Sin is Sin All Sins Are Equal.

[IamRedeemed]

I am not familiar with the rest of that site as I found it looking for a source for you all that you could read it from on the web, as that particular info I have here but did not have the source.

But on the bottom of the page where I did find they had that info that I also had, without the source is a list of their references and sources for their information which is this:

(1) "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet, April 25, 1987.
(2) Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.
(3) Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
(4) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.
(5) Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992.
(6) Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254.
(7) Lesbian News, January 1994.
(8) Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11.
(9) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy
(10) Newsweek, 4 October 1993.
(11) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.
(12) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322.
(13) Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1990.
(14) United States Census Bureau
(15) United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.
(16) University of Chicago's Nation Research Corp.
(17) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
(18) "The Overhauling of Straight America." Guide Magazine. November, 1987.
​

Before I respond to your other post, I'm just curious....
Your first link doesn't work....I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that you got this information from www.bibleartbooks.com?
Yeah, I'm SURE that they are an accredited authority on these matters and will present things in an unbiased, accurate manner. Just for laughs, I will go see what they have to say.

 

[onemessiah]

What's wrong with that, people who agree with you who claim Christianity in these threads do that very thing with the Bible (pick and choose what's right and what isn't from the same source) and you're in support of it when they do it.

Why is it ok when they do it - becuz you agree with theirs?

First of all, get your facts straight. I don't support anyone who picks and chooses. Don't put words in my mouth. I agree with their beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

Second, it makes you as bad as they are (if it is even true they do such things). Pretty childish to suggest it's ok to pick and choose. You seem to have a high opinion of yourself, so don't stoop to their level.

Third, how about simply answering the question I asked?

 

[onemessiah]

I am not familiar with the rest of that site as I found it looking for a source for you all that you could read it from on the web, as that particular info I have here but did not have the source.

But on the bottom of the page where I did find they had that info that I also had, without the source is a list of their references and sources for their information which is this:

(1) "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet, April 25, 1987.
(2) Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.
(3) Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
(4) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.
(5) Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992.
(6) Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254.
(7) Lesbian News, January 1994.
(8) Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11.
(9) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy
(10) Newsweek, 4 October 1993.
(11) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.
(12) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322.
(13) Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1990.
(14) United States Census Bureau
(15) United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.
(16) University of Chicago's Nation Research Corp.
(17) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
(18) "The Overhauling of Straight America." Guide Magazine. November, 1987.
​

That is correct....those are the sources of information that your link uses to spread out of date, unofficial and biased/inaccurate information about homosexuals.

 

[IamRedeemed]

You are mistaken in claiming vaguely that the information
I shared is 30 years old and dismissing the whole post.
The information from the Center for Disease Control (CDC)
is hardly 30 years old. and MOST of the information regarding
disease statistics was derived from there.

PS. Regarding the sexual partner information. I am sure I can find
more recent information to support the fact that the data
is just as accurate currently and we will probably find that the stats
are even more damning and I will find them and provide them.
Not sure you know how long that post took. I could have just written
the info I have here without internet sources for you all to check out
but I made the effort to do so. And I will make a further effort to show
that the partnering habits of homosexuals have not improved in the least.
And when I do what will you say then?
The fact that 37 homosexual men arrested in one night at one Home Depot
(or whatever)in one city (recently) for having anonymous sex in the parking lot
is very telling indeed.

No, I'm not mistaken about anything.
When I responded to your post, I looked at the code in your message to find what link you were trying to post. It is the one I listed. Simply visiting that link will confirm this, since the info is RIGHT THERE.

And FYI, articles thirty years old aren't "recent"....

Anyway, how about addressing my responses instead of squabbling over this.

 

[onemessiah]

You are mistaken in claiming vaguely that the information
I shared is 30 years old and dismissing the whole post.
The information from the Center for Disease Control (CDC)
is hardly 30 years old. and MOST of the information regarding
disease statistics was derived from there.

I was refering to the biblebookarts.com link you posted, the majority of it was nearly thirty years old.

I haven't dismissed the rest of your post. I already moved on to the free republic, and await your response to that. They're the ones who I pointed out that they concede homosexuality isn't a concious decision, remember?

I will get to the rest shortly. It takes time to read this stuff.

 

[onemessiah]

You are mistaken in claiming vaguely that the information
I shared is 30 years old and dismissing the whole post.
The information from the Center for Disease Control (CDC)
is hardly 30 years old. and MOST of the information regarding
disease statistics was derived from there.

PS. Regarding the sexual partner information. I am sure I can find
more recent information to support the fact that the data
is just as accurate currently and I will. And when I do, what will you say then?

If it's from a RELIABLE and NEUTRAL source, then I will thank you for teaching me something new.
If it's from some christian site or anything along those lines, don't bother.

 

[onemessiah]

The fact that 37 homosexual men arrested in one night at one Home Depot
(or whatever)in one city (recently) for having anonymous sex in the parking lot
is very telling indeed.

Yeah, it tells you that 37 homosexual men had an orgy.

We know straight people do no such things, right? Never heard of swinger parties, huh?

Thought so.

 

[onemessiah]

The url posted below and how it sounds is not relevant to the site contents.
in other words, it is not a site that mocks homosexuals, just fyi.

Right click on the blue question mark, open image.
Debatable whether or not they mock homosexuals.

 

[Nadiine]

Right click on the blue question mark, open image.
Debatable whether or not they mock homosexuals.

K... let me get this straight, mocking of homosexuals is wrong and bad........
but mocking conservative Christians is right?

If one is wrong, then so is the other - so before you go pointing fingers
at what's so wrong and intolerant, make sure you aren't doing the same or condoning others who do as well;
then you might be taken more seriously by others.

 

[onemessiah]

K... let me get this straight, mocking of homosexuals is wrong and bad........
but mocking conservative Christians is right?

If one is wrong, then so is the other - so before you go pointing fingers
at what's so wrong and intolerant, make sure you aren't doing the same or condoning others who do as well;
then you might be taken more seriously by others.

Evidence, please, (staff edit). When have I mocked conservative christians?

BTW, noticed you haven't answered my post about your backpedaling yet.
And do you really think I care if gay bashing strangers take me seriously or not? Don't flatter yourself.
I don't WANT to be accepted by people like that. However, not taking ME seriously is no excuse for not responding to my posts. Try doing that instead of bickering over every petty little thing you can think of.

And I'll explain it to you one last time. Just because so and so does something wrong, doesn't make it okay for you to do it. Adults consider that a childish mentality.

 

[onemessiah]

(staff edit)

Nevermind that for now, how about showing me where I've mocked conservative christians?
Pretty serious stuff to make an accusation like that without backing it up, or having the decency to ensure that is what I was doing or not.

 

[Nadiine]

Evidence, please, When have I mocked conservative christians? (staff edit, removed a quote of a post that staff has edited)

BTW, noticed you haven't answered my post about your backpedaling yet.
And do you really think I care if gay bashing strangers take me seriously or not? Don't flatter yourself.

I didn't backpeddle at all. Probly something like a few of those percieved "biblical contradictions" that are claimed that actually aren't contradictions at all but lack of biblical study regarding the subject.

I don't WANT to be accepted by people like that. However, not taking ME seriously is no excuse for not responding to my posts. Try doing that instead of bickering over every petty little thing you can think of.

And I don't need to be accepted by anyone who rejects the Lord or His word... so I guess we're even.

But how you arrive at "not taking ME seriously is no excuse for not responding to my posts." is beyond me. Who said I even READ them? I didn't see a post from you asking me anything becuz I just got back and caught the most recent post & replied to that & got a Pm I replied to.

So I have no idea what made you leap to attribute some ulterior motive regarding not taking you serious as to why I didn't reply to a post? ?

And I'll explain it to you one last time. Just because so and so does something wrong, doesn't make it okay for you to do it. Adults consider that a childish mentality.

Yes it is - but people follow that more often than they think they might.

I just came out of debate where people (liberalists) were judging right and wrong based on cultural standards and how 'harmless' something was because it works somewhere else.

 

[IamRedeemed]

The image is not intended to mock homosexuals and the webpage explains what the image is all about.
Without the explanation, one could be able to draw whatever conclusions, but since it does have an
explanation, and a statement below it from the owner(s) of it, the benefit of the doubt is due.
The image is intended to portray the psychological aspects that gays are not the proud
and happy that they claim to be, but how in reality many if not most deal with severe depression.
This is the first of many statistics regarding that:

"73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those
psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization"

Right below the image is this by the owner(s) of the image which proves there is no malice intended whatsoever:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This cartoon is Copyright © 2005 Robert Flores, BUT is free to be downloaded and may be used in ANY proper way to tell the
truth about homosexuality in conjunction with forgiveness found in Jesus Christ (yes, you are even allowed to sell this artwork).
Any other use of this artwork, to slander, cause libel or misrepresent the Christian point-of-view is against copyright law and is
punishable by federal law.[/FONT]

Right click on the blue question mark, open image.
Debatable whether or not they mock homosexuals.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Maybe she is referring to the mocking you did of the Holy Spirit
and the way He manifests Himself to born again believers, thereby
mocking the Holy Spirit as well as those who believe and experience
Him?

Just a guess.......

If exposing the truth about the homosexual lifestyle is considered gay bashing
(as you just called us gay bashing strangers), then so be it. I will expose the truth
about all the facets of harm that homosexuality produces, both spiritually, physically
and mentally, in the face of the consistent lies for as long as I have blood in my veins
and breath in my lungs. And I will gladly persevere all of the name calling to do it.

Evidence, please, (staff edit). When have I mocked conservative christians?

BTW, noticed you haven't answered my post about your backpedaling yet.
And do you really think I care if gay bashing strangers take me seriously or not? Don't flatter yourself.
I don't WANT to be accepted by people like that. However, not taking ME seriously is no excuse for not responding to my posts. Try doing that instead of bickering over every petty little thing you can think of.

And I'll explain it to you one last time. Just because so and so does something wrong, doesn't make it okay for you to do it. Adults consider that a childish mentality.

 

[IamRedeemed]

First off, this: is a personal attack that I'm requesting you to edit out before it gets reported when the report
feature is available.

It is harmful becuz it goes against God's established order for the family unit.
It is immoral, therefore, IT IS HARMFUL TO SOCIETY and those participating in it on a moral & spiritual level.

I don't expect a non Christian to see the harm in it; becuz they reject God's laws and moral standards.
They also don't see the wrong and harm in many other things Christians do. For that matter, you can justify abortion since you mite not see the "harm" it causes by the "good" you see it performing for people.

But the majority of women getting abortions are single who are having sex outside wedlock which is sin - that is harm.
Porn is often viewed as harmless - it's not harmless in many ways and even secular professionals will admit to what those are. But if you as a person LIKE porn, and think it's fine, you wont' see the harm in it.

Harm is relative to those who embrace relativism and morality is not relative. Essentially, you decide what is moral according to your standards (or lack thereof).

Redefining the marriage union is harmful to everyone as people are reconditioned to accept what is sinful and wrong. That is harm.
Whether you view it that way or not. And AS a non believer, we don't expect you to until God is allowed to change the heart.

There is more than physical harm involved in harm. There is emotional and spiritual harms to consider as well.

have you not read Jesus' definition of the marital unit?

Mat. 19
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Rebellion of God's moral standards leads to MORE rebellion and sin as it escalates into further depravity. It's like cancer. It grows and spreads and gets more invasive and intense.

Romans 1 explains how sin worsens as we continue to rebel and reject God's standards for us:
28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.
30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents.
31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy.
32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway.
Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

Societal examples already exist to prove how sin escalates and worsens when more boundaries are stepped over. The morality of most nations even 30 years ago is totally different than today's. It gets more immoral at time goes on.
Today you have 6th graders having oral sex in classrooms and on school buses.... the lists go on.

THAT is a form of harm because it leads to other immoral worldviews which broaden and get worse over time. It's rebellion of the established order God designed. 1 rebellion leads to the next.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Are you talking to me?
If so, my font size is only a 3.
And I don't bold my font, except the Scripture Book, Chapter, Verse #'s
usually. Your font hurts my eyes, personally.
2 is too small. I would consider 4 or bigger BIG (<---and that's bold too!)

And you are absolutely in error, and I have said why.
You, on the other hand, just repeat mantra. "you're wrong"
and for some odd reason that is supposed to suffice.

If you believe so strongly that I am wrong, show me the error of my ways
WITH the Scripture.

your interpretation of the Bible is flawed. Jesus was using a DEscriptive phrase, not a PROscriptive one.

What are the odds you are prepared to listen to me about this and consider the possibility of an error on your part?

Judgind by the super bold big font, I'm guessing slight

 

[Nadiine]

Backpedaling, aren't we? Whatever happened to your beliefs in post 177? You were so vehement about those very percieved and unpercieved harms just a few short posts ago, when it suit your argument at the time.

How do you arrive at backpeddling???! Both can be true - and I propose that both are true.

I BOTH find there is plenty of harm in homosexuality, AND I equally insist that there does not have to be ANY percievied or unpercieved harm in order to conclude that a sexual activity/lifestyle (or any other moral issue) is wrong when it goes against God's moral statutes.

First of all, just becuz 1 person doesn't perceive harm, does not mean that others don't. Or, that they are always correct. Unless we want to conclude that we are always right in our personal moral judgments all our lives.
We'd then have to conclude that noone has made moral misjudgments and has never regretted any moral acts they were involved with later in time.

I also went on to explain using a parent/child analogy - it is the mere disobedience of a command/rule/law/order given by a parent to a child that makes it wrong when they disobey it.
It does not matter what the child percieves about what they are told to do or NOT do - and, the parent doesn't have to have a specific reason for it [nor a "harm" as a consequence either]
We don't base obedience on "if I find it can be harmful enough", disobedience of one in authority is the issue.

The fact is that a child disobeying their authority becomes wrong becuz it's disobedience; (they don't have to know WHY they're told to do or not do something). Therefore, if and since God IS humanity's moral lawgiver (whether one accepts that or not), when HE says something is wrong or evil and not to do it, then disobedience of that whether or not we see any harmful consequences is still wrong.
We aren't God, just like the child is not the parent/authority.

Further, we DO have the Aids Statistics listing male homosexuals as the leading group in spreading and contracting Aids. THAT'S NOT A HARM? That goes ignored even when it IS found as a harm... why should we list even more when 1 already exists and is shoved under the rug?

But we don't need to cite any 'harms' (even tho plenty exist) in order to conclude if homosexuality is right or wrong. We have God's statements in both testaments.

Reference: (below is post #177 you refered to)
<snip>
It is harmful becuz it goes against God's established order for the family unit.
It is immoral, therefore, IT IS HARMFUL TO SOCIETY and those participating in it on a moral & spiritual level.

I don't expect a non Christian to see the harm in it; becuz they reject God's laws and moral standards.
They also don't see the wrong and harm in many other things Christians do. For that matter, you can justify abortion since you mite not see the "harm" it causes by the "good" you see it performing for people.

But the majority of women getting abortions are single who are having sex outside wedlock which is sin - that is harm.
Porn is often viewed as harmless - it's not harmless in many ways and even secular professionals will admit to what those are. But if you as a person LIKE porn, and think it's fine, you wont' see the harm in it.

Harm is relative to those who embrace relativism and morality is not relative. Essentially, you decide what is moral according to your standards (or lack thereof).

Redefining the marriage union is harmful to everyone as people are reconditioned to accept what is sinful and wrong. That is harm.
Whether you view it that way or not. And AS a non believer, we don't expect you to until God is allowed to change the heart.

There is more than physical harm involved in harm. There is emotional and spiritual harms to consider as well.

 

[Nadiine]

Judgind by the super bold big font, I'm guessing slight

You might want to be careful about your personal judgments on people's motives due to font styles.

I can't speak for her, but my personal post style is to use big print, I like bold right now becuz I haven't been allowed to set my font preferences at CF yet and I'm not fond of the blue bg which washes out the color & makes it harder for me to read - and I also use bold & underline emphasis to highlight points I want to make so they don't get missed.... (esp. by me when I proofread my text). I also use alot of color emphasis too.

Alot of that is due to my eyesight issues with some astigmatism & I'm nearsighted. I want to be able to proofread my posts without getting headaches and missing sentences.
So anyone reading anything more into my emotional state or personality is pure misjudgment on their part.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Can't. No such chapter, book or verse exists. The link between Sodom (capital S) and sodomy (lower case s) is purely a traditionaly one, stemming from Mediaeval Europe. It is utterly non-Biblical.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to LightHorseman again.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Lynn - Masters and Johnson are your sources for biblical issues??

Not being a fundamentalist I don't differentiate some issues as "Biblical" per se except when discussing meanings of scripture. Since scripture does not address "sodomy" that would not apply. Masters and Johnson were scientists, sexologists specifically. Just as Gallileo's work superceded "Biblical" concepts of cosmology so have other scientific advances superceded discredited concepts.

Imo thats why you dont get the actual definition of sodomy. Your getting the english secular definition. Genesis is where you can look Lynn - get a hebrew lexicon and start reading about sodom and gamorrah and look to the hebrew each instance of the word sodomite - you could also study the midrash as well to know how they were understood in hebrew - the linguistics and hermeneutics of this issue are way too detailed (as im guessing you know) for this thread.

The theory the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was due to homosexuality is discredited fully.

Anyone though who is interested in the biblical truth on this though will study it for themselves and I hope they do so instead of listening to anyone who is trying to twist whatever they can to make for sin allowance.

As opposed to those who 'twist" scripture to use it as a weapon against those they hate.