are pro-homosexual.

Which extreem do you believe to be the most likely, and to be the worse.
I asked why you thought the Constitution should protect freedom of religion ... are you answering that question or did you want to talk about homosexual commentary now?
 
Upvote 0

Wyzaard

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2008
3,458
746
✟7,200.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
God did create Lucifer who was one of the Angels of God who out of his own free will decided to disobey God. The answer is no. God did not bring about evil. Lucifer (the fallen angel) was also created good. ;)

God created this free will with full knowledge of the consequences of giving such to Lucifer; ergo, god directly created evil.

Just for the sake of clarification. ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
173
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,349.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I asked why you thought the Constitution should protect freedom of religion ... are you answering that question or did you want to talk about homosexual commentary now?

The Constitution should protect freedom of religion because the document itself stipulates that it will. Please note: Nowhere in the Constitution is there any indication that one might expect to be free of religious thinking, ideals, or behavior patterns. Hang you hat on that one.
 
Upvote 0

beechy

Senior Veteran
Mar 24, 2005
3,235
264
✟12,390.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
The Constitution should protect freedom of religion because the document itself stipulates that it will. Hang you hat on that one.
Do you agree with that stipulation or would you, if given the chance, support an amendment removing the provision protecting religious freedom? IOW, do you think it is a good thing that the Constitution includes a provision protecting freedom of religion?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,872
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟68,179.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You know, if I were in your shoes, I'd be signing off this board and on my knees right now begging Christ to forgive my presumption in judging someone He explicitly refused to judge -- when challenged to do so by the Jewish leaders, no less.

After pronouncing "Let him who is without sin among you throw the first stone," letting the crowd of accusers drift away, asking her if no one had condemned her and getting her answer, He said, Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

Apparently, Philothei, you consider yourself without sin, since you blithely have decided that the woman was a sinner worthy of condemnation. You have metaphorically cast the first stone against her, when your Lord and mine refused to condemn her, despite being called on to judge her.

Yes, he told her to sin no more. He tells all of us to sin no more. And when we fall short of that, He forgives us.

He acted out that scene -- John included tht scene in his Gospel -- specifically to deliver the message against judging the sins of others when you too are as sinful as they.

He said what the Law consists in -- not the individual commandments but the whole edifice of the Law -- "Love God with all that is in you, and love your neighbor as yourself. Act toward others as you would want them to act toward you. Strive not to judge, because as surely as you judge, you will be judged by the same measure with which you judge. If you see anyone in need, minister to them as if they were Jesus Himself, because He will count it as done or not done unto Him."

You aren't Jesus, nor even Mary, and you have no right to judge that woman when Christ Himself was at pains not to.

Nor do you have any right to judge your fellow man -- unless you want your sins judged as harshly as you judge them.



It was not the people who committed sexual sins whom Jesus held up to obloquy, but those who, secure in their own supposed righteousness, presumed to judge their fellow man. There is a lesson in that for all who have ears to hear.

As I said before Christ did say sin no more as he tells all for us. Just becuase I preach the kerygma of Christ I am judging? He (Christ) told her sin no more. He did not say she did not sin.... :sorry:... I would not throw the stone since I admit to be sinner myself but I do not go on proclaiming my sin as a "lifestyle" for all to follow.. That is where we disagree so instead of throwing me stones instead I would rather you try to see that point insead of "judging" me. Because you keep doing excatly that. I never said the adulteress "needed" to be stoned but sure she was in need for repentance. Christ did not say go and even if you live a life in sin you are still forgiven... did he? i think not.

Also you do not know me so please as I refrain from being personal with you so I would appreciate you do likewise. ;) I have not coming here proclaiming my onw unsinfulless either and I am not judging merely evangelizing God's message that Christ taught us to do....All message given to us since the Old Testament through the Kings, Prophets and holy people of God.
:liturgy:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
47
Burnaby
Visit site
✟29,046.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
So since when becasue God created metal He is responsible of how people will use it and make guns that kill? Was the intent of God to "create" evil? or man's? We have free will how is this God's "purpose"? How can God "directly crated evil" if God knows no evil?

God certainly could have created a world without metal, in which case we wouldn't have guns that kill. Metal is not crucial to human survival. But he made metal anyway, knowing that we would use it to create guns that kill. So yes, he is responsible.

It wouldn't even impinge upon free will if he created a world without metal. We have a world without the means to make lightsabers that kill, and that doesn't affect free will, so why not a world without the means to make guns?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philothei
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.