You CAN post in this thread anonymously by logging out and posting in this thread as a "guest". This is one of the only threads with this type of set up. Due to the subject and very passionate emotions people have about it, we have set up the anonymous guest posting to encourage participation from people who might not otherwise feel comfortable.
Now see that I do have a problem with. I don't like being pushed into anything. I have nothing wrong with the gay community but I do not support pushing a lifestyle upon anyone regardless of the lifestyle. All my friends that are gay or lesbian don't do this whatsoever and they feel the same way, they feel we shouldn't push our lifestyle on them and they don't do it to us.
We need to learn to accept each others lifestyles and live with each other. No pushing each others lifestyles on one another. We have to understand that neither will change and forcing is definitely not the best way to do it.
hawgwild65 wrote: Mr Morningstarr wrote: hawgwild65 wrote: I believe it to be wrong because God said it was wrong. He judged two cities and destroyed them by fire because they were totally overcome with homosexuality and other "dark" lifestyles. That took place in the days of Abraham - the founder of the nation of Israel.
When Israel escaped from Egypt, the law was givn to Israel to keep them a Holy and Healthy People (if they followed the law). They were less than Holy - but they always returned to Jehovah God. That law speaks to the sinfulness of any sexual promiscuity outside of marriage.
Sorry, but you decide to believe this one piece of nonsense from the Bible but choose to ignore other parts. If you want credibility follow the Bible fully and I will respect you for doing so.
Tell me what parts of the Bible that I have failed to follow - since you know me so well. I haven't claimed that I am perfect - but I do know what the Bible says on this subject - so whats your point?
If your generalizing me with all Christians - sure there are hypocrits among us. Just like there are dishonest Doctors and Lawyers, but we still use them because they are not all dishonest and hypocritical. But that isn't the point of this thread.
If your attacking me as not following the entire Bible - you just don't know me well enough to make that judgement.
Allow me to get to know you then.
Are you 100% free from sin? If not how have you sinned? If you have sinned did you cut off the hand that sinned? Either you are a perfect Christian, or a one-handed one. Or just a bad Christian that doesn't follow the Bible as closely as they claim.
The only other question is why homosexuality is immoral? If it is sinful to have sex outside of marriage then let gays marry. But why is this sinful? What harm is it doing?
I think it went off topic when this Bible basher just announced that homosexuality was wrong. Morality has no relevance to whether homosexuality is born with or acquired. But it's very difficult to ignore such outrageous comments.
MH0825 wrote: Moral values are subjective to a point. What's moral to you may not be moral to someone else. What you feel is moral may not be moral in other cultures. It's not moral for our country to have many wives but in tribes it is.
Is it our place to say they're wrong? I don't think so.
If Moraity is subjective and not based on the existence of a Holy God that commands Holiness in his creation (and out of love for His creation, provided the means to obtain it), then why bother to be Moral?
I am moral because I seek to live a life that God is pleased with. If there is no God, Bible, or all things religious - then morality is a moot point as there would be no point. I will run for Mayor of the new Sodom and Gomorrah (well - don't take that too literrally - I'm not gay either - nor do I have tendencies or "temptations" to be so).
I don't agree that Morality is subjective - your either a Moral person or your not. I look at it as black and white. Whether I rob a bank or if I only steal a $.50 cent piece of candy from a convenience sotre - I'm still a thief. I'm not less of a thief because I only stole 50 cents as opposed to thousands of dollars. It's immoral to steal.
Speaking of friends - I have - or did when I lived in OK - gay friends. I also have drug addict friends, Alcoholic Friends and Heterosexual friends that live adulterous lifestyles. Grant it - they are more acquaintences than true friends. All of their lifestyles are just as unacceptable as the other (no greater or less). I don't seek to 'correct' any of them unless they ask for my support in their own personal decision to do so. But their immorality CAN be corrected and their life can become moral - - just like Mitt Romney can change from being a Pro-Abortionist to a Pro-Lifer however long it was before he decided to run for a GOP Presidential nomination.
Mr Morningstarr wrote: hawgwild65 wrote: Mr Morningstarr wrote: hawgwild65 wrote: I believe it to be wrong because God said it was wrong. He judged two cities and destroyed them by fire because they were totally overcome with homosexuality and other "dark" lifestyles. That took place in the days of Abraham - the founder of the nation of Israel.
When Israel escaped from Egypt, the law was givn to Israel to keep them a Holy and Healthy People (if they followed the law). They were less than Holy - but they always returned to Jehovah God. That law speaks to the sinfulness of any sexual promiscuity outside of marriage.
Sorry, but you decide to believe this one piece of nonsense from the Bible but choose to ignore other parts. If you want credibility follow the Bible fully and I will respect you for doing so.
Tell me what parts of the Bible that I have failed to follow - since you know me so well. I haven't claimed that I am perfect - but I do know what the Bible says on this subject - so whats your point?
If your generalizing me with all Christians - sure there are hypocrits among us. Just like there are dishonest Doctors and Lawyers, but we still use them because they are not all dishonest and hypocritical. But that isn't the point of this thread.
If your attacking me as not following the entire Bible - you just don't know me well enough to make that judgement.
Allow me to get to know you then.
Are you 100% free from sin? If not how have you sinned? If you have sinned did you cut off the hand that sinned? Either you are a perfect Christian, or a one-handed one. Or just a bad Christian that doesn't follow the Bible as closely as they claim.
The only other question is why homosexuality is immoral? If it is sinful to have sex outside of marriage then let gays marry. But why is this sinful? What harm is it doing?The cutting off one hand is figurative, as were many of Christ's teachings (In the form of parables, metaphors, the like). And a perfect Christian is a Christian that has faith in God, His Commandments, and His Son, not someone who is perfectly sinless. Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose (Not saying you are a devil or anything of the sort, just saying that everyone can cite scripture to prove a point, no matter which side). Each book of the Bible must be regarded as a whole. You cannot cite scripture verse by verse.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”[b]
Homosexuality is NOT as nature intended. A man sleeping with the same sex cannot produce a child under any circumstances whatsoever! A woman sleeping with the same sex cannot product a child under any circumstances.
The last book of the New Testament, John's Revelation, was written somewhere in the vicinity of 95-96 AD, with some later dates to around 185 AD, and some earlier dates to around 64-65 AD. The First Council of Nicea, which I believe is the council MH stated 'was written by men who decided what to put in it, and what to keep out of it' was at 325 AD. That council is the famous one to both compile the Nicean Creed and vote on the relationship that Jesus Christ had with His Father. The compiled books of the Bible were the overwelminly popular books of the time. They discluded Gnostic beliefs, as they directly infringed upon not only popular belief of the time, but on several core beliefs of Judaism, Christianity's base. There were tons of different books preaching a different message than the most popular books of the time, and they got rid of them as well (the 'different books' were discluded because they were not popular, adopted by extremely small groups of people, as there were tons of different messages being vouched as Christian messages).
As for the vote on Christ's divinity (whether 'Christ and God were of the Same Substance) or the Arian Contriversy, it is not well known that all but two of the 250-318 attendees voted against His oneness with God. There was significant scripture to back up Christ's divinity, and the vote was, in my opinion, a formality for the purpose of futher confirming one doctrine, instead of hundreds.
The fundamental point that all the agnostic/atheists here are forgetting is that we live off of faith, not off of fact. As far as I am concerned, there is no evidence to rule out God, and of course you cannot see God, so I guess there is no direct physical evidence of God either. My belief in God came from personal revelation and God touching my own life very deeply.
I have already stated that I have no problem with homosexuals getting bonded through a medium of a court (aka, a secular, state marriage/bonding). However, I do not like the fact that you believe that you can judge a Christian, even though you do not have full understanding of what you are talking about. How can you denounce the Christian faith when you have little knowledge of it?
Haha, I didn't even notice what thread this is. :p
Cole wrote: The cutting off one hand is figurative, as were many of Christ's teachings (In the form of parables, metaphors, the like). And a perfect Christian is a Christian that has faith in God, His Commandments, and His Son, not someone who is perfectly sinless. Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose (Not saying you are a devil or anything of the sort, just saying that everyone can cite scripture to prove a point, no matter which side). Each book of the Bible must be regarded as a whole. You cannot cite scripture verse by verse.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”[b]
Homosexuality is NOT as nature intended. A man sleeping with the same sex cannot produce a child under any circumstances whatsoever! A woman sleeping with the same sex cannot product a child under any circumstances.
The last book of the New Testament, John's Revelation, was written somewhere in the vicinity of 95-96 AD, with some later dates to around 185 AD, and some earlier dates to around 64-65 AD. The First Council of Nicea, which I believe is the council MH stated 'was written by men who decided what to put in it, and what to keep out of it' was at 325 AD. That council is the famous one to both compile the Nicean Creed and vote on the relationship that Jesus Christ had with His Father. The compiled books of the Bible were the overwelminly popular books of the time. They discluded Gnostic beliefs, as they directly infringed upon not only popular belief of the time, but on several core beliefs of Judaism, Christianity's base. There were tons of different books preaching a different message than the most popular books of the time, and they got rid of them as well (the 'different books' were discluded because they were not popular, adopted by extremely small groups of people, as there were tons of different messages being vouched as Christian messages).
As for the vote on Christ's divinity (whether 'Christ and God were of the Same Substance) or the Arian Contriversy, it is not well known that all but two of the 250-318 attendees voted against His oneness with God. There was significant scripture to back up Christ's divinity, and the vote was, in my opinion, a formality for the purpose of futher confirming one doctrine, instead of hundreds.
The fundamental point that all the agnostic/atheists here are forgetting is that we live off of faith, not off of fact. As far as I am concerned, there is no evidence to rule out God, and of course you cannot see God, so I guess there is no direct physical evidence of God either. My belief in God came from personal revelation and God touching my own life very deeply.
I have already stated that I have no problem with homosexuals getting bonded through a medium of a court (aka, a secular, state marriage/bonding). However, I do not like the fact that you believe that you can judge a Christian, even though you do not have full understanding of what you are talking about. How can you denounce the Christian faith when you have little knowledge of it?
Haha, I didn't even notice what thread this is. :p
Sorry, my post is a tad out of place.
It's easy for you to say that one verse is figurative but another is literal. The poster I was addressing said that "the Bible is the Word of God and everything in it is Truth". If someone chooses to interpret the Bible however they see fit they are perverting the word of God.
Of course, the Bible isn't the word of God so that's a moot point. But it still remains that "man" has decided to brand homosexuality "evil" or immoral through subjective opinion. It amazes me that people are so blinded they can't see why homosexuality was stigmatised 2000 years ago, and why it is an outdated belief.
Mr Morningstarr wrote: Cole wrote: The cutting off one hand is figurative, as were many of Christ's teachings (In the form of parables, metaphors, the like). And a perfect Christian is a Christian that has faith in God, His Commandments, and His Son, not someone who is perfectly sinless. Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose (Not saying you are a devil or anything of the sort, just saying that everyone can cite scripture to prove a point, no matter which side). Each book of the Bible must be regarded as a whole. You cannot cite scripture verse by verse.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”[b]
Homosexuality is NOT as nature intended. A man sleeping with the same sex cannot produce a child under any circumstances whatsoever! A woman sleeping with the same sex cannot product a child under any circumstances.
The last book of the New Testament, John's Revelation, was written somewhere in the vicinity of 95-96 AD, with some later dates to around 185 AD, and some earlier dates to around 64-65 AD. The First Council of Nicea, which I believe is the council MH stated 'was written by men who decided what to put in it, and what to keep out of it' was at 325 AD. That council is the famous one to both compile the Nicean Creed and vote on the relationship that Jesus Christ had with His Father. The compiled books of the Bible were the overwelminly popular books of the time. They discluded Gnostic beliefs, as they directly infringed upon not only popular belief of the time, but on several core beliefs of Judaism, Christianity's base. There were tons of different books preaching a different message than the most popular books of the time, and they got rid of them as well (the 'different books' were discluded because they were not popular, adopted by extremely small groups of people, as there were tons of different messages being vouched as Christian messages).
As for the vote on Christ's divinity (whether 'Christ and God were of the Same Substance) or the Arian Contriversy, it is not well known that all but two of the 250-318 attendees voted against His oneness with God. There was significant scripture to back up Christ's divinity, and the vote was, in my opinion, a formality for the purpose of futher confirming one doctrine, instead of hundreds.
The fundamental point that all the agnostic/atheists here are forgetting is that we live off of faith, not off of fact. As far as I am concerned, there is no evidence to rule out God, and of course you cannot see God, so I guess there is no direct physical evidence of God either. My belief in God came from personal revelation and God touching my own life very deeply.
I have already stated that I have no problem with homosexuals getting bonded through a medium of a court (aka, a secular, state marriage/bonding). However, I do not like the fact that you believe that you can judge a Christian, even though you do not have full understanding of what you are talking about. How can you denounce the Christian faith when you have little knowledge of it?
Haha, I didn't even notice what thread this is. :p
Sorry, my post is a tad out of place.
It's easy for you to say that one verse is figurative but another is literal. The poster I was addressing said that "the Bible is the Word of God and everything in it is Truth". If someone chooses to interpret the Bible however they see fit they are perverting the word of God.
Of course, the Bible isn't the word of God so that's a moot point. But it still remains that "man" has decided to brand homosexuality "evil" or immoral through subjective opinion. It amazes me that people are so blinded they can't see why homosexuality was stigmatised 2000 years ago, and why it is an outdated belief.Jesus spoke in parables, allegories, and metaphors for a good amount of His preaching. Some parts of the Bible, as a result, are figurative, whereas others are literal.
And how about you prove to me that the Bible is not the Word of God, and that God does not exist?
The authors of the Bible are quite clear. Anything which has no tangible effect on reality does not exist, by definition.
Pretty simple math really.
Now why don't you explain how God does exist, and why you are so special you can interpret the Bible and all the parables, allegories and metaphors. How do you decide which is metaphor and which is literal, and who made you an authority on it? Has the second coming arrived?
Mr Morningstarr wrote: The authors of the Bible are quite clear. Anything which has no tangible effect on reality does not exist, by definition.
Pretty simple math really.
Now why don't you explain how God does exist, and why you are so special you can interpret the Bible and all the parables, allegories and metaphors. How do you decide which is metaphor and which is literal, and who made you an authority on it? Has the second coming arrived?
You claim to be able to speak for Jesus?That is the difference. My claims are founded upon faith, and that was the point I was trying to make, it is an entirely different ballgame. Assuming that all the stories in the Bible are true, not only did God have a huge tangible effect on reality, but He created it alltogether. Just because falliable human methods cannot prove it does not mean that it is not there. Humanity has traveled from believing the earth is flat and through Aristotle's paralax research who concluded the earth was at the center of the entire universe, to being able to explore the universe ourselves and to prove the earth is round by taking a couple pictures. Now tell me, with all the mistakes and recaculations that science has made in the past, why isn't it plausible to conclude that the scientific community as a whole will progress even further, correcting the incorrect caculations of the previous generation?
If you read the entire Bible (you obviously have not) you will know that Jesus, for the most part, spoke in metaphors, parables, and allegories when speaking with his disciples. The "Right Hand" thing was not fully literal. It meant that one should have such devotion to the Lord, that if he finds something that makes him sin, he must disown it, even if it is a part of himself.
Tell me, why would God allow Himself, who explicitely states that he is a Hidden God, who reveals Himself to only those who look for His Glory, will find, suddenly allow Himself to be revealed to human test? If God is truly infalliable, omnipotent, and omniscient, why exactly would He be bound to our reality? It does not make logical sense.
And I don't know where I claimed to speak for Jesus... I am stating either something of the Bible or fact that most Biblical scholors agree on.
This is the last time I'll post in this thread on this matter. Arguing religion between two parties is like both yelling at a brick wall. I know neither of us will back down, and all it does is cause contriversy in a thread that has nothing to do with my last post or two.
I agree. Let's stay on topic and try to get back on topic. The thread is Born Gay or Acquired.
I will start a new thread for the discussion about if God is real or not.
MH0825 wrote: The only reason you say it's wrong today is because your bible says it is. That's my point. Because a book says it's wrong but it was a practice very common before this book was written, all of a sudden it's wrong? The bible was written by men who decided what to put in it and what to keep out of it.
Define "very common."
While that may be a large factor, it's not the only reason. I can't say for certain what my sense of morality would be without Christianity, but I'm fairly certain I would still view homosexuality as wrong.
TVDinner wrote: Lpspider wrote: MH0825 wrote: What about ancient greece when it was common to see bisexuality and homosexuality? Before christ... what about then? Because they believed in many gods. You would have been an outcast in ancient times preaching this.
What about it? Common meaning what? So?
spider, it is what has been said over and over in this thread. homosexual people have existed from before "the bible" and the current god that is followed. Ultimately people are using this one book to blindly make their decision on if this is right or wrong. But reality shows that who cares what someone else does. As long as you can do what you want and be straight if you want - who cares.
From a Bibical standpoint they haven't considering the Bible starts with "in the beginning." However, that's irrelvant. Why does it matter if there were homosexuals before the Bible was completed?
My point above was completely about your use of the word "corrected", so please dont tell me what to read or not to read.
You said:
Your comparison is offensive and I hope you see that.
et cetera. While quoting me saying:
(I'm not saying they're the same thing).
I wasn't comparing them as wrong as in equal, as I clearly said. (though that's debateable, of course)
You do not have the right to correct if someone wants to be gay or not, no matter what your "bible" says. You can choose to accept it or not, but you do not have the right to correct anyone for believing in something different then you.
To correct them would be to "force" them to be straight. I wouldn't try any such thing. If they want to be gay there isn't anything I can do about it, and I accept that. My issue is primarily with same sex marriage. That infringes and changes the definition of something that can be valued by people such as myself. What do you mena by correct?
Moral values are subjective to a point. What's moral to you may not be moral to someone else. What you feel is moral may not be moral in other cultures. It's not moral for our country to have many wives but in tribes it is.
I would disagree. But that's an entirely different debate.
I don't see how the gay community is trying to change our community? They're not saying you're not gay, you should be. In fact it's the non gay community that's doing that. "You're not straight, you should be".
Some obviously are but others aren't. Some are content to live their life in privacy. Regardless of if they are TRYING to affect our community, the affect it regardless (of thier intent to). This is the undenyable fact.
The first step is for you to accept who you are. The whole "religion says being gay is bad" comes from that all those holy texts were written around 3000 to 1500 years ago, depending on the text. That was when living past 40 made you old, and your tribe could easily be killed off by a neighbouring tribe, so the only way to get your tribe to survive was to have lots of kids, since most died under the age of 5. If you were gay, you weren't seen as helping the tribe survive, since you weren't popping out kids all the time, so they made it taboo so that gays had to be repressed so that they'd make kids too...
We see our role as essentially defensive in nature. While our armies are advancing so fast and everyone's knocking themselves out to be heroes, we are holding ourselves in reserve in case Bin Laden mounts a counter offensive which threatens Paris...
