Why take such a stand against homosexuality?

[KCKID]

i didnt read the whole thread, that would be time consuming, but this:

Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

Hmmm . . .will there be anyone left to inherit or have a share in the kingdom of God? That's kind of a broad list. And, it's my understanding that we're ALL unrighteous.

I want to see as many people go to heaven as possible. truth is truth. thats why i take a stand against

Well, if everything in the Bible is truth then we'd better go on a killing spree tomorrow in order to fulfill the many commands of God that call for this. I think a good place to start would be those who profane the Sabbath. That's most of Christendom. Then we can round up all of those disobedient children and do away with them. Oh yes, the adulterers have to go too as do the homosexuals and the rape victims who didn't call out. After that we can go after those who . . .

Exodus 22:18. READ IT.

Well, I read it. Here it is: "Do not allow a sorceress to live."

 

[sidhe]

Well, I read it. Here it is: "Do not allow a sorceress to live."

Oh, dangit.

 

[b&wpac4]

"To what God shall a Gentile pray for a Jew?"

"To the same God who created them both."

Is that right? I think that's how it went... dang I can't remember the movie name, that's pathetic. With Liam Neeson's character saving Jewish prisoners from Nazi's?

Black and white?

It was a very good movie.

 

[KCKID]

To KCKID,
You know if I see something that not only goes against what the Bible says in context but has no Biblical support I will challenge it as false.

There are many things that the Bible says that have no place in today's world. It's up to us and our common sense to sift through the scriptures and determine what makes sense to us and what doesn't. We cannot accept it all for many obvious reasons. I know this is a tired old text that is used frequently to make a point. However, I'll use it again anyway since it's from the Bible. I have yet to execute a disobedient child even though I've been sorta tempted to do so at times. God, however, instructed this. If I tell you that I believe this kind of treatment of human beings is not only criminal but also insane and therefore I don't hold to it you're going to tell me that my belief has no biblical support ...right? Or have I taken this scripture 'out of context'? If so, who then determines what we use and what we toss out?

Let me ask you a question, one which I wouldn’t ask a non-Christian.

I am sure many of us would contest Fred Phelps view is fundamentally not Christian as well because if God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes shall not perish but have eternal life, (John 3:16) God can’t hate anyone because it says God loves and whoever believes.
However similarly I would deny that your view can be a Christian one either when same sex activity is excluded and condemned in the Bible as seen.

I'm not convinced that same sex activity IS condemned in the Bible. I'm ESPECIALLY not convinced that GOD would care one way or the other who is sexually attracted to whom. God is Spirit, not human. Many seem to visualize Him as being some cranky old f---t who relishes in pointing an angry finger at every opportunity as he grimaces at the world from His rocking chair. I don't. An all-powerful God would not be swayed by petty issues such as this one. And, He already knows that none of us can ever measure up to HIS status. So, my view on God and homosexuality is certainly not shared by mainstream Christianity and therefore my Christianity would be brought into question by that group anyway. By the way, I don't hold with a number of mainstream Christian beliefs ...it isn't just the topic of homosexuality that I have an issue with.

So do you accept that Fred Phelps interpretation that God hates homosexuals is also a valid interpretation? If not who gets to decide on which interpretation is right and why?

No, I don't accept anything that Fred Phelps does publicly. He is a pathetic man and really someone to be pitied. Then again, he's also a child of mainstream Christianity which has preached the message that God hates anyone considered to be unrighteous for years. I mean, if He's going to send homosexuals to hell then He MUST hate them ...right?

How arrogant of Fred Phelps and mainstream Christianity when the scriptures tell us that NONE are righteous ...no, not ONE!

As for who gets to decide on which interpretation is right ...that's easy. YOU get to decide. I get to decide. Shane Roach gets to decide. We EACH of us get to decide which interpretation is right. This is why no one is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Interpretation is a personal thing. And each of us need to accept that fact even if we don't like it. Sure, we can and may change as we mature in our faith/acquire more knowledge/receive greater light but it's still an individual/personal thing. What I believed 5 years ago is not necessarily what I believe today. What I believe today I may not necessarily believe in 5 year's time. I feel such fluidity with regard to beliefs/opinions would be true of many people.

Whatever, I'm sure that God has quite a motley crew walking alongside Him.

 

[Andreusz]

Well, I read it. Here it is: "Do not allow a sorceress to live."

To Justin.Parton: Are you seriously advocating the killing of 'witches'?

 

[KCKID]

Oh, dangit.

When Evangelical Christians start to get REALLY serious your days will be numbered!

 

[KCKID]

To Justin.Parton: Are you seriously advocating the killing of 'witches'?

Seems like it.

That was the scripture he emphasized to be read.

 

[sidhe]

To Justin.Parton: Are you seriously advocating the killing of 'witches'?

*waits with bated breath*

When Evangelical Christians start to get REALLY serious your days will be numbered!

I will head north via the woods, secreting myself amongst the Canadians.

 

[LightHorseman]

To Justin.Parton: Are you seriously advocating the killing of 'witches'?

Of course, the discussion over whether the modern understanding of the word "witch" is an appropriate translation of the Hebrew term is almost as fierce as discussion over the correct translation of arsenokoites.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Simple. If nature "wanted", (not the best terminology I know, but I was a history major) two men (or two women) to be able to reproduce and perpertuate the human species then we would have evolved different sex organs, etc.

Nature 'wants' our genes to be proliferated into the next generation. Homosexuality is like altruism: your genes are spread by proxy, not direct reproduction.

in order for two men (or two women) to reproduce on their own*. The fact is that two sperm cannot naturually meet up an produce another human. John and David cannot reproduce a Junior. The fact is that two eggs cannot meet up and naturally produce another human.

Correct. What's your point?

Notice that I did not mention God or cite any religious texts.

Oh, bravo.

This argument is completely secular and does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Your argument is incomplete. Yes, same-sex couples cannot naturally reproduce. So what? Neither can elderly couples, or infertile people. Should we condemn their relationships as morally wrong?

 

[KCKID]

*waits with bated breath*

I will head north via the woods, secreting myself amongst the Canadians.

No good. Most of them are 'gay', aren't they?

 

[sidhe]

No good. Most of them are 'gay', aren't they?

...I thought you were going to point out an issue with this plan?

 

[b&wpac4]

...I thought you were going to point out an issue with this plan?

Free health care, and too many Tim Horton's to count! FLAWS I tell you, FLAWS!

 

[sidhe]

Free health care, and too many Tim Horton's to count! FLAWS I tell you, FLAWS!

Vancouver and the Cowboy Junkies! I see too many possible issues with this...like, I don't know how to absorb it all...

 

[Shane Roach]

Of course, the discussion over whether the modern understanding of the word "witch" is an appropriate translation of the Hebrew term is almost as fierce as discussion over the correct translation of arsenokoites.

Channelers? Rock squirrels? Zebras?

 

[Garyzenuf]

*waits with bated breath*


I will head north via the woods, secreting myself amongst the Canadians.

No good. Most of them are 'gay', aren't they?

Only our lumber-jacks, but at least they can carry a tune...

*

 

[Criada]

Simple. If nature "wanted", (not the best terminology I know, but I was a history major) two men (or two women) to be able to reproduce and perpertuate the human species then we would have evolved different sex organs, etc. in order for two men (or two women) to reproduce on their own*. The fact is that two sperm cannot naturually meet up an produce another human. John and David cannot reproduce a Junior. The fact is that two eggs cannot meet up and naturally produce another human. Yes, I am aware that some scientists are trying to get sperm together and get them to reproduce on their own, etc. That raises serious ethical concerns. Why not take a stand to perpetuate our species instead of encouraging behaviors that directly challenge the very existence to our species?

*I'm sure a trained biologist can explain this much better than this history gal can, and for those interested I reccommend going to a bookstore and picking up books written by well-known evolutionists.

Notice that I did not mention God or cite any religious texts. This argument is completely secular and does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Trained biologist here
In many species only a small number of individuals reproduce. Read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins, if you are looking for a fairly simple text explaining how many individuals ensure the continuation of their genetic material without actually reproducing themselves.

 

[dogar]

OK me again.

I have read all the twenty four pages and have come to this conclusion, which I thank you for.

We can either take the Bible to be completely true, or use intelligence and reason which God has provided us with and select those parts which we see as the word of God.

This idea of 'pick n' mix' causes many Christians to react strongly without understanding that they do just the same. The question is, where to draw the line? I am beginning to understand that I can be a homosexual as well as a Christian, as long as I do not have sex before marriage/ civil union - same rules must apply.

The last load of pages have been about the drawing of the line, and I think that as we all have an entitlement to our opinions, with the vast majority of the people debating are convinced that they are correct, and will not change their opinions. For the minority (a buzz word in this thread) who have not made up their mind I hope that the last 24 pages can swing it for you.

Liberalism or Conservatism.

I have always found it annoying that Jesus didn't make clear his views on homosexuality and that the majority of the teachings come from Saul.

But then Jesus didn't come to provide all the answers so we could live our lives according to a set of rules, but to offer redemption and having a relationship with God. That is the most important commandment. So I have reached the view that a homosexual, born as such biologically proven eg. The Journal of Psychohistory, 19(3), Winter 1992 study, can still offer themselves to God as any heterosexual would do. Nothing changes, you don't think differently, you feel the same, only the people you love are of the opposite sex.

Thank you all.

 

[Shane Roach]

Translation,

"The issue is complex. I am not going to present a cogent argument, nor have any of the other liberals, but I will say that all "conservative" Christians (aka Christians that disagree with me) are actually doing the exact same "pick and mix" as the liberals they accuse.

Trust me. I'm Liberal. I'm always right."

 

[AmericanPit09]

why can't you just be you..who are we?
and i'm sorry not to make anyone mad, but until that day when we see him face to face or whoever it is that you belive in ...until you meet them face to face..you'll never know the truth, so why bother yourself over small things like that.
personally, if someone isn't going to like you b/c of who you choose to like, then pray for them and move on. they are not worth having in your life. it's to short to fill it with hate.