Question......

[catlover]

You just don't realize, IamRedeemed, how unhelpful your posts are to someone who is homosexual, NOT by their own choice but because that is who they happen to be. You have no idea at all what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes and I find your tiresome and uncaring tirades on this forum to be most offensive.

I would not take any cult like ramblings on this forum seriously-

You can almost place the ramblings in the same catagory of the KKK, storm front , and neonazis.

 

[IamRedeemed]

The truth is sometimes "hurtful" to those who don't want to receive it. Homosexuals are no different than any of the rest of us who have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The Word of God says that is ALL of us. (Romans 3:23) We ALL have to repent and turn away from our sinful lifestyles when we come to Christ no matter what they are. If they are on God's list as sin, we need to turn away from them. Homosexual practices are among those on the list. I'm sorry about that, you are wrong that it is God's will for your life and you have to make a choice and deal with the sin of your flesh the same as is required of all of us. We cannot have Jesus and our sinful lifestyles too, we have to choose one or the other.

You just don't realize, IamRedeemed, how unhelpful your posts are to someone who is homosexual, NOT by their own choice but because that is who they happen to be. You have no idea at all what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes and I find your tiresome and uncaring tirades on this forum to be most offensive.

 

[KCKID]

I would not take any cult like ramblings on this forum seriously-

You can almost place the ramblings in the same catagory of the KKK, storm front , and neonazis.

Yes, I do realize this, catlover, but IamRedeemed appears to speak for the majority of Christians on this issue and they are by no means a minority group. I believe that Christianity in general – some professed Christians SPECIFICALLY - have been largely responsible for having driven the so-called 'gay agenda' to become today a force to be reckoned with. 'Gays' have been goaded into defending with such vigor what is to them no more than an involuntary sexual orientation they were blessed with that they’ve gained strength in numbers along the way. They desire no more than to share a life unhampered by bigots with the partner of their choice. According to the bigots, God says that they can't do that unless it happens to be with a partner of the opposite gender, otherwise they are doomed to eternal torment.

What?

Christians can give themselves an ironic pat on the back for helping to create a situation that has unfortunately backfired on them. History should - SHOULD is the operative word - teach us that any oppressed or maligned group will eventually rise up against those who created the situation to begin with. And, it stands to reason why this is so.

I believe that some/many Christians are promoting (even if unintentionally) the very evil that they preach against; however, they are so blinded by bigotry that they cannot see this. I am not 'gay' personally - not that I would need to justify myself to any religious group if I was - but I honestly cannot believe how the issue of homosexuality has been given a life of its own by the Christian Church. This focus on homosexuality is generally to the exclusion of the many REAL sins that Christians should be concentrating on such as the unbridled greed of the powerful in all of its forms that is creating a permanent underclass in society. Christianity has – and perhaps has always had – its priorities backward.

 

[David Brider]

The truth is sometimes "hurtful" to those who don't want to receive it. Homosexuals are no different than any of the rest of us who have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The Word of God says that is ALL of us. (Romans 3:23) We ALL have to repent and turn away from our sinful lifestyles when we come to Christ no matter what they are. If they are on God's list as sin, we need to turn away from them. Homosexual practices are among those on the list.

But being homosexual isn't.

David.

 

[*Starlight*]

Though I don't agree with homosexuality (now or ever)

Maybe you will. Your current knowledge isn't perfect and absolute (no one's knowledge is), so you may eventually come across a fact that's going to convince you to change your mind.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Your presumption is astonishing.

I made no presumption. I made a speculation.

We aren't talking about rape or sexual assault as it happens in today's world

Anyone who would assume it was any less brutal in a culture where strangers were the enemy and womena and children were property is not looking at it very realistically.

we must consider that the rape in question may refer to kidnapping and not to sexual activity.

And so is that not also coupled with an assumption the "Sabine Women" consented to sex with the early Romans?

I am skeptical of your claim that Jesus would have been raped

I made no "claim" I merely expressed it was likely. Perhaps it was not as there were plenty of women available for the troops to brutalize.

It is dangerous, when talking about history, to make assumptions based upon our modern experiences.

Then stop doing it.

 

[Texas Lynn]

The contents of this post is evidence of lack of study in the Word of God
and the covenants and lack of the leading of the Holy Ghost.

I didn't realize we were being subjected to examination by those in charge of self-righteousness.

 

[Texas Lynn]

then preaching the idea that 'Jesus was probably raped' is heresy

...the content of that post was purely blasphemous.

You are entirely in no position to judge me. Your ridiculous accusations of 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' are merely your opinion and nothing other than that.

These are the words that come out when the extremists are losing the argument, the old kitchen sink tactic.

 

[catlover]

Yes, I do realize this, catlover, but IamRedeemed appears to speak for the majority of Christians on this issue and they are by no means a minority group. I believe that Christianity in general – some professed Christians SPECIFICALLY - have been largely responsible for having driven the so-called 'gay agenda' to become today a force to be reckoned with. 'Gays' have been goaded into defending with such vigor what is to them no more than an involuntary sexual orientation they were blessed with that they’ve gained strength in numbers along the way. They desire no more than to share a life unhampered by bigots with the partner of their choice. According to the bigots, God says that they can't do that unless it happens to be with a partner of the opposite gender, otherwise they are doomed to eternal torment.

What?

Christians can give themselves an ironic pat on the back for helping to create a situation that has unfortunately backfired on them. History should - SHOULD is the operative word - teach us that any oppressed or maligned group will eventually rise up against those who created the situation to begin with. And, it stands to reason why this is so.

I believe that some/many Christians are promoting (even if unintentionally) the very evil that they preach against; however, they are so blinded by bigotry that they cannot see this. I am not 'gay' personally - not that I would need to justify myself to any religious group if I was - but I honestly cannot believe how the issue of homosexuality has been given a life of its own by the Christian Church. This focus on homosexuality is generally to the exclusion of the many REAL sins that Christians should be concentrating on such as the unbridled greed of the powerful in all of its forms that is creating a permanent underclass in society. Christianity has – and perhaps has always had – its priorities backward.

I honestly do know why so much energy is placed on "saving the world" from homosexuals...the world needs to be saved from war mongers like George W. and others like him.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Why do gays and atheist or atheistic gays or gays who claim to be
disciples of Christ construe preaching the truth of God's Word as hate?

Look at the identifications there being used for some good clues:

First there's "gays"-kind of neutral but still an identification of some as "the other".

Then there's "atheist"-it doesn't seem anyone's belief system was being addressed in this thread.

Then "atheistic gays"-a double whammy. I may have missed it but I don't think anyone identified themselves as that.

Finally "gays who claim to be disciples of Christ"-the term "claim" appearing to indicate in your opinion they engage in deception by saying so, or or otherwise not correct in identifying as such-a sneering, cruel characterization.

After that, a characterization of what antigay individuals do as "preaching the truth of God's Word". Obviously there is not agreement that that is what is occurring. I certainly do not believe it is.

 

[Texas Lynn]

You just don't realize, IamRedeemed, how unhelpful your posts are to someone who is homosexual, NOT by their own choice but because that is who they happen to be. You have no idea at all what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes and I find your tiresome and uncaring tirades on this forum to be most offensive.

I don't think to be "helpful" is the intent.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Homosexual practices are among those on the list.

Some disagree. I certainly disagree with the cruel characterization of another's capacity to love as a "practice".

 

[IamRedeemed]

Actually the person I addressed is by self-profession, both "gay" and "atheistic",
hence my response accordingly.

[/color][/font][/size]

Look at the identifications there being used for some good clues:

First there's "gays"-kind of neutral but still an identification of some as "the other".

Then there's "atheist"-it doesn't seem anyone's belief system was being addressed in this thread.

Then "atheistic gays"-a double whammy. I may have missed it but I don't think anyone identified themselves as that.

Finally "gays who claim to be disciples of Christ"-the term "claim" appearing to indicate in your opinion they engage in deception by saying so, or or otherwise not correct in identifying as such-a sneering, cruel characterization.

After that, a characterization of what antigay individuals do as "preaching the truth of God's Word". Obviously there is not agreement that that is what is occurring. I certainly do not believe it is.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Maybe you will. Your current knowledge isn't perfect and absolute (no one's knowledge is), so you may eventually come across a fact that's going to convince you to change your mind.

We should always be aware that all have the capacity to change after having been involved in a pattern of inhumanity to others.

 

[IamRedeemed]

They cannot disagree. It is written. They can ignore or refuse to accept or acknowledge that it is written, they can also tear those pages out of their Bibles, and pretend they don't exist but none of us are able to "disagree" with God.

Some disagree. I certainly disagree with the cruel characterization of another's capacity to love as a "practice".

 

[Texas Lynn]

Actually the person I addressed is by self-profession, both "gay" and "atheistic",
hence my response accordingly.

Name?

 

[IamRedeemed]

Declaring what is clearly indicated by a person's mocking questions or statements as
evidence of their lack of Biblical knowledge has nothing to do with anyone's
righteousness, self or otherwise.

I didn't realize we were being subjected to examination by those in charge of self-righteousness.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Ahem. Are you the post police now? lol
Scroll back to my post in which you felt the need to criticize
and you will see the name in the quoted text to whom I replied.
If I didn't quote it, it would be the post directly above
my post, that you responded to, where ever that is.

Name?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Who's to say what's ridiculous or not? If you want to bait you're going to have to try a little harder.

It becomes ridiculous when one goes to the extreme effort to run all evidence on its own head as to negate its validity.
I'm not baiting you, not sure why you are being extremely defensive on the subject. Just questioning your post thats all.

Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly how wrong it is when interpreted in that manner.

why would someone interpret it in any other way, other than to make it agree with them? Would you call that Spirit-led interpretation or private interpretation? Scripture is truth, but truth does not conform to our wills, rather ours to it.

I suppose there is that remote possibility. Those that ARGUE that though-it's crystal clear that they are that at the very least given their selective emphasis of scriptural literalism to benefit their own ends.

I know there are people who do this, as well as some who are selective in their interpretations as to profess that God encourages and loves gay sex. Are either ones right? by scripture?

That may be what you THINK you are doing but in that arrogant assumption you would be sorely mistaken. You are, of course, not in any position at all to know "false" teaching from "true" teaching and the arrogant pronouncement that you are is most unfortunate.

Well that confirms that you know absolutely nothing about me. If you wish to see me as arrogant, then you have that right.

Am I a biblical scholar? Nope. Are you? Perhaps, but unlikely. What does the vast majority of biblical scholars say about same-sex sex?

I never once claimed to know it all, and in fact I constantly reiterate that a man's salvation is between Him and God. I do not condemn any person, yet I am called arrogant. If I am in error then be quick to correct me, as I have never claimed perfection, only given the grace of God through the Holy Spirit to speak the truth. Unfortunately He doesn't hand out diplomas so I guess I have no pull in the arena of man.


Take care!

 

[Texas Lynn]

Declaring what is clearly indicated by a person's mocking questions or statements as
evidence of their lack of Biblical knowledge has nothing to do with anyone's
righteousness, self or otherwise.

Saying it's "clearly indicated" and "mocking" does.