Time to end this.

[BreadAlone]

Well now you seem to be saying that such a comparison is somehow not an act of love at all.

Worse you seem to be offended. You specifically said you would not be
“It wouldn’t offend me” http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=45572779&postcount=54

Why are you offended?

I know I said I wouldn't be offended..I should've deleted that and just left the "it's not applicable" bit.

But still, the difference here is that it is a lie, and I never lied and called homosexuals pedophiles. I merely called them sinners.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Really? Then why not compare it to things less visceral? Say "Being gay is as bad as over eating!" or "Being gay is as bad as judging your brother!"? You want to know why people don't say it like that? Because it doesn't sound as nasty. People in the Church make excuses for people who over eat or people who judge others, but like it or not most people see a hierarchy of sin, and in that hierarchy being gay is seen as the same as being a pedophile, not someone who judges others. See the difference?
tulc(one of those things you learn on your way to trying to be a compassionate Christian)

Whatever, Being gay is as bad as eating meat offered to idols in front of a brother who is struggling, it doesn't make it anymore right.

 

[KCKID]

Whatever, Being gay is as bad as eating meat offered to idols in front of a brother who is struggling, it doesn't make it anymore right.

Ishida, what does 'being gay' mean to you? Are you referring to 'the act of sodomy' or are you referring to one's 'sexual predisposition?'

Some of these posts are so vague that it's a wonder anyone knows what someone else is talking about. What exactly is 'the sin of homosexuality' that some of you keep referring to?

'Being gay' . . .what DOES that even mean to most of you?

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Ishida, what does 'being gay' mean to you? Are you referring to 'the act of sodomy' or are you referring to one's 'sexual predisposition?'

Some of these posts are so vague that it's a wonder anyone knows what someone else is talking about. What exactly is 'the sin of homosexuality' that some of you keep referring to?

'Being gay' . . .what DOES that even mean to most of you?

The act.

 

[KCKID]

The act.

Sodomy . . .?

 

[David Brider]

Dear David Brider,
Ok of you are so observant please show me, I will not be surprised if there are instances I am quite prepared to be corrected, but please show me some phrases which indicate this.

I'm not naming names, but there are some folks, in some threads (including, but not limited to, this one) whose attitude to homosexual men and women appears to be motivated by hatred rather than love. It's not difficult to spot. I suggest you go through some of the threads with an open mind and ask yourself: If you were a homosexual man or woman reading some of this material, would you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe that the people typing some of these messages were doing so in a spirit of love, or out of hatred?

No Biblical texts are out of context in themselves, and it is the actual Biblical texts that cause the trouble.

No, it's not the Biblical texts per se that are the problem, it's the attitude of hostility with which they're sometimes communicated.

Of the texts given I see denying what the Biblical texts say as justifying disbelief and an indication of hatred against God’s word,

We've been over this before. You seem unwilling to countenance any interpretation or translation of the texts other than the one you agree with, and have decided that all such differing interpretations and translations indicate disbelief and hatred against God's word.

You are wrong about this.

how come? When I was referring to those of us who believe Jesus Christ’s Biblical testimony as in 1 Corinthians 6:9 NIV “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” I would say many round here don’t believe in Jesus Christ’s Biblical testimony.

I'd say you're wrong to limit Jesus Christ's Biblical testimony to two verses which don't even mention Him. Jesus Christ's Biblical testimony IMO is firstly, the gospel records of His life on earth, and secondly, the rest of the Bible (since He's part of the Trinity), and throughout that, the message that comes to the fore for me is that, yes, we're all sinners who've fallen short of God's glory, but through Jesus we can have eternal life as children of God. Personally, I think that's wonderful and glorious and something to be celebrated, and I'm not sure that constantly haranguing homosexual men and women really does anything to celebrate it, or to bring those homosexual men and women who aren't Christians any closer to being Christians (as opposed to driving them further away from the Kingdom than they might already be).

Your experience may differ.

David.

 

[David Brider]

Whatever, Being gay is as bad as eating meat offered to idols in front of a brother who is struggling, it doesn't make it anymore right.

How can being gay (which involves simply being inclined to be attracted to people of the same gender as oneself, through no choice of one's own) in anyway compare to eating meat (which is a specific action and which is something one chooses)?

David.

 

[David Brider]

The act.

What "act" does being gay involve?

David.

 

[BreadAlone]

What "act" does being gay involve?

David.

Sex with people of the same gender. Come now, you know this.

 

[David Brider]

Sex with people of the same gender. Come now, you know this.

Being gay involves being inclined to be attracted to people of the same gender as oneself.

In much the same way that being straight involves being inclined to be attracted to people of the same gender as oneself.

The actual physical sex bit of the equation is not necessary to being gay or being straight. Someone can be gay or straight and never have had physical sex.

Surely you know this?

David.

 

[BreadAlone]

Being gay involves being inclined to be attracted to people of the same gender as oneself.

In much the same way that being straight involves being inclined to be attracted to people of the same gender as oneself.

The actual physical sex bit of the equation is not necessary to being gay or being straight. Someone can be gay or straight and never have had physical sex.

Surely you know this?

David.

I'd have to disagree. I don't believe one is a homosexual unless they've had homosexual sex. Just like one is not a liar until they've lied, or an adulterer until they've commited adultery. Thankfully Christians are none of these things in their new, sanctified life in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

 

[David Brider]

I'd have to disagree. I don't believe one is a homosexual unless they've had homosexual sex.

'Fraid you're wrong on this one. A homosexual is someone who's inclined to be attracted to people of the same gender as him- or her- self. Whether he or she has engaged in a sexual act is irrelevant.

Would you say that someone isn't a heterosexual unless they've had heterosexual sex? Or that one isn't a bisexual unless they've had sex with people of both genders?

David.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I know I said I wouldn't be offended..I should've deleted that and just left the "it's not applicable" bit.

But still, the difference here is that it is a lie, and I never lied and called homosexuals pedophiles. I merely called them sinners.

I didn’t say you called anyone anything.

You said that comparing someone to a pedophile is an act of love. However it obviously is not it is an act of hatred no matter how it is spun

 

[BigBadWlf]

The act.

People are gay no matter what they are doing.

Just like someone can be black even in they are in a room without any light.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I'd have to disagree. I don't believe one is a homosexual unless they've had homosexual sex. Just like one is not a liar until they've lied, or an adulterer until they've commited adultery. Thankfully Christians are none of these things in their new, sanctified life in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Are people who are virgins heterosexual?

are these comparisons more examples of being "loving"?

 

[KCKID]

I'm not naming names, but there are some folks, in some threads (including, but not limited to, this one) whose attitude to homosexual men and women appears to be motivated by hatred rather than love. It's not difficult to spot. I suggest you go through some of the threads with an open mind and ask yourself: If you were a homosexual man or woman reading some of this material, would you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe that the people typing some of these messages were doing so in a spirit of love, or out of hatred?

I won't name names either but there are at least two individuals on this forum who DO NOT come across as posting in the spirit of love in regard to this issue. There are several others that are 'borderline' in this regard and possibly one person - maybe two - who apparantly oppose the acts asscociated with homosexuality but nevertheless appear to have a sincere and compassionate (?) heart toward those who ARE homosexual.

No, it's not the Biblical texts per se that are the problem, it's the attitude of hostility with which they're sometimes communicated.

Precisely. In fact, if one is TRULY considerate of the homosexual they would not keep producing these (few) and ambiguous scriptures to begin with. Furthermore, the average homosexual has heard them all a million times previously. A mere reading of them or having them thrust upon them NEVER turned a 'gay' person 'straight.' There is absolutely no point in trying to drive home something that likely does not apply to them anyway. The Bible-thumpers need to give it a rest and start to think for themselves.

We've been over this before. You seem unwilling to countenance any interpretation or translation of the texts other than the one you agree with, and have decided that all such differing interpretations and translations indicate disbelief and hatred against God's word.

You are wrong about this.

To be honest, I don't much care if 'they' consider that they are right or wrong. At the end of the day they are quoting mere WORDS from a book (albeit the Bible) that do NOT affect one's sexual disposition one way or the other. In fact, I would like to hear from one former homosexual on this forum who is now a heterosexual after having been constantly bombarded on these threads with a few ambiguous texts from the Bible.

Just one!

I'd say you're wrong to limit Jesus Christ's Biblical testimony to two verses which don't even mention Him.

Oh, I SO agree with you on this. The words of Paul, a mere mortal, become the words of God. Isn't this tantamount to blasphemy? The thing is, Jesus said NARY A WORD about homosexuality. So, if we go by the words of Jesus alone, homosexuality is not even an issue.

Jesus Christ's Biblical testimony IMO is firstly, the gospel records of His life on earth, and secondly, the rest of the Bible (since He's part of the Trinity), and throughout that, the message that comes to the fore for me is that, yes, we're all sinners who've fallen short of God's glory, but through Jesus we can have eternal life as children of God. Personally, I think that's wonderful and glorious and something to be celebrated, and I'm not sure that constantly haranguing homosexual men and women really does anything to celebrate it, or to bring those homosexual men and women who aren't Christians any closer to being Christians (as opposed to driving them further away from the Kingdom than they might already be).

Your experience may differ.

I can do no more than to agree whole-heartedly with you.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Precisely. In fact, if one is TRULY considerate of the homosexual they would not keep producing these (few) and ambiguous scriptures to begin with.

Most of the time, speaking for myself, they are only produced in an effort to provide and substantiate a differing opinion to something that is stated as truth.

Furthermore, the average homosexual has heard them all a million times previously. A mere reading of them or having them thrust upon them NEVER turned a 'gay' person 'straight.' There is absolutely no point in trying to drive home something that likely does not apply to them anyway. The Bible-thumpers need to give it a rest and start to think for themselves.

Please do not generalize about those who intensely study and follow scripture. It's not about not-thinking for ourselves, its about someone making a statement that they proclaim is truth, or biblically backed, and then a counter-point being produced. The bible defines sin, as well as our relationship to God, so it is an integral point in our walk with Him, at least for me it is, anyway.

To be honest, I don't much care if 'they' consider that they are right or wrong. At the end of the day they are quoting mere WORDS from a book (albeit the Bible) that do NOT affect one's sexual disposition one way or the other. In fact, I would like to hear from one former homosexual on this forum who is now a heterosexual after having been constantly bombarded on these threads with a few ambiguous texts from the Bible.

Just one!

I can't help you with that. Although, calling the bible a 'mere book', and stating that the texts (on this subject) are 'ambiguous' I feel is misguided.

Oh, I SO agree with you on this. The words of Paul, a mere mortal, become the words of God.

Not entirely, but Paul's direction was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not unlike the rest of scripture.

Isn't this tantamount to blasphemy?

No one ever said Paul is God, and it is agreed that He spoke the things of God. The same goes for luke, matthew, john, the OT writers, etc.

The thing is, Jesus said NARY A WORD about homosexuality. So, if we go by the words of Jesus alone, homosexuality is not even an issue.

Jesus didn't say anything in the bible at all. All we read is what someone said that Jesus said. With the case of Luke, he wrote his gospel as well as most (if not all) of Paul's epistles. So basically, you aren't going by what Jesus said, you are going by what matthew, mark, luke, and john say that Jesus said. If you distrust Paul's epistles, then you must also distrust the rest of scripture on the same point.


And I agree that it is our first and foremost job on this earth to love our God as well as one another. That is a lifetime lasting job, also


I hope to clarify my position. God bless.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear BigBadWlf,

Well Ishida refused to actually answer the questions of this post. Maybe you will be honest enough to do so

Christian groups routinely and knowingly lie about homosexuals and homosexuality. How is this not an act of hate?

Ex-gay ministries routinely and knowingly lie about homosexuals and homosexuality. How is this not an act of hate?

How is advocating discrimination against an entire minority not an act of hate?

How is comparing gays and lesbians to pedophiles, murders, thieves, liars not an act of hate?

<staff edit>
Also on the last point, why wouldn&#8217;t we all find Jesus Christ&#8217;s teaching hateful as I am sure many of us like me are guilty of theft and lying so we are compared with murderers in Mark 7 for example? We don&#8217;t because we know from this what love has saved us. <staff edit>

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

I'm not naming names, but there are some folks, in some threads (including, but not limited to, this one) whose attitude to homosexual men and women appears to be motivated by hatred rather than love. It's not difficult to spot. I suggest you go through some of the threads with an open mind and ask yourself:

I didn&#8217;t ask you to name names, I asked you to show me the phrases, and it is difficult to spot as I don&#8217;t see any&#8230; hence the reason I asked you.

If you were a homosexual man or woman reading some of this material, would you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe that the people typing some of these messages were doing so in a spirit of love, or out of hatred?

Well I would say the Christians are some homosexuals aren&#8217;t. I agree with you as I think Christians are to tell the gospel, following Christ&#8217;s teaching is something one does when one has accepted Christ as Lord. With gay and lesbian friends I try to share the gospel in general. I think Jesus came across this with the rich young man who wanted to justify himself. Jesus addressed his &#8216;barrier&#8217; and he went away sad.

We've been over this before. You seem unwilling to countenance any interpretation or translation of the texts other than the one you agree with, and have decided that all such differing interpretations and translations indicate disbelief and hatred against God's word.

No again I am talking about the texts themselves, I am happy with the Bible translations and can see they are ok. Some are happy to quote &#8216;love ones neighour as oneself&#8217; Should I suggest a better translation would be &#8216;same-sex sex is error&#8217;? You try and claim texts you don&#8217;t like are interpretation. The text is the text, it says what it says., the Bible translations put before you say what they say and they are accurate.
Tell me this, if you think the Bible should be re-translated how much of it do you think would change as a general guess? Were you thinking of just the bits that you don&#8217;t like about same-sex unions?

I'd say you're wrong to limit Jesus Christ's Biblical testimony to two verses which don't even mention Him.

I don&#8217;t limit Jesus Christ&#8217;s Biblical testimony, you do. This was an example and one of many you limit by not believing.

Personally, I think that's wonderful and glorious and something to be celebrated, and I'm not sure that constantly haranguing homosexual men and women really does anything to celebrate it, or to bring those homosexual men and women who aren't Christians any closer to being Christians (as opposed to driving them further away from the Kingdom than they might already be).

On the contrary there is no homosexual or heterosexual in Christ Jesus, no male or female, Christians just tell men and women about the gospel. Of you are telling homosexual men they can be homosexual sinners and still be saved you are giving them a false gospel. This is gay theology it is gay based not Christ based.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Dear BigBadWlf,
<staff edit>
Also on the last point, why wouldn&#8217;t we all find Jesus Christ&#8217;s teaching hateful as I am sure many of us like me are guilty of theft and lying so we are compared with murderers in Mark 7 for example? We don&#8217;t because we know from this what love has saved us. <staff edit> [/quote]
Christians don&#8217;t lie about gays and lesbians?

Since when?

Focus on the Family doesn&#8217;t&#8217; lie about homosexuals?
The Family research council doesn&#8217;t lie about homosexuals
Concerned Woman of America Doesn&#8217;t lie about homosexuals?
NARTH doesn&#8217;t lie about homosexuals?

You must have changed the definition of lying