B
BigBadWlf
Guest
I believe that it is being suggested that since I dont share his personal prejudices and have a nasty habit of confronting false witness that hi somehow not a real Christian
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I believe that it is being suggested that since I dont share his personal prejudices and have a nasty habit of confronting false witness that hi somehow not a real ChristianDo you have FAITH?
What does that mean in the case of one's belief or not in the veracity of the scriptures? I mean really ...? Is having faith that the Bible writers are beyond reproach in regard to their reporting for God the determining factor as to who is and who is not 'saved'?
I believe that it is being suggested that since I dont share his personal prejudices and have a nasty habit of confronting false witness that hi somehow not a real Christian
the fact that they have sex with the same sex. It's not wrong to love the same sex, but once you cross that line into a sexual lust or acts with that person its wrong in God's eyes.
Because the all-powerful creator of quadrillions of star systems is just so terribly, terribly interested in what your penis or vagina does with other penises and vaginae.
Come on.
If either of my boys turn out to be gay they turn out gay. I wont love them any less nor will I be so twisted and egocentric to insist they lie about being gay and that they pretend to not be gay.Why Yes... Yes he does... Like you care about your children, or you will when you have children.
That is the most amazing thing about God... The fact that we are smaller than a nano-particle is the grand scheme of things, and yet, the Lord knows us, and what we do... INCREDIBLE!
I used to be gay. But now I am very interested in girls.
If either of my boys turn out to be gay they turn out gay. I wont love them any less nor will I be so twisted and egocentric to insist they lie about being gay and that they pretend to not be gay.
A parents primary concerns are their childrens well being and happiness. Hating someone because of who they are and demanding they lie about it is not loving no matter how you twist things and it is harmful in the extreme to their well being
It's strange that you talk this way but have a Darwin sticker in your signature. If you understood the basics of Darwin you would not be saying this. I mean, if you actually understood the mechanics of things.This has always made me shake my head. A homosexual can love another of the same sex, but if those feelings of love also incorporate or turn to lust then some kind of sin has been committed. Please explain the innate wrongness in the mere desire to be physically intimate. Exactly what kind of harm--to anyone--is wrought by desiring something? In what way is anyone the worse off by desiring physical intimacy than by desiring, say, a new set of clothes?
Then there's the matter of the innate wrongness when a certain part of one's body touches a certain part of another's body. In some cases, say I touch someones nose with the tip of my finger, no one much gives a hoot, but if I take that same finger tip and touch another part of someone's body it becomes a matter of censure. It's really only a matter of flesh touching flesh. So the real issue here isn't the actual touching but the motivation behind it: satisfying one's sexual urges, which brings us to the core of the problem: homosexuals should not do XY & Z because it would satisfy there sexual needs, although heterosexuals may do XY & Z because it does satisfy their sexual needs. And what is so different about the two needs? The means of satisfaction. In one case it's a person of the same sex and in the other case it's a person of the opposite sex. So, wherein lies the actual harm, the innate wrongness, in one versus the other?
If it's just the say-so of someone or some book then it's only an issue incumbent upon those who want to subscribe to that person or that book, and should have absolutely impact on anyone else.
It's strange that you talk this way but have a Darwin sticker in your signature. If you understood the basics of Darwin you would not be saying this. I mean, if you actually understood the mechanics of things.
In biology the word "sex" as a verb means "reproduction between a male and a female". In Darwin's world there is no such thing as homosexuality. It really is a misnomer. "Homosexphilia" is a much more accurate and scientific word. Dang psychologists and their "soft science" gets it all screwed up.
You see, in the world of biology there are two forms of reproduction: sexual and asexual. Contrary to popular belief asexuality does not mean a lack of warm fuzzy feelings. It means reproduction by copying yourself. Bacteria reproduce asexually. Sex, meaning reproduction between a male and female, evolved to facilitate more genetic diversity than can be afforded by one individual mutating a little and then copying himself. Of course in order to have sexual reproduction you need the different sexes. Thus, male and female.
And there you have it: the whole reason for the existence of male and female forms of the species is to reproduce with each other. Now according to Darwinian biology some species have developed something called sexual dimorphism, which adds some bits and pieces to it, but more or less that's how it is.
According to Darwin's laws there is no such "homo" variety of sexuality. There simply is or is not sexuality. Hence the Latin prefix "a" meaning "without". So we have "reproducing by copulation with a member of the opposite sex" or simply copying yourself. "Homo" sexuality is like "square" circles. It does not exist. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever see a sperm fertilizing a sperm, or an egg fertilizing an egg. It does not happen.
Finally, there is the matter of being anti-Darwin. People would probably say that you don't get more anti-evolution than Creationism, but you do. It's called "homosexuality". Homosexuality is anti-reproduction and thus anti-evolution. The day homosexuality wins the species loses. Homosexuality is to humans what a big giant meteorite was to the dinosaurs. Homosexuality is pretty much the ultimate evolutionary failure. Homosexuality is to Darwin what 666 is to Christianity. Homosexuality is The Anti-Darwin.
Finally, there is the matter of being anti-Darwin. People would probably say that you don't get more anti-evolution than Creationism, but you do. It's called "homosexuality". Homosexuality is anti-reproduction and thus anti-evolution. The day homosexuality wins the species loses. Homosexuality is to humans what a big giant meteorite was to the dinosaurs. Homosexuality is pretty much the ultimate evolutionary failure. Homosexuality is to Darwin what 666 is to Christianity. Homosexuality is The Anti-Darwin.
It's strange that you talk this way but have a Darwin sticker in your signature. If you understood the basics of Darwin you would not be saying this. I mean, if you actually understood the mechanics of things.
In biology the word "sex" as a verb means "reproduction between a male and a female". In Darwin's world there is no such thing as homosexuality. It really is a misnomer. "Homosexphilia" is a much more accurate and scientific word. Dang psychologists and their "soft science" gets it all screwed up.
You see, in the world of biology there are two forms of reproduction: sexual and asexual. Contrary to popular belief asexuality does not mean a lack of warm fuzzy feelings. It means reproduction by copying yourself. Bacteria reproduce asexually. Sex, meaning reproduction between a male and female, evolved to facilitate more genetic diversity than can be afforded by one individual mutating a little and then copying himself. Of course in order to have sexual reproduction you need the different sexes. Thus, male and female.
And there you have it: the whole reason for the existence of male and female forms of the species is to reproduce with each other. Now according to Darwinian biology some species have developed something called sexual dimorphism, which adds some bits and pieces to it, but more or less that's how it is.
According to Darwin's laws there is no such "homo" variety of sexuality. There simply is or is not sexuality. Hence the Latin prefix "a" meaning "without". So we have "reproducing by copulation with a member of the opposite sex" or simply copying yourself. "Homo" sexuality is like "square" circles. It does not exist. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever see a sperm fertilizing a sperm, or an egg fertilizing an egg. It does not happen.
Finally, there is the matter of being anti-Darwin. People would probably say that you don't get more anti-evolution than Creationism, but you do. It's called "homosexuality". Homosexuality is anti-reproduction and thus anti-evolution. The day homosexuality wins the species loses. Homosexuality is to humans what a big giant meteorite was to the dinosaurs. Homosexuality is pretty much the ultimate evolutionary failure. Homosexuality is to Darwin what 666 is to Christianity. Homosexuality is The Anti-Darwin.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?