• 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.

Homosexuals: I'm calling you out!!! Prove to me...

B

BigBadWlf

Guest
I also notice, that the GLBT community seems to reject the ol' "they were born that way" tag, because they know that that is also a detriment to the way they will be treated. They want choice to rule the day.
You actually have that reversed. Bigots and hate-mongers want to pretend that somehow sexual orientation is a choice.

My fear is that someday proof positive that sexual orientation is inborn and that right wing Christians will demand pre-natal testing and then gather in the delivery room of any baby testing “positive” for homosexuality to end the newborns life. Abortion would be wrong of course but I can see many Christians justifying slicing up a baby because s/he was homosexual
 
Upvote 0

Witchfinder

Antichristus
Jun 18, 2008
1
0
Hyperborea
✟22,611.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Discipuli nostri bardissimi sunt... don't you love Latin phrases?

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Prove to me that HE did not raise up from the dead! Prove to me that HE did not die on the cross and did not rise from the dead. The ball is in your court now. No one has ever been able to prove that HE did not rise from the dead. So you must prove that JESUS CHRIST did not rise from the dead. If you do this, no Christian will ever bother you again. No Christian will be able to rebuke you for your vile sin of homosexuality; because you have destroyed Christianity.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Until then; you will be rebuked for your vile sin. You will be corrected and commanded to repent and turn your life to Christ.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]If you don't want to live with the shame and guilt of this wicked sin, then either Prove that HE did not rise from the dead; or realize that HE did and has the power to heal you and REPENT and come to HIM and let HIM wash you white as snow!!!!!!![/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]SOLA SCRIPTURA.

SOLA FIDE.

SOLA GRATIA.

SOLUS CHRISTUS.

SOLI DEO GLORIA.

[/FONT]


The pattern of your twisted logic follows this paraphrase: "Prove to me that Amaterasu, the Japanese goddess, isn't the divine incarnation of the sun, born from the left eye of Izanagi –– for if you cannot, Shintoism is the absolute truth." Obviously enough for any rational person with a functioning brain, that so-called deductive method is flawed and it cannot yield any logical truth, whatsoever.

If you don't think JESUS existed then you don't believe that Julius Caesar existed, or Napoleon Bonaparte. Good job! and good luck with that.

First things first, we cannot know if Napoleon Bonaparte truly existed. As someone once said: "What is the truth of history, but a fable agreed upon?"
Secondly, there is a difference between Jesus as a historical figure and Jesus as a Biblical figure. Jesus might have existed, being nothing more than a man. He also might have not existed at all.
Thirdly, when one does not believe in Jesus as the Son of God, he does not believe in Jesus as the Son of God period. Stop falling into the unfortunate Christian stereotype of being incredibly dull, close-minded and brainwashed.

wow what a weak argument
jesus never wrote anything down, both napoleon and caesar did, we have statues of them, and we know where they lived.
jesus on the other had did not write anything down, we have no statues of him. nor can anyone support where he really lived, nazarene is questioned as to existing before the second century

so your argument fails painfully, good job

As much as I'm opposed to ShieldOFaith's arguments, yours fails too. Jesus might've not written down anything Himself, but the best-selling book in the world revolves around Him, and there is also the issue of pen-names anyhow –– you can't conclude that someone exists just because you know about the person in question's supposed writings.
There certainly are statues of Jesus, a million times more than statues of Napoleon and Caesar combined, you just happen to be dumb enough to declare your baseless assumptions as absolute truths. Moreover, just statues don't make one exist. You've obviously never read any Orwell.
Jesus is also known to have been born at Bethlehem (which is pretty much nearby my own residence, by the way), and he's known to have worked and preached in Israel. Get your facts right.

I'm asexual, all it simply is the absence of sexual attraction. Meaning...you know the feeling you get when you see an attractive member of the opposite sex or vice versa, or at the wet t-shirt contest and your crush just looks really nice? i don't get that. I don't understand that. I just don't have it and don't desire to have that attraction feeling. I just kinda love everybody, regardless of sex, yet feel no attraction to them.

Message me if you want anymore info or on here. I'm very open about it!

Pardon the question, but isn't asexuality just a form of impotency (lack of virility being also lack of sexual stimulation), or perhaps, a psychological complex? I'm not very well-learned at the subject.

I am not trying to persecute homosexuals. I am not trying to hate anything here. I am not hating anything here.

What I am doing is forcing the issue.

I am cutting through all the poopoo that most Christians let themselves get bogged down with. I am getting to the heart of the matter.

1. Either JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD, or HE did not.


Or he did not exist, ever. But let us acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus, if only for this argument. In that case, you're right
–– either He rose from the dead, or He did not. Though, if He did rise from the dead, He also might've been killed by three-meters-tall furious Martians, but "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem." As a supposed Latin disciple you should be familiar with this saying.

Also, you don't have to use a 7th degree font that shouts. My eyesight is perfectly fine, thank you.

2. If HE did you now are 100% accountable for your vile sins.

That is all I am doing. I am forcing them to see how utterly sinful they are and how they NEED to Repent and be born again or they WILL be lit on fire for all eternity.


Alas, the absurd dephts of the homo-idiotus' fear-derived stupidity!

They can not prove that Messiah did not rise from the dead!!! Therefore they must REPENT!

SOLA GRATIA.


Fair enough. You cannot prove that Amaterasu isn't the Sun Goddess, therefore you must Shintoize yourself.

Pons asinorum...
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp_fan

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
5,069
100
✟6,323.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. And I'm attracted to people of the same sex. So... yeah.

And Jesus mentions many sins we are to reject. Being attracted to people of the same sex does not mean you have to have sex with them. Look up what Jesus says about marriage. God intends it for a man and a woman. When you stop seeing that as hate speech and see it as love personified (literally) then you can keep your attraction to people of the same sex in proper context. And you can be forgiven for that too. According to Jesus. And, even the demons believe all that was foretold about Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp_fan

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
5,069
100
✟6,323.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So they just have to suck it up and deal with it? They do not get to love the person they want to love? Nice God, eh?

Trusting in God and loving a person of the opposite gender is odd the way you put into the category of "suck it up and deal with it." Not to mention it is sexist to the max.

Furthermore, I don't care what the Bible says about marriage.

And we Christians don't care what you non and anti-Christians think about the Bible.

It has no business being involved in secular law. So if the only objection you can raise for same sex marriage not being legal is from the Bible, it is not a valid argument for non-Christians.

To a pagan, humanist (secular humanist is redundant) or atheist, I agree with your position. Marriage "to a Christian," is a man and a woman. I've never understood why Christians care what people do in non- Christian sexuality. You make it clear that gay sex is outside of the Christian community (Church). We are in agreement on that. As is the entire witness of the New Testamentas well.

Jesus made it clear that we are to preach the Gospel and allow people to accept it or reject it. You have the free will to reject it. Have I ever stated that I care to enter into the world of pagans and force the Gospel on them? Let them do what they will do. Or, as Jesus says: "Treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." Some people are going to reject the Gospel.
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
And Jesus mentions many sins we are to reject. Being attracted to people of the same sex does not mean you have to have sex with them. Look up what Jesus says about marriage. God intends it for a man and a woman. When you stop seeing that as hate speech and see it as love personified (literally) then you can keep your attraction to people of the same sex in proper context. And you can be forgiven for that too. According to Jesus. And, even the demons believe all that was foretold about Jesus.
Bigotry is never love. It doesn’t matter how many try to stamp the name of ‘Jesus’ onto the robes of a member of the KKK, it wont change the hate he stands for into love
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheManeki
Upvote 0

Polycarp_fan

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
5,069
100
✟6,323.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Bigotry is never love. It doesn’t matter how many try to stamp the name of ‘Jesus’ onto the robes of a member of the KKK, it wont change the hate he stands for into love

The KKK is opposed by Christians for the same reason that homosexuality is. It does not align its doctrines and actions with the New Testament witeness. You can show HOW the Clan violates scriptural truth the same way gay groups do. They alter it. They change it. They ignore and ridicule it.

It is pure hate to force homosexuality onto and into the Christian Church.

Like a Clansman, you cannot backup support for homosexuality just as they cannot provide proof of their violent and aberrant theology "FROM" the Bible. You have the KKK and GLBT's doing the same thing "to" Christians, forcing them to believe in sinful behavior and to promote it in the Church.

Your analogy fails for the same reason the KKK's does. No scriptural support for the behaviors and doctrines.

It is the apex of love to get a sinner away from sin. THAT IS in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

TheManeki

Christian Humanist
Jun 5, 2007
3,376
544
Visit site
✟28,834.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The KKK is opposed by Christians for the same reason that homosexuality is. It does not align its doctrines and actions with the New Testament witeness. You can show HOW the Clan violates scriptural truth the same way gay groups do. They alter it. They change it. They ignore and ridicule it.

Maybe now, but at one time it was embraced by the church, especially in the southeast US. I live in that area, and I still see some older Christians who still cling to that kind of belief. Perhaps you would do better if you studied the role of Christianity in not only promoting, but also opposing, the civil rights movement.

Fortunately, the hateful and bigoted interpretation of the Bible held by racists was finally rejected. Why? It was eventually shown that it ran contrary to reality. Likewise, people are learning that the Biblical interpretation condemning homosexuality runs contrary to reality. Again, the younger generations are picking this up, and the older generation that clings to such an erroneous interpretation is getting left behind.

It is pure hate to force homosexuality onto and into the Christian Church.
Gee, and all this time I thought we were talking about a purely civil matter. Nobody's forcing individual churches to go against their beliefs (as ignorant as such beliefs may be). Besides, there are already plenty of Christian churches that welcome homosexual brothers and sisters with open arms, so why would they go to a church that condemns them?
 
Upvote 0

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟88,510.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
The KKK is opposed by Christians for the same reason that homosexuality is. It does not align its doctrines and actions with the New Testament witeness. You can show HOW the Clan violates scriptural truth the same way gay groups do. They alter it. They change it. They ignore and ridicule it.

Gay groups ignore and ridicule scriptural truth? If you're meaning non-Christian gay groups, I suspect you may be right - but I suspect that they do so far less than other non-Christian groups do.

As for Christian gay groups, no, they don't ignore and ridicule scriptural truth. They disagree with you about it, but they don't ignore and ridicule it.

It is pure hate to force homosexuality onto and into the Christian Church.

How exactly can "homosexuality" be forced "onto and into the Christian Church"? Bearing in mind that some sections of the Christian church are in fact perfectly welcoming and accepting of homosexuals, those sections of the church which object to homosexuality are perfectly welcome to do continue to do so. If anything, it's pure hate to force homosexuals out of the Christian church.

David.
 
Upvote 0

Ohioprof

Contributor
Jun 27, 2007
988
219
70
✟28,933.00
Faith
Unitarian
The KKK is opposed by Christians for the same reason that homosexuality is. It does not align its doctrines and actions with the New Testament witeness. You can show HOW the Clan violates scriptural truth the same way gay groups do. They alter it. They change it. They ignore and ridicule it.

It is pure hate to force homosexuality onto and into the Christian Church.

Like a Clansman, you cannot backup support for homosexuality just as they cannot provide proof of their violent and aberrant theology "FROM" the Bible. You have the KKK and GLBT's doing the same thing "to" Christians, forcing them to believe in sinful behavior and to promote it in the Church.

Your analogy fails for the same reason the KKK's does. No scriptural support for the behaviors and doctrines.

It is the apex of love to get a sinner away from sin. THAT IS in the Bible.

The divisions within the churches over whether to accept gay people or not are divisions among Christians, who disagree with each other over what the Bible says and means and over how Christians should treat gay people. The people who argue for acceptance of gay people are not practicing "hate," as you charge. The are practicing love, and they are arguing that the Bible does not support the exclusion of gay people or of same-sex marriages and relationships. These are fellow Christians who simply disagree with you.

My own church already accepts gay people and supports same-sex marriage, and there is no issue here in my church. But I know that other churches are torn over these questions. I think that neither side in these debates is practicing "hate." I think that both sides are struggling over what being a Christian means when it comes to how Christians treat gay people. And people on the different sides simply disagree.
 
Upvote 0

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
45
✟31,514.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
The divisions within the churches over whether to accept gay people or not are divisions among Christians, who disagree with each other over what the Bible says and means and over how Christians should treat gay people. The people who argue for acceptance of gay people are not practicing "hate," as you charge. The are practicing love, and they are arguing that the Bible does not support the exclusion of gay people or of same-sex marriages and relationships. These are fellow Christians who simply disagree with you.

My own church already accepts gay people and supports same-sex marriage, and there is no issue here in my church. But I know that other churches are torn over these questions. I think that neither side in these debates is practicing "hate." I think that both sides are struggling over what being a Christian means when it comes to how Christians treat gay people. And people on the different sides simply disagree.

Yeah. It's a shame that some churches do not welcome homosexuals, as churches are supposed to be inclusive. At least, that's what I was always taught. I was also taught that jesus always embraced the outcasts, which is ironic, because those churches not welcoming homosexuals into their congregations are creating outcasts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheManeki
Upvote 0
F

Flibbertigibbet

Guest
I don't know who wrote what I am about to quote - I copied it out of another post on this page, and I am too lazy to go look back through this LONG thread to find it.

It has no business being involved in secular law. So if the only objection you can raise for same sex marriage not being legal is from the Bible, it is not a valid argument for non-Christians.

One of the arguments against same-sex marriage, which has been raised even by those who do not oppose homosexual relationships, is the effect that gay marriage will have upon adoption. There was already, in Massachusetts, a Catholic-run adoption agency (I believe it was the largest adoption source in the State) that was ordered by the State to allow married homosexuals to adopt. The agency was forced to choose between violating their own deeply-held religious beliefs, or close the doors. They chose to close the agency, which has had a tremendous negative impact in the State and has greatly reduced the number of children placed for adoption.

Regardless of your position on homosexual couples adopting children, can you really stand up and cheer for this kind of result?
 
Upvote 0

Big Empty Circle

Big fat Confederate-sympathizing queer Zen atheist
Jun 19, 2008
57
36
Paducah, KY
✟22,848.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
No, it's a sad result by any measure. But, in my opinion, you're making a stronger case against heteronormativity (masquerading as religious conviction) than you are against anyone's sexuality. Though there's NO reason gay couples should be prevented from adopting on the basis of their sexuality (children reared by same-sex couples are no more likely to be unhappy or dysfunctional than those reared by straight couples,) yet this agency thought it was more important to close, and adhere to their anti-gay stance, than to continue helping children in need find loving permanent homes. How is this the fault of the gay people? It's the fault of the church (not the overarching Christian church, but whatever entity or organization specifically ingrained this anti-gay attitude in them.) They made a choice to discriminate against a particular sect of society for no reason other than the way they CHOSE to interpret a religious text, by no means the only interpretation (so they can't be said to be persecuted for Christianity per se as Christianity does not compel the condemnation of homosexuality) and now many will suffer for it.
 
Upvote 0

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
45
✟31,514.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't know who wrote what I am about to quote - I copied it out of another post on this page, and I am too lazy to go look back through this LONG thread to find it.



One of the arguments against same-sex marriage, which has been raised even by those who do not oppose homosexual relationships, is the effect that gay marriage will have upon adoption. There was already, in Massachusetts, a Catholic-run adoption agency (I believe it was the largest adoption source in the State) that was ordered by the State to allow married homosexuals to adopt. The agency was forced to choose between violating their own deeply-held religious beliefs, or close the doors. They chose to close the agency, which has had a tremendous negative impact in the State and has greatly reduced the number of children placed for adoption.

Regardless of your position on homosexual couples adopting children, can you really stand up and cheer for this kind of result?

Think about that. Instead of allowing a gay couple, who wanted nothing more than to share their lives with a child - to take care of the child, feed him, clothe him, love him, etc etc - the orphanage chose instead to close it's doors. Now, those children are probably suffering due to that decision. That's a horrible choice to have made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheManeki
Upvote 0
F

Flibbertigibbet

Guest
IMO (which nobody else is required by me to share - until such time as I am named Emporess Flibbertigibbet), herein lies the problem with the gay rights agenda -expect the Christian persons running the agency to violate their deeply-held beliefs, yet at the same time get up-in-arms if asked to do the same.

You can't base your platform on equality to all, while not allowing Christians to hold to the ideals they hold dear. That's simply not equality.

(I'm not addressing any particular "you" on this board, btw. Just a figure of speech for reading ease.)
 
Upvote 0