Here is a quick lookup for you:
1 Timothy 1:9-11
9 We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching 11 based on the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.
1 Corinthians 6:8-10
8 Instead, you act unjustly and cheat—and this to brothers! 9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will inherit God's kingdom.
So, what do you think this is saying?
While the author of that enlightening verse places homosexuals in the same category as murderers, it would seem fairly obvious based on the caveat quoted above, they can deem whoever and whatever they please as being sinful, which is pretty much what we observe from fundamentalists anyways.
What the verse you speak of seems to be saying to me, that most people WANT to forget is that one sin is no greater than another. Disobedience by ANY name is disobedience.
Which raises a question which I have always pondered.
The Kingdom of God (?) I don't think is the same thing/place as heaven or paradise.
Kingdomness (playing webster here) to me would be reffering to those in authority. Those being governed are not of the kingdom but mearily the dirt that the wagon rolls over.
Thise thought just poped into my head, Not thought out very long.
Not a good anology here .. so don't judge me or it; please.
Sooo Homosexuals nor any other sinner gets to preside as judges or any other position of authority in the Kingdom.
If you notice .... at the end of the book of Revelation. ater all is said and done, ... after the New City comes down to the earth, ... after everyone is thrown into the lake of fire , ... there are still all sorts of sinners outside the gates of the city.
The gates are never closed but nothing which defileth may enter the city.
It seems to me that those outside the city had been redeemed from the lake of fire, but not allowed within the innercircle or kingdomship which lies at the center of heaven.
The point is that the author of the verse is judging others and reserves the right to judge others at their whim and for whatever reason they deem appropriate.
Is the sin of adultery the same as the sin of murder? Is not one a greater sin than the other?
It sounds like you're reading an English translation of the original Greek quotes by Paul (not Jesus Christ, you know that, right?)
Since homosexual as a term is a relatively new one, which words did Paul use?
In 1 Corinthians, he used "malakoi". In 1 Timothy, he used "arsenokoitai". So, not even the same word in Greek, but King James and English evangelicals ever since have been translating it to the same word: homosexual.
What does "malakoi" mean? It literally means "soft." It does not mean effeminate or gay (that would be "kinaidoi"). In modern Greek, it means "masturbator", which, as you know, is certainly not exclusive to gay people.
As for "arsenokoitai": Martin Luther thought it also meant "masturbator." It literally means "man beds" so it is ambiguous. It might have meant male prostitutes, which were common at the time, but this is only speculative.
So, what do you think Jesus meant when he said this?
"11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Who are "eunuchs that were born that way" and why doesn't Jesus condemn them?
From what I have read in my bible as well in what you have written is that we must not think one person sin is greater than than another but as explain plain as day to night God expect and commands us to obey all his laws and not the ones we choose to.
Mary Magdeline was a prostitute and Jesus stopped people condemning her, by saying let he who is with out sin cast the first stone.... Is any one here with out sin?
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
Is it a sin
I think this relates ... I am reminded of the story when a father asked two sons to do some particular thing.
One son says "Sure Thing Dad" then he doens't do it.
The other son says "NO Way, I ain't goina do it!!!!!" but then he goes on and does it.
Which sone was most respectfull to the father?
Not the one who tickled the father's ears just to get him off his back, but the one who re-thought his position and decided to do the right thing after all. In other words, the concepts of free will and repentance/forgiveness all rolled into one.
Good point Jerami, good Scripture reference.
Well, I have to admit that this question tickles my fancy. For all you hardcore immovable Christians out there, did god make man in his own image? Or did he just pick and choose?
Homosexual sex is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
(unless, of course, you are a church official and it is with an alter boy)
Homosexuality is a sin but only because sin means to do without understanding its purpose and thereby judged sin.
Supposedly I am the last prophet Elijah yet I have posted My Sex Education showing how promiscuous I was - read the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel to see the things they were told to do - as required to get the understanding about man's sexual behaviors enough to write about it.
The cause of homosexuality is man have 2 genders, 4 ethnics, 12 Zodiac signs and 12 Western Zodiac signs multiplied together equals 150 different attributes every life-forces incarnates as individually and all combinations during our earthly sojourn. So when one life-force with one or any attribute combination comes to another their exact opposite there's a strong attraction both sexual and friendship that genders make difference and produces best friends, homosexuality and casual sex.
To the people who understand that doesn't call it sin because they see why and can instruct those who indulge in it why; then and only then is it a sin because they have enough knowledge of why they are doing it and can transcend it.
Why don't you try and fine the 300 threads on this very subject...it has all been answered again and again and again and again...
Too, true... but I bet you it gets an argument still.
Someone needs to find something besides religion to talk about, that horse has been kicked to death on these forums. Kicked to death, kicked after death, kicked while decomposing and now its bones are being trod upon. You would think a group of writers would have SOMETHING new to talk about.
I think the reason why this subject continues to appear on here, is the same reason why it is discussed ad nauseam in real life - because it really is something that matters to a lot ot heterosexuals, who feel a need to feel superior to someone, by demonising them. Years ago, it was the red manace, now it is the gay menace. Hopefully mankind will grow out of this need, although I can't see it happening anytime soon.
"11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Eunichs who were born that way refers to those who are born sexually deficient, impotent etc...
Those who were made that way by man is self explainatory.
And those who choose, are they who choose celibacy for purity sake.
No where does Christ accept homosexuality as natural and moral.
And the use of Paul's multiple terms speaks to the fact that he is talking about all sexual depravity... not just the ones you or someone do not like, or like.
What is a eunuch as defined in the Bible?
In Greek it means "bed keeper" - a man who does not reproduce and who is therefore entrusted with keeping a man's harem. Sometimes they were castrated, sometimes they were not.
I would argue that, if Jesus said anything at all about gay people, it was in that verse, and it was simply to say they were exempt from a requirement to marry. No condemnation, no matter how much you and the other Christianists are hoping there is one.
Why would you ask what the bible considers a eunich, and then define it?
And your assumption would be wrong. This verse is not speaking of homosexuals in any way shape or form. It is speaking of eunichs and sexually deficient individuals as regards marriage and God's command to marry and be fruitful on the earth.
Not deviants or sexual immorallity.
Well, this is typical from you.
Let's see what Ms Dee has to say.
Christ would not contradict God.
That is a fact... not something typical of me.
God said over and over homosexuality is an abomination... man shall not lay with man... etc.
To state what you want, is to place Christ in oppostion to God.
And that is not the way it goes.
Christ said that we as Christians should tolerate peoples bad choices and sinful ways.... not accept and practice those choices of sin as a natural thing and morally acceptable behaviour.
Didn't bother to read. You consistently misrepresent your opinion/interpretation as incontrovertible fact. It makes it pointless to discuss things with you. (Just an explanation why I'll do what so many others have done and stop responding to your replies)
Mr. Mason, you are such a nice man. It really bothers me to see Christians make sweeping statements denying others the same rights to happiness that you insist for yourself. At no where in the gospels does Jesus clearly speak out against homosexuality. You and others within your faith are twisting words to suit an agenda.
If you go back and read my post, Emile, I have not said he spoke on it. That would be the others here who try to use a verse that doesn't speak about homosexuality, to justify it as acceptable.
And I base my religious opinion on it from the old testament, Emile. And God spoke to its practice many times... and condemned it in each one.
So I would think you should go read the whole conversation, Emile. I am not the one who says christ spoke of it, to justify it, or condemn it.
That would be livelonger and others... not I.
And it is nice to see you. I hope you have been well.
And I do not judge anyone for it... it is their choice.
But that doesn't mean I have to propagate that it is natural and acceptable.
And troubed... I do not judge the individual... I judge the act.
It's nice to see you too.
Sorry. You are correct, except that you do say that God says it is wrong and Jesus wouldn't contradict God. It seemed to flow with your train of thought that you were saying he said it was wrong.
And, homosexuality is natural Mr. Mason, simply because people are born this way. Nature made them that way. I know, I know, you might argue environment. But I know people that are gay and it wasn't a choice, it is a simple fact of life.
I know you say you don't judge anyone, you judge the act; but you are sitting in judgment. of the actions of others when you make those statements.
ATM had an excellent point. It was the action of the prostitute that the crowd was judging. And it was that action, by the crowd, that was being condemned by Jesus' words.
When Christians make statments like this; how are your actions any different than the crowd on that street two thousand years ago?
No... they were condemning her for her actions.... not simply her actions.
I condemn the act... not the one commiting it.
I would not stone or harm anyone for living as they want to. But that doesn't make it right, nor would I tell them it is right. For in that I would be condemning them in another way, before God.
So no, ATM is off base.
Now if I said kill the gays for their act, then I would be condemning them. but I do not. i say the act is wrong... period. they are free to freely act in that way. but i do not have to embrace or accept it.
No, you don't have to embrace it; but you stone a piece of their heart every time you condemn them with your words.
I condemn the act.
And I cannot in good conscience say, it is fine carry on, for in doing so I am telling them to sin and throw away their chance to know and be a part of God's family.
And that would be unforgivable on my part.
I'm so sorry that we disagree on this. I hope you are wrong about your God. He doesn't sound very loving.
He is very loving, and I am positive there is very good reason for his not liking or accepting such things.
But it has been nice to discuss things with you, Emile. I always enjoy our conversations, hun.
It's a pleasure speaking with you, too. I guess. Although, I will admit I'm a little pensive everytime the conversation is over. I really don't like your take on the whole subject. I suppose someday someone will come along and put the whole other side of the argument in a perspective that will help you see how unkind this outlook is.
Many have tried, Emile.
I do not barter God away so people will like me.
If there is a God, I'm not sure he would like you. Not with so much hatred in your heart.
I don't hate them, E
I do not accept the act is all. I hate the sin, not the sinner, E.
How many times do I have to say that?
How many times does someone have to point out that this is who some people are? You hate homosexuality. Some people are homosexual. You hate the fact that they are who they are.
Since it is undisputed that people are born this way, and you believe God made everything; how do you resolve the fact that you think God is telling you to hate part of his creation? Has it never occurred to you that it might simply be that people hate those that are somehow different?
Where do you get it is "undisputed" people are born that way?
There is no scientific evidence to support any such assertion, E.
We have been through this... no science supports any thing like genetic homosexuality. None.
So, there is no undisputed.
No science supports your religion or god, either. Seems like a draw.
I have not claimed any science does... unlike many on the other side, troubled.
Which was why I was voicing the objection. There is no science to suppport any such conclusion as genetic homosexuality, nor is there any science to support God existing. But the difference is, My religion is founded on faith... science is not. Unless your an Evolutionist that is, whole lotta faith in that cult.
But I have been kikin around the thought that, Quantum Random Theory, in my opinion, does allow for God.
If all that could, would, or may ever be, is at some piont, regardless of its possibility, then surely an all knowing God could have come into being at some point in time, and being all powerful He could move throughout time and do as he pleased.
Still working through the kinks. But I do find it an interresting route.
Now I have heard that a creation cannot become greater than that which created it... but I do not think that is a valid argument.
I would disagree, but it serves no purpose when someone's mind is set. Don't you think?
That's ok though. This conversation has been enlightening. You religionists profess with your mouth the thing you can't feel in your hearts. If you can't find love for your fellow man I don't think it's possible to get your heart in the right place to search for your connection to anything else.
I may not believe in God as you define it, but I do know that whatever the consciousness is that binds us together isn't cheering you, or any that profess religion in this manner, on.
If you have science that proves it... then produce it, E.
If it is valid I will acccept it.
But I have yet to see any such science, and many on here have thrown up the usual science suspects, only to have them torn to shreds and tossed out.
And if I didn't love my fellow man then I would cheer them on to eternal destruction by telling them it was fine do as they want... continue on with the immorality and abominable behaviour, God doesn't care what you do...
But since I care, I will deal with all the hate spewed at me for stating the truth and telling people that though they act in wrong ways they are still loved and have the right to act that way... but that it is not acceptable, and will not be an acceptable, in the end.
@ troubled.... there is no science which supports any conclusion for genetic homosexuality. You can have a google page of a hundred thousand and they will all reference the same flawed studies, which have been shown to be flawed. So you go read and i will be right here waiting.
Or do you think the APA doesn't know about those studies?
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
In a hate filled religion, it isn't accepted; but luckily we know that is just religion.
We both know that if I provided links to studies you would refuse to accept the conclusions. So why would I bother?
And, the same would be true of me. I admit it. Whatever you offered as 'proof' wouldn't sway my mind, because what you accept as 'proof' would always have those little quotation marks surrounding it in my mind.
We are destined to remain at an impasse, but as I said, the conversation has been enlightening. I hope you have a pleasant evening.
It would depend on what studies they used to support those conclusions, E.
There have been many which have truly been shown to be flawed.... that is not my fault, but the fault of those who under-took them for an agenda.
And yes I am having a nice evening, and yourself?
I am waiting to meet my newest grand-nephew. My niece had a baby boy about 2 months ago and just arrived in FL today. It seems so wierd... I remember when she was a baby... she still is, only 16. Wow time flies.
Congratulations on the addition to your family.
I will agree that some studies are little more than attempts to find ways to push agendas. Not all of them though. There will come a day when religion will have to come to peaceful terms with this question. People have been persecuted too long already. Everyone has a right to be happy and at peace with who they were born to be.
But as of today there is no science to support it, and that comes from the APA, E.
And they would know if it did exist. But even they admit it does not exist...
--"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."--
I mean... really E... they would shout it from the mountain tops if they had it. But it just isn't there.
And everyone has the right to live as they want, it is their choice. I do not begrudge them or anyone else that right. But I do not have to propagate it as normal etc...
And thank you.
You say those studies are flawed but you never read them. Obviously, have no interest in whether they are valid or not.
Thank you for that link, but it looks like you didn't read any more of that article. Read the citations below and weep, that is, if you value the APA as you say you do.
"Prejudice and discrimination have social and personal impact. On the social level, prejudice and discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are reflected in the everyday stereotypes of members of these groups. These stereotypes persist even though they are not supported by evidence, and they are often used to excuse unequal treatment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.
Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.
Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings."
Where is it you think I called them disturbed, or mentally ill?
I have not.
I have consistantly said it is a choice.
Man you are out there.
And yes I have read it. And it does not p[roduce or suppport any science saying genetic homosexuality exist.
Can't you read?
And they can call it normal all they want. They called it genetic in 1999... and we see where that finding went, don't we.
Gimme a break... just what did you think you were proving there? That the APA does not suppoprt your assertion... fine you have suceeded... they do not.
And yes I have been through those studies and the counter-findings regarding them.
So... try again.
My opinion is and has been simply that, there is no scientific support for any conclusion of genetic homosexuality.
So yes, they do.
And I know you can read... so there is no excuse for the BS unless your playing at something.
You have always decried homosexuality as unnatural and they don't support you
They support that there is not any science that supports homosexuality being genetic.
So yes they do.
And they know damn well it is not, but the homosexual agenda makes it impossible for them to dis-claim it all together. That is why they put out in the 90s that homosexuality was genetic when they knew there was no proof.
And Bruce. their conclusions as to the science, -Vs-, their opinion of something, are two different things.
Nature itself shows that hoimosexuality is an aboration, and you totally discount that man is not an animal and should be of a higher standard anyway- there are a lot of thing animals do I would hope you do not do-, not to mention it is anti-thetetical to evolution. Sex is for procreation, not fun, in nature. Dogs don't plan romantic evenings, or secrte sex trists, for kix.
I mean c'mon man.. you really going to argue nature accepts homosexuality... tell me how two gays continue the existence of the, "gay species", theoretically speaking.
You're a classic cherry picker. You cite a source, the APA, in one post and attack it in the next. Comedic.
Kind of like what you do with scripture. The villification of gays you take, but reject the Fruits of the Spirit.
Who can do anything now but laugh.
At long last, sir, have you no shame?
The only reason I use the APA is because it was thrown up by you Leftist Progressives.
So I know you all accept it... not so much me.
It is just funny to use your own sources against you.
Show me the example in nature of Homosexuality existing in a closed system of growth in this world.
Where is it... what "gay spoecies, or "gay creatures" procreate and exist for generations.... where are they?
It is an aboration in nation, and an abomination to God... either way, it is un-natural.
And your source backfires on you. The source says no gene has been discovered but that the behavior is natural in both man and nature. You have been skewered on your own sword.
I don't see anyone talking gene theory but you. Since no hetero gene has been found either, I don't see the relevance.
You already know all the evidence for homosexuality in nature, so I won't repeat it again. It only proves that sex has other motivations other than procreation.
And the Fruits of the Spirit remain irrelevant to you, the third rail you won't touch.
If I new it I would not say show it... but go ahead and hide behind that Bruce.
No where in nature does homosexuality ensure the pro-creation of any species, and to say it does is just beyond idiocy.
They back up the science to prove no genetics with actual science... they base their opinion of it being natural on assumption.
See the difference.
Why do you keep adding the layer of procreation?
The fact that gay sex doesn't create offspring is not relevant to it occurring naturally in man and nature. This is demonstrable and quantifiable. How many people do you think are fooled by your manipulations? They are truly weak.
Still rejecting the Fruits, huh?
yes it most certainly is. In nature sex is for procreation, do animals get over-whelmed and screw the wrong sex, yes... does that make it anything more than an aboration... no.
@Live... Yes. The APA has pandered to the gay rights nazis for decades now. So what else is new?
They were forced to reveal their findings regarding genetic homosexuality, or they never would have. So why would anyone expect them to change their ways and be honest about the rest of the propaganda they spew.
exnay on homosexualitynay beingnay only for procreationnay...
the wifenay might be readingnay Hubpagesnay
Sex may result in offspring. It is rarely entered into for that purpose. Never in nature and rarely in man.
Some species show gay couples that stay together for life, so it isn't a sudden sexual madness.
You are creating strawman arguments to knock down that noone is making. No gay (or hetero) gene and sex can result in offspring. Ok. What else you got?
Any theories as to why God is forsaking you and refusing to allow the Holy Spirit to indwell in you and change your heart according to the Fruits?
Now there is a mystery!
By humans it is rarely entered into for that purpose today... not anymore. And we abort that purpose when it occurs quicker than we created it to begin with.
But that is not the point Bruce.
You cannot ani-morphasize and grant Human reasoning to an animal in pursuit of satisfying a prime drive... and that drive is for pro-creation. Pleasure is the motavation, procreation the NATURAL result... see how that works?
The first and formost thing a species has to do is extend its existence, thus the prime drive system... you have read a lil about that?... You cannot anoint an animal in heat... or one engaged in the pursuit of fulfilling a prime drive, with human reasoning attributes and compare it to what a human does to get laid, or gain pleasure, nor can you ascribe to them human reasoning.
They gain great pleasure from the act to ensure the desire get it.
If we are all animals and not worthy of any discrepency in how we are upon this world, vs the real animals, then what is the point of our hugely advanced evolutionary status? Fun?
For nature to have fun? Does nature now gain pleasure and seek to create for such? Shall we ascribe human qualities to all the lower forms of the world?
And you are the god of Strawmen... and Live is your goddess of red herrings. And we all know who the cult of religonist faithful of Evolutionists are.
You all got your own lil church going here. Amazing.
Please look up "ani-morphasize" and "aboration". You are simply killing your credibility. These aren't even close.
I'm not the one applying an anthropomorphic trait to the animals, you are. You think they are entering into it for the purpose of having children. Absurd! They are following an instinctual desire and it has nothing to do with procreation. As a result, homosexuality occurs in nature just as it does in man, a certain percentage finding that to be their natural proclivity. The APA finds the same is true in man, throughout all of history and forever into perpetuity. A natural part of the overall human experience.
Your closed system mantra is silly on its face, as there is no closed system as you characterize it. This is another strawman that has no relevance, as it doesn't exist in life. What is natural is that a certain small percentage of a species will show the attraction toward their same sex.
Do you know what a strawman is? Show me where I have put up an argument that does not address an issue? You have brought up the gay/hetero gene over and over. No one else is discussing it. That is your argument with no adversary. Strawman. Of course, it is also self-defeating, as the lack of a hetero gene means you are not genetically ordained to be straight. You made a choice according to that argument, but you haven't thought it through that far. You bring up the inability of gays to procreate. No one is suggesting they can. Strawman. So you knock these down and claim some kind of victory, but over who? No one has defended the opposite. When we get back to what IS relevant, we note that your citation concludes that homosexuality is a normal, natural part of the human experience for a small percentage of the population. POW!!! Now your citation is a bunch of goobers, according to you.
You have one argument against gay behavior. Your interpretation of God, which conveniently doesn't include the Fruits of the Spirit. So leave it at that. The rest just makes you look silly, uninformed, scared and arrogant.
And your vocabulary/spelling doesn't help.
Where's the science that says heterosexuality is genetic?
You could say nature itself proves that.
Where would your Evolution be, if homosexuality were the Natural order of things?
You did take notice of the whole "male and female" thing going in Nature... didn't ya?
Take a minute, go out in Nature, and look around.
Or just put on the National Geographic Station...
This statement proves to everyone you lack any understanding of Evolution and only spread distortion.
Homosexuality is just a part of the natural order. To deny that it exists is completely based on ignorance(chosen).
The statement was a hypothetical... a rhetorical question...
What do you think would have happened had we all turned out homosexual... nothing... which is my point.
I do not deny it exists... I deny it is natural.
An aboration, is not the natural.
Don't get confused Cags.
I had this stance when I first came to HP, however, I've grown to a different understanding that it is impossible for the entire civilization to become strictly homosexual.
You deny it's natural, only because of your original based religious view. It's part of the natural order of all species, which you refuse to understand.
Nice try at twisting it making it appear as if I am confused, but it's you who lacks true understanding.
All I see in your post is dishonesty and hypocrisy, so it doesn't look like there's any point in discussing this topic with you.
The APA does not support many of the things you claim, that was the point of my posting those quotes from the exact same webpage YOU provided.
You also now claim you have been through those studies and counter-findings? LOL! That's a whopper of a tale.
That is why most of us have stopped bothering to reply to him.
@ Troub and Live and all you others...
Spoken in the vien of a true Leftist following the rules... if you cannot out reason them, or convert them, or shut them up... then ignore them.
Ignoring truth doesn't make it go away... or agree with you.
You said ignoring truth doesn't make it go away.
The truth is what 99.99% of the people here already know. That's why some people still bother with you literalists. When will you stop ignoring the truth?
I am not a literalist, E.
You have me mistaken with an evangelical.
I can defend what my Gods stance is on certain things, without being a fanatic. There are things which are acceptable and things which are not.
If you choose to act a certain way, then fine, you have that right... but if it is contrary to Nature and Societal mores and values then don't expect everyone to change their ways to accept what is not acceptable, just so you can do it without feeling guilty about your choices.
If you have made the choice to be gay then be proud of it. Don't hide behind lies and excuses.
See... rather simple.
And no I am not calling you a liar. that is a general statement about the propagation of certain BS psuedo science.
@Cags... the title of thread Cags.
I understand TMMason, what the title of the thread is, which only shows the true lacking of religious beliefs and what exactly the bible teaches people to be(completely ignorant and intolerant of others).
I've said that all along. Thank you for proving it true.
If that were so Cags, I would not have gay friends, nor would I treat them with any respect, but I do on both accounts.
My understanding of the fact that it is un-natural, abnormal, and morally unacceptable, has nothing to do with their right to do it.
See how that works.
I have friends who use drugs and alchohol, and I don't find some of those things so acceptable either... but it is their right to do them.
You extremists just think in such a warped ways.
We as Christsian are taught to accept all as our brothers and sisters... we are told to tolerate their faults... but we are warned heavily against accepting and practicing those behaviours as acceptable, moral, or natural.
No, you can't. For every point in the text you use to degrade and belittle another human being you could find one that tells you not to. You defend your stand, no one else's. If this was the stand of a god, don't you think you'd all agree? The fact that you don't makes it clear where the source of the hatred lies.
But, oh. I forgot. Those who don't agree are, of course, not true christians.
How many times do you plan on ignoring the fact that this is a false statement? It is not against nature. There is homosexuality in many species. Why would you think man would be different? Yes, it may be against the mores of parts of our society, but what makes your mores special? Why must everyone bow to your needs?
How is that simple when people such as yourself are willing to spew such hatred? Who wants to be judged so harshly by others.
That's all I'm going say. Spout nonsense back. I've grown accustomed to expecting it.
I think we would all agree if not for snycretism.
No. the Bible speaks clearly on Homosexuality. Clear as day.
Again... show me the species of gay creature on earth, or anywhere for that matter... that are existent today from more than a generation ago.
I think Live and troub are doing some sort of study even as we speak to attempt to verify that point. They should have results soon.
@Cags.. You really do not know a thing about me.
I've noticed that's your word for the day. That's how you wrap a bigoted stand in a pretty little package to'prove' it's ok by your god to hate.
Like I said. You spout nonsense.
Edit: I hate it when you post a little blurb and then change it into a long post. I think you do it on purpose.
Cags is right. We all know you by your posts. You can't pretend no one reads them.
One.. I have not hated on anyone.
That is you alls twisting of my words. If I had, I would have been suspended by now for it. So... figure it out, E.
I speak bluntly and plainly... I will not break rules of my religion for you or anyone else... I will not be cowed into accepting and regurgatating your and other's views by your insults or accusations.
I can state that the un-natural, immoral, and deviant... are just that... without fearing your PC BS.
Too bad who doesn't like it.
And what word, "Syncretism". Look it up and you will see what is being done to the Christian religion. It is a repetition of history is all. It has happened before. Israel and Judah fell to it... and America will too.
The point is it isn't a personal attack. It's falling, I assume, under the heading of freedom of religious speech. That does not make it true, or right.
I don't make insults or accusations. They are simple observations brought about by reading your posts. You figure it out.
I am not unaware of the definition of syncretism. I still say using it to shore up your stand is ludicrous.
Do the rules of your religion include....
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control?
I go by what you tell me here and then apply it to your actions here. So, actually, I learn quite a bit about you. Even, if you don't think so.
There's a lot of crazy stuff in the Bible that doesn't take into account scientific, moral and legal advances that have occurred since the Bible was written.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. Clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
Maybe not so people will like you, but you barter Him away all the time. Though you always refuse to respond to it, you refuse to let the Fruits of the Spirit be the guiding force in your relationships with people. Why does what Paul describes as the identifying marks of a Spirit filled believer not matter to you?
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
You reject over half of these as a regular part of your discourse on here.
livelonger, I looked up Mat 19:12 in the Greek, and the same word for eunuch, eÇnoÂcoi, is used in both instances for those who were made eunuchs by others as those who were eunuchs from the womb since birth. When the verse is read through to the end, it becomes clear that the verse contains an explanation of some reasons why men do not marry.
I believe she is wondering if you would understand this verse to include homosexuality under the, "born a eunich", exception.
I am not sure why she wanted me to wait and see what you thought, ms Dee.
But I would like to hear your opinion anyways.
I do not see the refrence in this verse to include homosexuality. I also believe if it did it would be in direct contradiction to the word of God in the old testament, and that is impossible.
livelonger, you say in the other thread "I have, as have many other Jewish and Christian scholars far more conversant in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek than I am."
So, this makes me wonder here where you got 'eunuch' In Greek it means "bed keeper". What lexicon do you have that says this Greek word means bed keeper?? I'm wondering, because mine does not say this is the definition of the Greek word for eunuch.
"Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone."
I wonder who said that?
Don't bother to quote Christ's teachings to Christians. They are the last people to let His words change their views. I, as an atheist appreciate the words of Christ more than Christians I know.
From the Book of Jobe - verse 11.3
Let he who would be of the gay persuasion recall the words of the martyred St. Lucia (the second). It is not for us to judge, as many among us are probably already eyeing our neighbours ass. It is easier for a rich man to pass wind through a needle than to gain entrance to the Hebrew Passion Club, Thursdays Men Only, half price for couples.
Get down on it.
To answer the OP, it depends on what part of the "good book" religionists want to quote from.
When they want to condemn non-believers they use the OT, yet when they are challenged on the hateful disgusting words of the OT, everything quoted from the OT is "out of context, with all the killing being called "love" we just didn't understand it. Head up bottom disease I reckon.
Well according to the Old Testament a man of such a persuasion shall be condemned to a life of exquisite taste in soft furnishings and fabulous footwear, that will be impossible for others to live up to.
What does the true mosaic laws say about it in the old testament? Is it part of the 10 commandments?
Timothy, Corthinians, etc., are part of the Pauline doctrine. These epistles were written by a man. Not God's hand. Not the hand of Jesus either. Just food for thought....
As to the answer to the thread title question, (if it hasn't been definitively answered yet), the most definitive and firm sentence is
Leviticus 18: 22:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".
On her radio show sometime prior to 2004, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22,
and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an
open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the
Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's Law and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They
claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
Like I have said before, old testament for abusing people new testament for the defending.
Use the OT for the homophobia but if others quote the hate to point out the psychosis it is called "out of context"
Have any of the homophobes here read anything other than the book of megalomania and hate?
This thread's about homosexuality.
If you want answers to those other questions, perhaps you should make threads about them.
While you're at it, make one about the next verse, the one following the one I quoted (Leviticus 18: 23.) Perhaps some people would be curious as to what excuse you might come up with for beastiality.
As another poster pointed out, 1Timothy and Corinthians are both Books of the New Testament, earnest, not the Old even. Both Old and New are valid.
There is no defense for the liberal view of this subject. There is, however, forgiveness upon repentance. That hasn't changed and never will. It's only the window of opportunity that's being steadily closed by those who sway willing minds toward rebellion. The Lord said to seek Him while He can be found, earnest.
The point I was making is that the old and new are valid, only when they are being used to abuse, and are "out of context" no longer apply, have been replaced blah blah blah until they fit to be used as a threat to unbelievers when they are suddenly re-erected as applicable as in the scripture you quoted.
The bits in the NT are interpreted depending on how much of a zealot is making the case.
It's a pile I tells ya!
It's a pile alright; a pile of precious gems, nuggets of Truth that will enlighten the willing soul.
As you surely know, God gave Peter a vision of the things that once were unclean but that He later cleansed, Spiritually, because they weren't relevant to one's soul; they were only rituals related to physical cleanliness, etc. Nowhere does that list contain a cleansing of homosexuality nor the other sins of the heart. However, it does indicate that concept that people often omit----forgiveness upon repentance for all sins, the Lord's mercy (while He may be found, while the heart isn't hardened against Him).....
Why are remarried Christians' hearts so hard, that they would ignore the Biblical commandment to reconcile with their first husbands/wives? Why are they so unwilling to accept this very clearly-worded commandment?
Why are you so intent on personally bullying and attacking me and anyone else who doesn't knuckle under your outrageous onslaughts?
Make your thread, Jason. I've seen people banned for hijacking threads, even when they did it unintentionally. You're doing it intentionally and for an avenue to make personal attacks. Why? Do the rules of conduct here not apply to you?
Not a personal attack and not a threadjack. Sorry, Brenda.
It's the truth of the Bible that applies to you that you find too terrible to bear.
And yet, amidst all of your attacks on homosexuality and accusations against me, you still don't have an explanation about the Christian Bible's injunction against remarriage. Why do you keep on avoiding that?
But indeed I've explained it time after time. You just weren't willing to listen.
Make your thread. This one's about what God said about homosexuality. And although sometimes the two subjects may intertwine, you quite obviously go over the line with your manipulation of the two. One can use common sense and know when those two issues properly intersect. Don't ya think?
The reason the issue is relevant is it makes the concentration on gay issues arbitrary. Why would these issues be more compelling than the great danger the unrepentent remarried soul is in? Aren't there more of them than gay people? Why should you turn your back on the remarried sinners and not do everything possible to keep this issue in the forefront of people's minds so they can unwind their sinful second marriages that prove their unrepentance? The question is why focus on gays instead of this huge number of doomed souls that noone is reaching out to in Christian love to save?
There's no defense for remaining in a second marriage, either, Brenda. It was condemned several times in the new covenant. Praying, repenting, and singing countless hosannas are meaningless; you're supposed to return to your first husband:
1 Corinthians 7:10-11: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."
Bitching and moaning about gay people just makes you look like one of those people pointing out splinters in others' eyes while ignoring the plank in your own.
Make a thread about the issue of adultery if you wish, Jason, instead of changing the subject of this one.
Or do you think you're allowed to attack me personally every time just because you're on staff?
I bring up divorce every time you bring up homosexuality, Brenda. Which is very, very, very often. You seem to like to focus on everyone else's sinful behavior but your own.
It's entirely fair to bring up the rank hypocrisy and double standards of anti-gay but divorced and remarried Christians, who are many.
Is livelonger on the staff of Hubpages?
Must have been telling the truth again and our lovely christians joined together to have him banned as they do with all who oppose them.
Brave open hearted broad minded christian souls that they are
If you are going to use a writers site to flog religion, I guess morals would be far too big an ask!
Ah. I see you changed your post to generalize it. First, you attacked me personally. Now you change it to a generalization, but still obviously pointed at me. Hmmmmm.
Make a thread about divorce/adultery, if that's what you want to talk about.
This one's about homosexuality. Are you perhaps done with talking about it?
Maybe because cafeteria Christians won't participate in a thread that exposes something about the Bible they don't like?
Again, it's entirely consistent with this thread to point out that the Christian Bible is ambiguous about homosexuality, but entirely clear about divorce and remarriage, and it's hypocritical of self-professed Christians to harp on the former and conveniently ignore the latter.
There's nothing ambiguous about the Bible's statements on homosexuality. God condemns it in no uncertain terms.
However, as I've said time after time, ALL sin including that is forgiveable upon repentance, except for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
Perhaps you'd like to consider making a thread about that one too.
So a gay Christian who repents but stays in a same-sex relationship is forgiven?
I've written about how the Bible's statements supposedly about homosexuality are indeed ambiguous, but you didn't want to listen.
If he/she repented, they wouldn't stay in the relationship.
On the flip side, it is not a sin to be in a heterosexual non-sexual relationship. Nor is it a sin for heterosexuals to marry.
Your view leaves no room for forgiveness, no hope for those who become involved in homosexuality; so they have to deny the Bible's words in order to try to condone their actions. Congratulations, though, on being so politically-correct; that wave you're riding is filtering even to Israel's leader. Last I heard him speak, he mentioned catering to the homosexual agenda, something no Bible-believing Jew would do. Your agenda is very strong, I'll give you credit for that. But not everyone is so easily swayed. There are still a few of us left who believe in repentance and forgiveness. And those, you nor anyone can force-feed into submission.
Started that tangential thread, Brenda:
Looking forward to your input.
Amusing that you respect the opinion of (the minority of) Jews who clearly condemn homosexuality. You would probably not enjoy what they think of Christianity quite so much.
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? According to the discriminating bigot who wrote Leviticus 18: 23 says that it's a sin of some sort. Personally I think it's ridiculous that people in this day and age still take what some exiled Jew(s) wrote 2-3000 years ago to heart. Some go as far as saying it's the word of god. No. It's the word of whoever wrote it. Funny that we never see "Christians" condemning people who mow their lawns or wash their cars on Sunday.
Fact check. The 18: 23 verse is about beastiality. I suppose you'd like to blame the Holy Spirit for making a rule against that too.
What the bible says is irrelevant to living in the world today.
The truth is a bunch of haters need something to support their irrational beliefs, so as nothing else will, they rely on the controlling crap written by a bunch of sexist goat herders 2,000 years ago.
Yeah that makes sense doesn't it?
Ignore the science that destroys these myths on a daily basis and declare goddunnit is a much better idea!
Okay, well, this does not correlate with the Greek used in the N.T. which the Greek lexicon says for Mat 19:12 the word eÇnoÂcova, ou mean 'a castrated male person'. So I think you need to look at a lexicon for the Greek of the N.T. The Merriam-Webster dictionary is referring to classical Greek.
Some eunuchs were castrated, some were not. What they all were were entrusted guardians of harems, because...they had no interest in women. The Greek word eunochoi in fact derives from the meaning "bed keeper" as I said before, not "without testicles."
Now how does a person be born a eunuch? Are you suggesting that would mean someone was born without testicles? That almost never happens.
In related news (since the APA was mentioned):
"The world's largest organization of psychologists took its strongest stand to date supporting full marriage equity, a move that observers say will have a far-reaching impact on the national debate. The policymaking body of the American Psychological Association (APA) unanimously approved the resolution 157-0 on the eve of the group's annual convention, which opens here today."
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relati … 49798054/1
@Troub and Live...
That is BS.
I have been through the studies, and some of the papers written on them.
I have not said I have been through your google page of thousands of papers on those relatively few studies.
You all do know the diference between a study and its findings... and the papers writen on those studies?
Maybe you don't.
And the APA says quite clearly what the science shows regarding gay genes.
And guess what... they agree with me.
As to the natural... show me a homosexual species that has existed past one generation on this planet.... I'll wait here.
Why don't you two go do a study on it... get a couple gay guys place them in a closed system and see if they pro-create... see if they continue on in nature as naturally behaving species do.
No... they won't, and see if you can figure out what causes their extinction while your there...
Maybe their behaviour?... hint...
Gimmie a break you all are so far out there it isn't funny.
And lemme know your results... I'll write a paper on 'em, post it on google for you.
Shit the Govt may give you a grant for your study if you ask them nicely.
This article doesn't agree with you or the APA.
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/d … 801-15.pdf
"That observation, combined with the fact that Odenwald and his colleague Shang-Ding Zhang produced the abnormal sexual behavior by manipulating the genes of the flies, garnered widespread media attention last month."
Sure it does. It agrees with me fully in a round about way.
Matter of fact I would say it proves it isn't natural. Or man would not have had to minipulate it to be so... nature would have allowed it naturally.
See how that goes?
Then I respectfully suggest you go and read it.
Oh here it is now..
Definition of SYNCRETISM
1: the combination of different forms of belief or practice
2: the fusion of two or more originally different inflectional forms
Syncretism, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is “the reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief.” This is most evident in the areas of philosophy and religion, and usually results in a new teaching or belief system. Obviously, this cannot be reconciled to biblical Christianity.
Watering down my religion because you all do not like it is unacceptable. I hope you scream at Muslims for being too faithful?
And of course we all know the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches are guilty of this act today.
What part of my statement did you fail to understand? I know what the word means. My statement and opinion remain unchanged.
Would it be syncretism to accept the Bible regarding homosexuality but to reject the Fruits of the Spirit? Would that be the creation of a new belief system?
And it is funny how you all think calling a man a homosexual is an insult, as inferred strongly from your jokes about McCarthy.
Shows your true feelings for homosexuals.
Because I say you cannot live in a state of sin, homosexual life-style/relationship... and gain true repentance, I am in conflict with the bible.
You have to try. You cannot just say, well gee God will forgive me, and not even try.
That is the point.
And God no where in the Bible tells us to accept the unnatural, immoral or other-wise unacceptable... as moral, natural, and accceptable.
He tells us to tolerate... not accept, the sins of others.
Are all conservatives humor-challenged? What's funny about it is you screaming about homosexuals, when your hero is one of America's most famous closet cases. That's the humor. You just didn't get it.
Isn't that my point, Mason?
You don't even try to exhibit the Fruits of the Spirit. You don't even make a weak attempt. You seem to think you can ignore them and God will forgive. Don't you have to at least try?
Why do you always leave that part of it out? Always.
See why I love your posts? They're so easy!
the sexual tension between you two is palpable!
You seem to think I do not like Gay people.
That should prove to you how wrong you are... if indeed you believe he was gay. I know he was far ahead of the curve in this country in his day, having a Gay, a black man and a woman as his aides... supporting Civil Rights while LBJ and the Democrats were blocking them in the Senate... but other than that, the rest is just supposition and rumor.
And if it is true then you should show a lil respect for the gay people you insult by slinging it around as an insult.
I think your the homophobe here... and your lil cohorts.
By your own words you are in conflict with the Bible. You say your God tells you to tolerate. The definition of tolerate is
1.permit something: to be willing to allow something to happen or exist
2.endure something: to withstand the unpleasant effects of something
3.accept existence of different views: to recognize other people's right to have different beliefs or practices without attempting to suppress them
How exactly do your words fit any of those definitions?
I thought you said you had read my words? You should see it then.
I have said a thousand times I tolerate their behaviour, all are welcome to choose to act as they want. The only thing you cannot do is call something, something it is not.
Appearently that makes you all mad.
I accept the existence of it.
I am willing to permit it.
We as a Nation are enduring, withstand, the unpleasant effects of the homosexual agenda, and their behaviour, and the consequences which arise from it, as with any other unhealthy life-style.
And as I said I recognize their right to act as they want and believe as they want. (even though smokers appearently cannot)
But I don't accept their actions, choices, or life-styles as natural, moral, or accceptable.
See the difference E? Probrably not.
That would be sort of funny, if it wasn’t for the fact that you are serious. To tolerate is the law of your God, as you have said. You live by the letter of the law. Not by the spirit of it.
Accepting of other’s beliefs and practices and recognizing their rights without attempting to suppress them.
Yes, I get it. You appear to be having some difficulty.
I have never said I live by the letter of the law and not the spirit... those are your words.
And there is no opression, or suppression, or any other pression... E.
They have their rights.
No, your lack of tolerance is evident from your words. You show this every time you post on the topic. You aren't tolerant by any stretch of the imagination.
Actually it is the Left who is blindly intolerant of my views, and that of many Christians, which worries me in this country.
You all seem to think we all need to think in lock-step. You all think we should be some great collective consciousness, and all have one frame of mind.
I say live an let live... but there is a natural order and when you step outside it, you do not get to claim your acts are natural or moral when by all historic and Natural standards, they are not.
Which also means your side doesn't get to indoctrinate children to dis-believe their parents teachings about things.
See how that works.
You are blinded by your intolerance. Yes, things have swung left. To balance things out.. It's the constant harping by the right that makes those of us in the middle affiliate ourselves with the left.
You aren't tolerant of others. You begrudge them their differences. You say live and let live, then the very next sentence you call those who are different an abomination. Those of us in the middle will never stand with you or support you. Because we understand the spirit of the meaning of tolerance.
The problem I see with people such as yourself is that you aren't comfortable being yourself without trying to make it the norm. You need to fit in, so you are attempting to make the world fit you. What you fail to admit is that it already does
The christians scream about prayer in school because their children don't have the intestinal fortitude to pray, unless everyone is forced to.
The christians scream about abortion because they suffer guilt at having made a decision for abortions in their past.
They rail against divorce because most of them have been through one.
They rail against gays attempting to hide from the fact that they themselves are, many times, homosexual.
Every thing the christians rail against are a reflection of themselves and they think somehow by standing against it, they can pretend it isn't them. They don't want to feel different, or they want to forget their mistakes. They want the illusion of their image of perfection.
I know christians of your caliber Mr. Mason. I've been watching them for years. And I'm telling you the only people you fool are yourselves.
I am sorry Emile R but you say that TM Mason is intolerant, when he is a believer of live and let live.... thats just confusing. The intolerant ones I can see are those who twist the bible and religion to preach racial hatred and evil against those that they feel are deemed unworthy. I always thought religion was snobby and hypocritical and this forum has proved it...
That would have been the, "not", just before your, "unaware".
I just didn't see it sittin there, E.
You do not like my spelling... oh well.
An aberration is something that deviates from the normal way.
I'm not ignoring you. Your poor logic skills, vocabulary and spelling are an endless source of entertainment.
Not to mention your refusal to confront what by now you know is the truth about the lack of evidence in you for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
I look forward to your posts. If this was softball and you were pitching, the inning would never end!
Say there Joe, I like you too... but would you mind putting that thing away and zipping up for me???
Yes.. I got the condoms just like you asked..
Geez, I can't want to play "hide the Commie" with you again, Senator..
and yet 3 weeks later..
The !@@#^@$^!@#^!# never even called me the next day
Off to work. Lob me another one, Mason. I'll whack it later.
God does not weigh sin against one another. To him, all sin is equal. We, as people, like to assign different categories for sin. And the funny thing is, the one quick to call someone out on their sin is sometimes, if not frequently, involved in much "worse" sins. it's that simple. Do I agree with homosexuality? No - not in particular - but I don't have a heaven or a hell to put anyone in. Meaning, I won't go around with a bullhorn telling people they are but a breath away from hell. I will, if asked, give my opinion on that lifestyle.
If the Bible is worth anything, except to be used to stableize a table with one leg too short, it shouldn't say a damn thing about homosexuality!
by ii3rittles 9 months ago
Is the bible against or okay with homosexuality?I have read scripture that goes both ways (no pun intended!) and I am honestly confused. Can some please quote scripture that shows God is against homosexuality or okay with it. And is it okay (with God) that I view it as wrong? I try not to in...
by Jason Menayan 7 years ago
Quite a powerful story:http://www.danoah.com/2012/04/a-teens-b … e-gay.htmlI think this explains why so many of us are bothered by the "hate the sin, not the sinner" nonsense that many right-wing Christians trot out. Homosexuality is not an act, it's a fundamental orientation, and...
by Jacqui 7 years ago
What I (and others wish) the Church knew about....(insert thing here). For me, what I wish the church knew about Homosexuality - see the pic - finally a picture which really does say 1000 words. What about you? Agree with the pic? Or have something that you wish the Church knew about....NB:...
by Canucks goal 4 years ago
What does the bible say about homosexuality? Is it a sin?
by SLSWEET 2 years ago
What does Jesus/bible say about how to enter heavenI come from a long lineage of Catholic belief. I believe in 1 God and have accepted Jesus as my personal savior. I speak to Jesus/God almost on a daily basis though I rarely ever pray. I am not a church going or...
by fun2hub 4 years ago
A Roman Catholic Cardinal told homosexuals and transsexuals on Wednesday they would never get into heaven, prompting a rebuke from the Vatican itself."Transsexuals and homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, it's not me who says it but St. Paul," said Mexican Cardinal Javier...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|