Miss California opposes gay marriage

[BelindaP]

denial is not an excuse

It's never good to make assumptions without asking first. All our sins are covered by Jesus' blood. Where I indicate that God holds a person less responsible is with the temporal punishment they are likely to get here on this earth. Somebody who willfully sins is likely to get an attitude adjustment from God in the here and now. Somebody who sins unawares is less likely to get that treatment.

 

[DD2008]

Where I indicate that God holds a person less responsible is with the temporal punishment they are likely to get here on this earth. Somebody who willfully sins is likely to get an attitude adjustment from God in the here and now. Somebody who sins unawares is less likely to get that treatment.

Which scripture do you base that view on?

 

[drstevej]

Which scripture do you base that view on?

The Fairness Doctrine. If it seems fair, it's doctrine!

 

[herev]

sorry, forgot where I was

 

[drstevej]

sorry, forgot where I was

Discussing homosexuality. Hi, herev.

Steve

 

[herev]

Discussing homosexuality. Hi, herev.

Steve

hi steve

 

[drstevej]

hi steve

Hi bro.
Again we disagree
But I appreciate you personally.

 

[bdolack]

I am familiar with Romans 1, and it does not make the distinction that you are attributing to it. Nowhere in that passage does it say or imply that homosexuality is a worse or unique type of sin, because it is "unnatural". It is perhaps implying that because it is a perversion of nature that, unlike heterosexual sex, it cannot be made right through marriage. I could accept that interpretation as being supported by the text.

However, the conclusion that it is somehow morally different from other sins, because it is an "unnatural" form of sexuality, is not a reasonable inference to draw from the passage.

For this cause (vain in their imaginations, professing to be wise while they were actually fools, changing the glory of the incorruptible God, dishonoring their bodies between themselves, changing the truth of God into a lie, worshiping and serving the creature) God gave them up to vile affections (homosexuality).

As I've said before, I'm no theologian or biblical scholar (so I am open to correction) but I believe this is the only example of God Himself giving people up to sin.

 

[herev]

Hi bro.
Again we disagree
But I appreciate you personally.

thanks, Steve. I appreciate you too

 

[icamewithasword]

And Nadiine refuses to get back to the core issue of the debate. How ridiculous.

By the way, that "wrath of the liberals" comment was implying that he did not want to get off-side with either side, not that the liberals are some kind of almighty organisation. Use your brain when you read, Nadiine.

Have you ever thought that YOUR "God's truth" may not be my "God's truth"? You must be open to all intepretations, otherwise your statements are just bigotry and biased to your intepretation of the Bible. And there is no way to argue against someone that is not open - we cannot convince you if you will not listen to us.

I guess that sets the liberals, moderates and fundamentalists apart from the radicals - we all seem to be open to ideas that you cannot bring yourself to accept, or at least to consider.

Well.....what a very persuasive arguement you've made here! I'm sure you'll do very well explaining this on judgement day.

 

[dies-l]

For this cause (vain in their imaginations, professing to be wise while they were actually fools, changing the glory of the incorruptible God, dishonoring their bodies between themselves, changing the truth of God into a lie, worshiping and serving the creature) God gave them up to vile affections (homosexuality).

As I've said before, I'm no theologian or biblical scholar (so I am open to correction) but I believe this is the only example of God Himself giving people up to sin.

I would offer up, as another example, the hardening of Pharoah's heart. I believe that there are other examples that are not coming to mine right now. Some Calvinists would argue that Scripture teaches that all sins are the result of God's judgment on us.

But, that is not really the point. The question is whether there is something uniquely nefarious about that particular sin as opposed to other sinful behavior (which are regarded as similar in other passages of Scripture). I don't see how Romans stands for the proposition that homosexuality is worthy of special attention, because it is "unnatural." In fact, the interpretation that leads to that proposition is so far removed the actual text, that I am somewhat inclined to believe that it whoever came up with argument was disingenuously attempting to justify their own prejudice and those who parrot it choose not to seriously analyze it, because it is a handy, even if very weak, biblical argument to justify a prejudice. I could be wrong in this estimation, but the fact remains that the interpretation that you propose is unreasonably attenuated from the text.

 

[icamewithasword]

I did not say you weren't christians in the visible church, you obviously are. I can't judge if you are christians in the invisible church of the elect, I hope you are.

Those in your camp are people who profess to be christians yet are in open rebellion against the direction set forth in scripture, and you prove it by approving of the actions of those who refuse to repent of sin yet claim christianity. You encourage their activity and try to pawn it off as normal behavior by posting the sarcastic "agenda" you just posted. If you really loved them you would not encourage them to sin, but would encourage them to trust Christ and repent. That doesn't mean you bar them from coming to Church or that you treat them with disrespect. It simply means that you are upfront with them that you do not have scriptural authority to condone their sin. Unrepentant sin is a sign of being lost and unregenerate. It is not a sign of liberty or anything to be proud of. It is a sign that one is still a slave to sin. You as a leader should do what you can to lead people out of sin, not encourage that they continue in it.

FINALLY!

I'm surprised this thread has continued this long! Especially before someone actually said this! Thanks, brother!

As far as I'm concerned, this is really the issue....
Do homosexuals belong in church? ABSOLUTELY!
Where do they sit? RIGHT BESIDE ME, ASKING FOR FORGIVNESS.
Should the homosexual repent? ABSOLUTELY, JUST AS I DO FROM MY SINS!
What if the pastor stated that my sins of covetting and idolatry were only sins if I thought they were? I'D ASK HIM TO SHOW ME THAT IN SCRIPTURE!
What if he couldn't show me? I'D LEAVE, NOT RETURNING.
Well, what if the pastor had covetous idolaters came in front of the congregation and state to all that what I did was not sin? ONLY IF HE WANTED TO WISH HE'D GOTTEN THE MILLSTONE INSTEAD!
Would it be different, then, if the pastor married two gay men? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

SO SAD to see that some Christians have allowed political correctness to determine what is scripturaly sound!
I admit that I have not read all 90 pages in this thread; so I'll ask.

Has ANYONE been able to argue SCRIPTURALY that homosexuals should be joined in marriage? Has ANYONE been able to ague SCRIPTURALY that marriage is not between a man and a woman?

p.s: I would hope that a church elder debating here would do so scripturaly, to teach the rest of us.
My $.02

 

[icamewithasword]

The Fairness Doctrine. If it seems fair, it's doctrine!

 

[icamewithasword]

Steve, trolling the forums is very unbecoming of a Chaplain on this site.

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA!!! HIT THE BRAKES!!!

Uh,... WHERE are YOUR two witnesses!?

 

[Texas Lynn]

I'll respond to this later but in the meantime: they're not "gay." There's nothing "gay" about them at all. That was merely a public relations move on the part of the homosexual movement

The term dates from the late 19th Century, long before Stonewall and before the Mattachines and Daughters of Bilitis by almost 100 years.

much like pro-aborts claiming to be "pro-choice" when in reality they're pro-death.

There are no "pro-aborts".

 

[Texas Lynn]

from Webster's 1828...

GAY, a.
1. Merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome. It denotes more life and animation than cheerful.
Belinda smiled, and all the world was gay.2. Fine; showy; as a gay dress.3. Inflamed or merry with liquor; intoxicated; a vulgar use of the word in America.

SOD'OMITE, n.
1. An inhabitant of Sodom.2. One guilty of sodomy.

SOD'OMY, n. A crime against nature.

Most acts of sodomy are engaged in by heterosexuals.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Why so often is sex equated with love?

I don't believe that has occurred on this thread.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I don't approve of bigoted extremist either - has that stopped some people around here

When policies are advocated which harm LGBTs, that is the action of bigoted extremists.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Steering a Christian brother or sister away from God's word is not loving them. It is placing their souls in danger. It is not the proper conduct of a man of God.

In general, this is true. It is not applicable to this issue however, as Christians disagree as to what constitutes sin relative to this discussion.

 

[icamewithasword]

When policies are advocated which harm LGBTs, that is the action of bigoted extremists.

*note*---in above posting, please delete the wording "policies" with the intended wording "scriptures". Also, please delete the wording "extremists" with the intended wording "epistles of Paul". Thank you for the attention given to this matter. Please, continue. *end of message*