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.
I also do not think that one makes a choice "from today I will be a homosexual or a bisexual or a pedophile or any *phile". Its a long process, more like an addiction than a choice.I am sure God loves gays and lesbians like He loves everybody.
I do not feel sexual orientation is a choice, but rather something established very early in life by factors we do not fully understand.
Odd, that doesn’t seem moderate to me at all. Isn’t that pretty much what conservative Christians are saying now?
That's right. It doesn't mean that anything that anyone does is approved by him simply because he loves all his creatures, however.I am sure God loves gays and lesbians like He loves everybody.
I also do not think that one makes a choice "from today I will be a homosexual or a bisexual or a pedophile or any *phile". Its a long process, more like an addiction than a choice.
But its a choice in the meaning than everybody can influence his/her ways of thinking, self-discipline, chastity or direction...
That's right. It doesn't mean that anything that anyone does is approved by him simply because he loves all his creatures, however.
But what does the Bible mean when it says God is love? I think we project our own idea of love into God sometimes, and don't try to understand the nature of God's Love.
I have been trying to figure this out for quite a while. I want to avoid the extremes if that is possible. So I would not argue against a form of civil partnership for non-christians, but disagree with same sex marriage. I would argue that Christians who wish to have prayer for wholeness including overcoming homosexual desires should be allowed to seek that out and psychotherapy too if they want, but that those who don't want to travel that road celibacy should be encouraged. No one should be forced to go for therapy, either secular or religious. I don't agree with practicing homosexuals being leaders in the church, or the blessing of same-sex relationships. Homosexuals seeking to live celebate lives should not be refused communion. Forgiveness and grace should be extended when people fail.
Does this avoid extremes of both the liberal and conservative sorts?
We need to love homosexual people as we love ourselves. This means not just tolerate them in Church, but giving them full rights as a member of the Church. i believe therefore that a homosexual who fights their sins and remain celibate could well be fit for leadership in Church.
I agree with you on everything except for this. The secular population has agreed to give homosexuals the right to marry based on their brainwashing through Satanically controlled media, especially TV over the generations.
They don't have a right to sin. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to cause a debate and I might have misunderstood you, but I just want to state that I think that the effects of homosexuality should be taught in schools because it's a perversion, it destroys families, and it distorts children who are exposed to it.
Ok I seem to have misunderstood the purpose of this forum. Thanks for explaining.
The debate in the public sphere was lost a long time ago, so this isn't much of a concession on your part, just acknowledgment of the minimum that should be expected in civil society.
Christians who believe they should be able to control peoples private lives involving two consenting adults are not "conservative", they are simply wrong.
A secular union would obviously be outside the Body of Christ and not recognized as a marriage by the Body of Christ any more than we would recognize co-habitation as marriage within the Body of Christ.
As to whether unbelievers have a "right" to sin, I'd say as a practical matter that God has certainly given them unfettered ability to sin and cautioned us that He will judge them--not us. Whatever "right" means is irrelevant in that context.
Well that's what I think - but there is pressure to legalise same-sex marriage in parts of the world, even were civil partnerships legislation has been enacted and those partnerships are viewed as equal with marriage. When that is the case I don't think same-sex marriage is needed. I also think marriage between man and woman should receive a tax incentive.
I think those we do have a say as citizens in social policy, in who we vote for etc, and if given a vote on these things in a referendum.
There are also instances of people being momentarily unable to control their homosexual urges and being told by others when this happens "that's normal"! The same may happen amongst hetrosexuals, but its not often met with such sympathy or understanding! Those who defend the normality of sex-same attraction can do so if they want, but if its not kept under control, its no more acceptable in public than a man suddenly grabbing at a women which would not be tolerated or called "normal" nowadays. I know that people both homosexual and hetrosexual can have impulse control issues, but it should not be said "that's normal!"
I don't agree with gay marriage, or gay "shacking up" under any secular law. You are correct in your second paragraph, I agree that "right" is irrelevant but sin is sin. What's next, people should be able to rape or murder? I mean, come on, stand up for something.
Nobody gets to choose his or her tempations.
And nobody has ever chosen to be gay.
Sure, but at the same time, you can't justifiably complain about social censure and disapproval when people view those beliefs as groundless, irrational, or repugnant. Free association works both ways.
Conservatives can be moderates, but aren't necessarily so. A moderate position would recognize pragmatism and realism as important principles to be respected.
Point A is not a correct understanding of what liberalism actually represents, nor of liberal attitudes in general. Many of our founding fathers in the US were liberals, but they also recognized moral discipline was essential to being a civilized human being. In addition, there are liberals who still take the Bible seriously, even if they understand it in very different terms, and it's not fair to dismiss that merely due to religious sectarianism.
The sensible approach is to realize and accept that we do not live in a theocracy. Those outside the church should be able to do whatever it is that they want to do, so long as whatever it is that they want to do is legal. God doesn't force himself on us, so I've never understood why we force our beliefs on others. If you are in the church, you will be judged by the church; if you are outside of the church, it isn't our business. We have enough to deal with as it is. His kingdom is not of this world.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?