-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians: They were banned!
- Thread starter onmybelief
- Start date
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
How ISN'T it evil for a brother and a sister to marry and have sex with each other?? That's utterly disgusting (I know, so is picking your nose...because the two are OBVIOUSLY moral equivalents...:biglaugh: )
My apologies...I meant to include verse 19 in there: "And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." That's pretty obvious authority.
That's utterly ludicrous. Paul, who called himself the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15) condemned people for their sin throughout his epistles (Rom. 1:21-32; 1 Cor. 3:2-3; Gal. 1:6-7; Eph. 4:17-19; etc etc etc). Peter also made no qualms about calling it just like he saw it, even when he was not perfect (2 Peter 2:9-22). To claim that we can only call out and/or discipline someone who is in serious if we ourselves are totally perfect, makes no sense at all.
That depends on what you mean by "keep it to themself". I would be ok with attending a church with a person who had homosexual tendencies, but realized that God saw homosexuality as sin, and therefore refrained from homosexual acts.
Not at all. We have been talking about both the political and religious aspects of the problem, and thus I have been commenting on both.
By what standard is men marrying other men a "right"? Gay marriage isn't even addressed directly in the Constitution, probably because they never thought this nation would become so morally bankrupt that we would actually be ok with men marrying and having sex with each other (another reason why appealing to the Constitution for some hidden gay marriage clause is ludicrous). Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman in this country. Some extremely liberal places (e.g. San Francisco) have decided to perform gay marraiges with no legal right to do so (thus why many gay marriages have been annulled), because they defy the legal definition of marriage. The reason that marraige is labeled as just a man and a woman is because that's the way marraige has ALWAYS been defined in this country. If you wish to change it, then you must provide a sufficient legal reason why. In terms of religion, marraige has always been defined as just between a man and a woman because that's the way God designed it from the beginning of creation (Gen. 2:24). Homosexuality is utterly condemned throughout the Bible, and has always been condemned in the Church throughout its 2,000 year history.
Nothing is being taken away. Gay people wish to ADD or OBTAIN so-called "rights" that they have never had in this country. Whether anyone else is being put in immediate physical danger is irrelevant. Society is put in danger by allowing institutionalized homosexual unions. The greatest nations in history have been not been destroyed by outside forces, but by moral degradation, including the acceptance of sexually deviant behavior, such as homosexuality.One word FREEDOM. No one life is being put in danger. Nobody elese freedom is in Jeapordy. And if you want to take away peoples freedom; "because we want to" and "the Bible says so" aren't valid reasons
So then you're ok with incestuous marraige? Or plural marraige? No one is denying homosexuals the right to marry, as I've already explained. A homosexual can get married to someone of the opposite sex just like straight people can. However, no one, straight gay or otherwise, has the "right" to marry someone of the same gender, because such unions are outside the definition of marriage in this country.
So then anyone who is persecuted for their lifestyle should be defended? How about drug addicts who are pressured to quit, or arrested for the illegal possession of drugs? Are you going to defend them because they're "persecuted"? Or perhaps prostitutes' "persecuted" lifestyle will be next on your list of people groups to defend?
Maybe you're right, maybe it will be legal everywhere one day. But I plan to fight against it when I go to the polls. Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with voting your religious conscience. No Church which condemns homosexuality as sin is denying anyone their freedom. As for "having our meetings together", we already are...they're called "church services"
. Yet the whole point of this thread is that you want to invade those meetings and force us to worship with people who are in a willfully sinful and condemned state according to our Church's beliefs. You seem fond of comparing us to the KKK, yet you say, "not that you are the KKK, but..." Maybe if you stop comparing us to them, people will stop thinking we're like them. I hate to break it to YOU, but one day Jesus Christ will be returning to this Earth to set up His kingdom. According to God's own proclamation, no homosexual will inherit that Kingdom. So please, be my guest and futilely attempt through the world system to sanction these unions. Even if you succeed temporarily to legalize them on the whole globe, one day they will be broken up, and in spite of all your efforts to be "tolerant" and give them their "freedom", those homosexuals will be condemned nonetheless. I on the other hand, choose to side with God on the issue, in the hopes that homosexuals will turn from their sin and choose a life that is pleasing to God. God wishes for all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4), as do I. However, those who blatantly and knowingly break God's laws in such egregious and serious acts of sin, will not inherit God's kingdom.
FerventGodSeeker
From the looks of things, I'll be perfectley happy staying right were i am.[/quote]
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
How ISN'T it evil for a brother and a sister to marry and have sex with each other?? That's utterly disgusting (I know, so is picking your nose...because the two are OBVIOUSLY moral equivalents...:biglaugh: )
My apologies...I meant to include verse 19 in there: "And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." That's pretty obvious authority.
That's utterly ludicrous. Paul, who called himself the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15) condemned people for their sin throughout his epistles (Rom. 1:21-32; 1 Cor. 3:2-3; Gal. 1:6-7; Eph. 4:17-19; etc etc etc). Peter also made no qualms about calling it just like he saw it, even when he was not perfect (2 Peter 2:9-22). To claim that we can only call out and/or discipline someone who is in serious if we ourselves are totally perfect, makes no sense at all.
That depends on what you mean by "keep it to themself". I would be ok with attending a church with a person who had homosexual tendencies, but realized that God saw homosexuality as sin, and therefore refrained from homosexual acts.
Not at all. We have been talking about both the political and religious aspects of the problem, and thus I have been commenting on both.
By what standard is men marrying other men a "right"? Gay marriage isn't even addressed directly in the Constitution, probably because they never thought this nation would become so morally bankrupt that we would actually be ok with men marrying and having sex with each other (another reason why appealing to the Constitution for some hidden gay marriage clause is ludicrous). Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman in this country. Some extremely liberal places (e.g. San Francisco) have decided to perform gay marraiges with no legal right to do so (thus why many gay marriages have been annulled), because they defy the legal definition of marriage. The reason that marraige is labeled as just a man and a woman is because that's the way marraige has ALWAYS been defined in this country. If you wish to change it, then you must provide a sufficient legal reason why. In terms of religion, marraige has always been defined as just between a man and a woman because that's the way God designed it from the beginning of creation (Gen. 2:24). Homosexuality is utterly condemned throughout the Bible, and has always been condemned in the Church throughout its 2,000 year history.
Nothing is being taken away. Gay people wish to ADD or OBTAIN so-called "rights" that they have never had in this country. Whether anyone else is being put in immediate physical danger is irrelevant. Society is put in danger by allowing institutionalized homosexual unions. The greatest nations in history have been not been destroyed by outside forces, but by moral degradation, including the acceptance of sexually deviant behavior, such as homosexuality.One word FREEDOM. No one life is being put in danger. Nobody elese freedom is in Jeapordy. And if you want to take away peoples freedom; "because we want to" and "the Bible says so" aren't valid reasons
So then you're ok with incestuous marraige? Or plural marraige? No one is denying homosexuals the right to marry, as I've already explained. A homosexual can get married to someone of the opposite sex just like straight people can. However, no one, straight gay or otherwise, has the "right" to marry someone of the same gender, because such unions are outside the definition of marriage in this country.
So then anyone who is persecuted for their lifestyle should be defended? How about drug addicts who are pressured to quit, or arrested for the illegal possession of drugs? Are you going to defend them because they're "persecuted"? Or perhaps prostitutes' "persecuted" lifestyle will be next on your list of people groups to defend?
Maybe you're right, maybe it will be legal everywhere one day. But I plan to fight against it when I go to the polls. Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with voting your religious conscience. No Church which condemns homosexuality as sin is denying anyone their freedom. As for "having our meetings together", we already are...they're called "church services"
. Yet the whole point of this thread is that you want to invade those meetings and force us to worship with people who are in a willfully sinful and condemned state according to our Church's beliefs. You seem fond of comparing us to the KKK, yet you say, "not that you are the KKK, but..." Maybe if you stop comparing us to them, people will stop thinking we're like them. I hate to break it to YOU, but one day Jesus Christ will be returning to this Earth to set up His kingdom. According to God's own proclamation, no homosexual will inherit that Kingdom. So please, be my guest and futilely attempt through the world system to sanction these unions. Even if you succeed temporarily to legalize them on the whole globe, one day they will be broken up, and in spite of all your efforts to be "tolerant" and give them their "freedom", those homosexuals will be condemned nonetheless. I on the other hand, choose to side with God on the issue, in the hopes that homosexuals will turn from their sin and choose a life that is pleasing to God. God wishes for all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4), as do I. However, those who blatantly and knowingly break God's laws in such egregious and serious acts of sin, will not inherit God's kingdom.
FerventGodSeeker
From the looks of things, I'll be perfectley happy staying right were i am.[/quote]
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
How ISN'T it evil for a brother and a sister to marry and have sex with each other?? That's utterly disgusting (I know, so is picking your nose...because the two are OBVIOUSLY moral equivalents...:biglaugh: )
My apologies...I meant to include verse 19 in there: "And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." That's pretty obvious authority.
That's utterly ludicrous. Paul, who called himself the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15) condemned people for their sin throughout his epistles (Rom. 1:21-32; 1 Cor. 3:2-3; Gal. 1:6-7; Eph. 4:17-19; etc etc etc). Peter also made no qualms about calling it just like he saw it, even when he was not perfect (2 Peter 2:9-22). To claim that we can only call out and/or discipline someone who is in serious if we ourselves are totally perfect, makes no sense at all.
That depends on what you mean by "keep it to themself". I would be ok with attending a church with a person who had homosexual tendencies, but realized that God saw homosexuality as sin, and therefore refrained from homosexual acts.
Not at all. We have been talking about both the political and religious aspects of the problem, and thus I have been commenting on both.
By what standard is men marrying other men a "right"? Gay marriage isn't even addressed directly in the Constitution, probably because they never thought this nation would become so morally bankrupt that we would actually be ok with men marrying and having sex with each other (another reason why appealing to the Constitution for some hidden gay marriage clause is ludicrous). Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman in this country. Some extremely liberal places (e.g. San Francisco) have decided to perform gay marraiges with no legal right to do so (thus why many gay marriages have been annulled), because they defy the legal definition of marriage. The reason that marraige is labeled as just a man and a woman is because that's the way marraige has ALWAYS been defined in this country. If you wish to change it, then you must provide a sufficient legal reason why. In terms of religion, marraige has always been defined as just between a man and a woman because that's the way God designed it from the beginning of creation (Gen. 2:24). Homosexuality is utterly condemned throughout the Bible, and has always been condemned in the Church throughout its 2,000 year history.
Nothing is being taken away. Gay people wish to ADD or OBTAIN so-called "rights" that they have never had in this country. Whether anyone else is being put in immediate physical danger is irrelevant. Society is put in danger by allowing institutionalized homosexual unions. The greatest nations in history have been not been destroyed by outside forces, but by moral degradation, including the acceptance of sexually deviant behavior, such as homosexuality.One word FREEDOM. No one life is being put in danger. Nobody elese freedom is in Jeapordy. And if you want to take away peoples freedom; "because we want to" and "the Bible says so" aren't valid reasons
So then you're ok with incestuous marraige? Or plural marraige? No one is denying homosexuals the right to marry, as I've already explained. A homosexual can get married to someone of the opposite sex just like straight people can. However, no one, straight gay or otherwise, has the "right" to marry someone of the same gender, because such unions are outside the definition of marriage in this country.
So then anyone who is persecuted for their lifestyle should be defended? How about drug addicts who are pressured to quit, or arrested for the illegal possession of drugs? Are you going to defend them because they're "persecuted"? Or perhaps prostitutes' "persecuted" lifestyle will be next on your list of people groups to defend?
Maybe you're right, maybe it will be legal everywhere one day. But I plan to fight against it when I go to the polls. Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with voting your religious conscience. No Church which condemns homosexuality as sin is denying anyone their freedom. As for "having our meetings together", we already are...they're called "church services"
. Yet the whole point of this thread is that you want to invade those meetings and force us to worship with people who are in a willfully sinful and condemned state according to our Church's beliefs. You seem fond of comparing us to the KKK, yet you say, "not that you are the KKK, but..." Maybe if you stop comparing us to them, people will stop thinking we're like them. I hate to break it to YOU, but one day Jesus Christ will be returning to this Earth to set up His kingdom. According to God's own proclamation, no homosexual will inherit that Kingdom. So please, be my guest and futilely attempt through the world system to sanction these unions. Even if you succeed temporarily to legalize them on the whole globe, one day they will be broken up, and in spite of all your efforts to be "tolerant" and give them their "freedom", those homosexuals will be condemned nonetheless. I on the other hand, choose to side with God on the issue, in the hopes that homosexuals will turn from their sin and choose a life that is pleasing to God. God wishes for all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4), as do I. However, those who blatantly and knowingly break God's laws in such egregious and serious acts of sin, will not inherit God's kingdom.
FerventGodSeeker
From the looks of things, I'll be perfectley happy staying right were i am.[/quote]
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
How ISN'T it evil for a brother and a sister to marry and have sex with each other?? That's utterly disgusting (I know, so is picking your nose...because the two are OBVIOUSLY moral equivalents...:biglaugh: )
My apologies...I meant to include verse 19 in there: "And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." That's pretty obvious authority.
That's utterly ludicrous. Paul, who called himself the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15) condemned people for their sin throughout his epistles (Rom. 1:21-32; 1 Cor. 3:2-3; Gal. 1:6-7; Eph. 4:17-19; etc etc etc). Peter also made no qualms about calling it just like he saw it, even when he was not perfect (2 Peter 2:9-22). To claim that we can only call out and/or discipline someone who is in serious if we ourselves are totally perfect, makes no sense at all.
That depends on what you mean by "keep it to themself". I would be ok with attending a church with a person who had homosexual tendencies, but realized that God saw homosexuality as sin, and therefore refrained from homosexual acts.
Not at all. We have been talking about both the political and religious aspects of the problem, and thus I have been commenting on both.
By what standard is men marrying other men a "right"? Gay marriage isn't even addressed directly in the Constitution, probably because they never thought this nation would become so morally bankrupt that we would actually be ok with men marrying and having sex with each other (another reason why appealing to the Constitution for some hidden gay marriage clause is ludicrous). Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman in this country. Some extremely liberal places (e.g. San Francisco) have decided to perform gay marraiges with no legal right to do so (thus why many gay marriages have been annulled), because they defy the legal definition of marriage. The reason that marraige is labeled as just a man and a woman is because that's the way marraige has ALWAYS been defined in this country. If you wish to change it, then you must provide a sufficient legal reason why. In terms of religion, marraige has always been defined as just between a man and a woman because that's the way God designed it from the beginning of creation (Gen. 2:24). Homosexuality is utterly condemned throughout the Bible, and has always been condemned in the Church throughout its 2,000 year history.
Nothing is being taken away. Gay people wish to ADD or OBTAIN so-called "rights" that they have never had in this country. Whether anyone else is being put in immediate physical danger is irrelevant. Society is put in danger by allowing institutionalized homosexual unions. The greatest nations in history have been not been destroyed by outside forces, but by moral degradation, including the acceptance of sexually deviant behavior, such as homosexuality.One word FREEDOM. No one life is being put in danger. Nobody elese freedom is in Jeapordy. And if you want to take away peoples freedom; "because we want to" and "the Bible says so" aren't valid reasons
So then you're ok with incestuous marraige? Or plural marraige? No one is denying homosexuals the right to marry, as I've already explained. A homosexual can get married to someone of the opposite sex just like straight people can. However, no one, straight gay or otherwise, has the "right" to marry someone of the same gender, because such unions are outside the definition of marriage in this country.
So then anyone who is persecuted for their lifestyle should be defended? How about drug addicts who are pressured to quit, or arrested for the illegal possession of drugs? Are you going to defend them because they're "persecuted"? Or perhaps prostitutes' "persecuted" lifestyle will be next on your list of people groups to defend?
Maybe you're right, maybe it will be legal everywhere one day. But I plan to fight against it when I go to the polls. Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with voting your religious conscience. No Church which condemns homosexuality as sin is denying anyone their freedom. As for "having our meetings together", we already are...they're called "church services"
. Yet the whole point of this thread is that you want to invade those meetings and force us to worship with people who are in a willfully sinful and condemned state according to our Church's beliefs. You seem fond of comparing us to the KKK, yet you say, "not that you are the KKK, but..." Maybe if you stop comparing us to them, people will stop thinking we're like them. I hate to break it to YOU, but one day Jesus Christ will be returning to this Earth to set up His kingdom. According to God's own proclamation, no homosexual will inherit that Kingdom. So please, be my guest and futilely attempt through the world system to sanction these unions. Even if you succeed temporarily to legalize them on the whole globe, one day they will be broken up, and in spite of all your efforts to be "tolerant" and give them their "freedom", those homosexuals will be condemned nonetheless. I on the other hand, choose to side with God on the issue, in the hopes that homosexuals will turn from their sin and choose a life that is pleasing to God. God wishes for all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4), as do I. However, those who blatantly and knowingly break God's laws in such egregious and serious acts of sin, will not inherit God's kingdom.
FerventGodSeeker
From the looks of things, I'll be perfectley happy staying right were i am.[/quote]
Booko
Deviled Hen
Adstar said:
Yes, Christ did call us to a higher standard.
But then, we do not have the ability to know what's in someone else's heart...that's left for an omniscient God.
So if gays were to be expelled when they are not behaving counter to the teachings, but only on suspicion of having feelings, then we'd probably have to boot out the vast majority of the hetero men and a fair bit of the women for having lustful thoughts.
For some reason merely being gay is enough to get some knickers in a twist. Yet us straight people can have all the lustful thoughts we want, as long as we don't act on them, and no one speaks against us, much less gives us the boot.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
I'm a huge fan of the "Jesus, the love-everyone-hippy" (stuff like your posts) that seems to be all over these days --- it's a lot of fun to read as I'm a big fan of our loving and merciful Lord and Savior --- but there is only one problem = it's not even close to being true or even the slightest bit reasonable.Mister_T said:
... but it seems you've dropped out of the thread. Oh well... peace be with you.
Scott
The fact that you base your morals on ink and paper rather than common sense is just as lauhable if not more so.
To self righteous man it would be. It's a parable and it can have many interpretations. Giving keys to somone doesn't give them the same authority, if any. It's letting them have access to something. Peter has the keys to Heaven. He has the access to open the gates and show people the goodness of God.
I'm not ok with a lot of things. But if somebody wants to do something in the privacy of their own home and it's not harming or effecting anybody, then who am I to judge? Judging ain't my job. Who am I to say anything to anybody? It's none of my business what people do in their homes. Just becuase I'm not ok with it doesn't give me the right to barge in and start dictating to them. And it doesn't give you the right either.
In case you haven't noticed I'm quite liberal. Drug addicts are harming themselves and have potential to harm those around them. Prostitutes are also at risk of harming themselves and others. A gay monogomous couple, doesn't harm anybody. Bye the way where's your campaign against drug addicts and prostitutes? There are tons more of them than there are gay people. Why don't you start a "war' with them?
I don't want to force you to worship with them. I want to force you to stop treating them like they're pieces of crap because they don't conform to your beliefs.
I really don't have to compare you to anything. You guys do a fine job of making yourselves look bad.You seem fond of comparing us to the KKK, yet you say, "not that you are the KKK, but..." Maybe if you stop comparing us to them, people will stop thinking we're like them.
Yes I know. I'm a "Christian" after all. Probably not by your standards but then again, who cares.
I never said Gay people get into Heaven. I don't ever claim who's going to Heaven and who's not. I don't even say I'm going to Heaven. I will face judgment like everyone else. I will not be so arrogant as to claim that I ultimatley know my eternal destination. I don't follow the man made salvation program the people have made for themselves by picking a few verses here and there and conforming them to their own thoughts. I take the context and message of the entire Bible into account. And it doesn't match up with what's being preached in many churches today.
Who God lets into his kingdom is not my decision and ultimatley I have no control who makes it and who doesn't. My job is to plant the seed and feed his sheep. To show love and compassion. And to take care of the poor, the needy, the sick, and the OPRESSED. And whether or not gay people get into Heaven or not, they are being opressed. They're in a monogomous relationship just like everyone else; the ONLY difference between them and everyone else is their gender. You can't discriminate against people because they choose to be with a man instead of a women. Ink and paper do not justify the fact that prejudice is wrong. Your methods are breeding hate and creating divisions amongst people. It's not the first time in church history and it won't be the last.
The FACT is your creating hate. Hate in any form, in any degree, is evil. Just because you slap God's name on something doesn't make it right. You people are saying that hate is ok. You are calling good evil and evil good. It wasn't right when the Crusades did it. It wasn't right when the Spainish Inquisition did it. It wasn't right when America's first settlers did it with Native Americans. It wasn't right when the Salem Witch Trials did it. It wasn't right when the Anti-Black movement did it. And it's not right when the Anti-Gay movement does it. And no matter how Holy you claim you are, unless you're God/Jesus it wil NOT be tolerated.
Scott1 said:
Jesus allowing everyone going to Heaven is not reasonable if that's what you're trying to imply that's what I'm saying. Which I'm not.
Calling people sick and disgusting is reasonable?! Sinner or no Sinner that's not right.
Jesus does love everybody. Whether or not they get into Heaven is a different story. Maybe you should read what I wrote about those who nailed Jesus to the cross.
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
Yes, I do base my morals on God's Word, as should you, if you claim to be a Christian. However, my morals aren't solely built on words from an ancient book. If you weren't aware, the Church is alive and well, and has been for 2,000 years...my morality is based on living, active Church teaching as it is constantly confronted by new challenges and issues, including homosexuality. Before the gay "rights" movement of the 20th century, and throughout it, the Church has maintained that homosexuality is a sin, and obviously egregious sin cannot be tolerated in God's house.
LOL....self-righteous? I'm self-righteous because I recognize the obvious authority granted to Christ's Church by God Himself? Sorry if it bothers you that God placed people in charge when He left...but He did. As you noted, Peter, and the Church, have the keys to heaven. Not only to LOOSE sins, but to BIND them as well. By the way, this passage is not a parable...do you know what a parable is? And no, it can't have "many interpretations" which contradict each other. Read virtually any mainstream Biblical commentator on this passage...the keys and the powers of binding and loosing are obvious symbols of authority.
When did I ever talk about barging into anyone's home? Homosexuals are trying to barge into GOD'S home, and trying to force everyone to pretend like they're not steeped in sin that condemns them to Hell.
We have, and still do....if you recall, I already responded to that in an earlier post of yours. Unforunately, the fact is, the majority of male homosexuals and lesbians aren't monogamous, nor do they choose to be. That's a large reason why the spread and creation of STDs have skyrocketed since the start of the so-called "Sexual Revolution", along with which came the gay "rights" movement.
I don't treat gay people like crap. I personally know gay people, and I treat them with all civility and respect. However, the whole point of this thread is that you DO want to force us to worship with them. You want us to let them into any church, anywhere, any time, regardless of the church's moral view on homosexuality. That is wrong.
Excellent, so you won't bring up the KKK anymore. Yay!
I don't pretend to know if you're a Christian or not. However, it's obvious that your liberal politics interfere with your obvious reading and understanding of the Bible....God calls homosexuality wrong, and yet you support the legal sanction of homosexual unions....there's something seriously wrong with that.
If you take the context of the entire Bible into account, then you know that God views homosexuality as wrong and that those who practice it will not inherit God's kingdom. Based on that, you should be attempting to show them the truth by standing for what is right in God's eyes and calling homosexuality wrong. If you recognize homosexuality is wrong, you shouldn't be supporting the legal sanction of homosexual unions.
If your job is to plant the seed, then you should know that any homosexual who you evangelize towards needs to understand that God views homosexuality as wrong. If you baby them and tell them that they can do whatever they want, that's not helping their spiritual well-being, as much as it may make you feel tolerant and loving. It is hindering them. And unfortunately sir, it is YOU who is causing division in the Church by attempting to go against obvious Christian and Biblical teaching that homosexaulity is sin and cannot be tolerated. Causing someone to stop from sinning is not discrimination. And my methods (by the way, they're not mine, they're the Christian Church's) are not breeding hate; I don't hate gay people. I hate the sin, not the sinner. However, just as I won't condone incest or polygamy, I won't condone homosexuality.
Really? So when Jesus, in Revelation 2:6, says, "But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."...Jesus is spreading evil?? Or maybe, just maybe, There is such a thing as righteous judgement. We, as Christians who are to stand for what is morally right, are to hate sin. That's pretty obvious: We are to hate that which is wrong and evil. And again, you keep trying to bring this up, but I don't think I'm perfect and holy while gay people are dirt. Everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. However, as Christians we are to have righteous judgement and call sin what it is: evil. Homosexuality is sin, whether you like it or not. We as Christians are to act based on that knowledge. Preaching to others than God's judgement is righteous and holy and His words are true, and then tolerating a lifestyle that God hates and condemns, is utter and complete hypocrisy, and you know it.
FerventGodSeeker
And Church teaching is based off of an ancient book. So essentially, you do base you morals soley on an ancient book.
My mistake. It's not a parable. It is metaphorical. And I don't see the word sin any where in that passage. You just added something to the word of God *GASP*
You can't add idea's and words into that and call what you want literal. If you're going to call something literal then you must call the whole passage literal. So? ...........Where are these keys? I need to make some copies of them.
Contradiction is relative to the person reading it.
Mainstream Bible commentator?
Just because you have the label of "mainstream" doesn't make it right. And they are plenty of people who dissagree with "mainstrem"
Like I said, it's all reletive to the individual. I'd rather not follow anybody and pray about about it. I'll let the Holy Spirit Guide me.
I never said they wern't in sin. I just said they shouldn't be denied a place of worship becuase of it.
Not remaining monogmous has it's consequences
I don't mean that you personally do. The overall church attitude towards them is quite negetive. But we're all sinners and we're no worse than them. If a Gay person wants to go to church to be closer to God, you're denying him that relationship. Now if he starts preaching to you that God condones homsexuality that's a different story. If he's not saying anything to any one and keeping to himself, there shouldn't be a problem.
[/quote]
The same could be said for your fundemental politics. There are obvious things that a fundie's pride blinds them to. Such basic truth and understanding. I'm entitled to my opinion and you're entitled to yours.
I NEVER said it wasn't a sin. And as far the the context of the Bible is concerned, it's reletive to the individual. No one can claim that they know the Bible, God, and the innerworkings of our universe with 100% certainty and authority. To make such a claim is ludacirs
I don't tell them anything other than read the Bible regarding their concern and pray about it. I let God speak for himself. I'm not a self righteous mouth piece. Every homosexual convert story that I've heard of has used the same method (which is what gave me the idea)It is the right way to Evangelize. Trying to force your beliefs on people and pointing your finger at them is not.
One has to go to church to create a division. Like I said you guys do a fine job of damaging yourselves. I don't need to help you with that. Stopping someone from sinning is not discrimination and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talikng about your methods and your actions.
Your methods are wrong. Your methods are discriminating. Your actions are wrong and they are discriminating. Even though you don't see it that way, the world does. And you're not helping the cause you're hurting it. I These things cause the hostility towards you. It's not the God that you worship people have the problem with, IT'S THE PEOPLE. You guys have no idea how many people you turn off to Christs message because of your actions. It was Ghandi who said" I like their Christ. I don't like their Christians." People should start taking note of that.
Righteous judgment? Could be. But there is only one person whos has the right and authority of righteous judgment. And it ain't you or your church. It's God. He's the one who Judges humanity when they die. Not you.
I'm doing the same.
Even though I believe you don't feel that way, you actions say otherwise.
No sir you're wrong. You're not to judge at all.
Mattew 7: 1-5 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother 'Let me take the speck out of your eye' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? you hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers"
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
Wrong. The Church's teaching is based off the Bible, as well as Holy Tradition and the living Authority of the Church today. The Bible has never been the sole authority for God's Church.
So because the word isn't there, the idea isn't there? That's a pretty basic logical fallacy. Keys are a symbol of authority in Scripture (Isa. 22:22; Rev. 1:18, etc) The powers of binding and loosing are related to forgiveness of sins (John 20:32). Again, if you did the slightest bit of research into the subject, you would notice that the references are quite obvious.
No, something is either a contradiction or it isn't.
Sure, but when you're talking about Church teachings, we're talking about doctrines with past precedent. The Church has taught on these Scriptures and their meaning with divine authority for 2,000 years...and suddenly you come along and claim otherwise, just because you individually feel that it could mean something different? Sorry, guy, it doesn't work that way.
Says who? You, an individual? Well that's a nice circular declaration. Pity the Church has never felt that way.
Well that's nice. I'm glad you've got the market cornered on the Holy Spirit, who for some reason guides you to different conclusions that He has directed the Church, which has beem given divine authority as "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), for the past 2,000 years. And we wonder why Protestant Christianity, all of whom claim to be led individually by the Holy Spirit, is now composed of over 30,000 denominations...
Pity that such an opinion flatly contradicts God's Word:
"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person." 1 Cor. 5:11
"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." 2 Thess. 3:6
Those in serious sin that God flatly condemns are not to be allowed to remain in fellowship with faithful believers. Homosexuals have no right in the eyes of God to demand fellowship with believers when they are blatantly in disobedience and in serious sin which God guarantees that, if they continue, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Yep....so does being gay and having homosexual sex.
Well duh. GOD'S attitude toward them is quite negative, homosexuality is a serious sin, on par in God's book with adultery, fornication, and idolatry. Obvious we're not going to dote on them like nothing is wrong.
No, we're not denying him that relationship at all. If that gay person admits that homosexuality is a sin and refrains from homosexual activity, they are more than welcome to go to church to be closer to God. The homosexual must make the first step, and admit that they are in serious sin that causes them to be completely condemned, and that if their "alternative lifestyle" does not cease, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Basic truth and understanding is acknowledging that, according to God, homosexuality is unacceptable, and therefore if God is our Lord and Savior, we are to be lights for Him and stand for what He calls right, and against what He calls wrong.
Says who? You again?
And no such claim is necesary to be able to identify with certainty that which God plainly calls serious sin, and what Christ's Church has plainly been teaching for 2,000 years.
And neither is condoning their homosexual unions when you know that they are only becoming more and more steeped in sin. I've heard the stories of numerous former practicing homosexuals, and none of them recognized the error of their ways while on a gay "rights" march with their nice, liberal Christian friend who doesn't want to "judge" anybody. In condoning such activities, you're not helping these people. You're telling them that they're lifestyle is ok, while God clearly says it's not.
So you don't go to a church of any kind on a regular basis? Why not?
Stopping someone from sinning (or at least trying), is EXACTLY what you're talking about. Our methods are to refuse openly practicing homosexuals who will not admit that their actions are sinful from worshipping with believers who, in accordance with Church teachig, oppose homosexuality. We do this in the hope that homosexuals will indeed stop their sinful lifestyle if they wish to regain fellowship with us...that is exactly what we're talking about, trying to stop people from sinning...which you just admitted is not discrimination. Case closed.
"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Has not God made foolish the wosdom of this world?" 1 Cor. 1:20
"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." Romans 12:2
"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." John 15:18-19 Perhaps you should take note of God's word over the words of a non-Christian man.
FerventGodSeeker
So because the word isn't there, the idea isn't there? That's a pretty basic logical fallacy. Keys are a symbol of authority in Scripture (Isa. 22:22; Rev. 1:18, etc) The powers of binding and loosing are related to forgiveness of sins (John 20:32). Again, if you did the slightest bit of research into the subject, you would notice that the references are quite obvious.
No, something is either a contradiction or it isn't.
Sure, but when you're talking about Church teachings, we're talking about doctrines with past precedent. The Church has taught on these Scriptures and their meaning with divine authority for 2,000 years...and suddenly you come along and claim otherwise, just because you individually feel that it could mean something different? Sorry, guy, it doesn't work that way.
Says who? You, an individual? Well that's a nice circular declaration. Pity the Church has never felt that way.
Well that's nice. I'm glad you've got the market cornered on the Holy Spirit, who for some reason guides you to different conclusions that He has directed the Church, which has beem given divine authority as "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), for the past 2,000 years. And we wonder why Protestant Christianity, all of whom claim to be led individually by the Holy Spirit, is now composed of over 30,000 denominations...
Pity that such an opinion flatly contradicts God's Word:
"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person." 1 Cor. 5:11
"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." 2 Thess. 3:6
Those in serious sin that God flatly condemns are not to be allowed to remain in fellowship with faithful believers. Homosexuals have no right in the eyes of God to demand fellowship with believers when they are blatantly in disobedience and in serious sin which God guarantees that, if they continue, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Yep....so does being gay and having homosexual sex.
Well duh. GOD'S attitude toward them is quite negative, homosexuality is a serious sin, on par in God's book with adultery, fornication, and idolatry. Obvious we're not going to dote on them like nothing is wrong.
No, we're not denying him that relationship at all. If that gay person admits that homosexuality is a sin and refrains from homosexual activity, they are more than welcome to go to church to be closer to God. The homosexual must make the first step, and admit that they are in serious sin that causes them to be completely condemned, and that if their "alternative lifestyle" does not cease, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Basic truth and understanding is acknowledging that, according to God, homosexuality is unacceptable, and therefore if God is our Lord and Savior, we are to be lights for Him and stand for what He calls right, and against what He calls wrong.
Says who? You again?
And no such claim is necesary to be able to identify with certainty that which God plainly calls serious sin, and what Christ's Church has plainly been teaching for 2,000 years.
And neither is condoning their homosexual unions when you know that they are only becoming more and more steeped in sin. I've heard the stories of numerous former practicing homosexuals, and none of them recognized the error of their ways while on a gay "rights" march with their nice, liberal Christian friend who doesn't want to "judge" anybody. In condoning such activities, you're not helping these people. You're telling them that they're lifestyle is ok, while God clearly says it's not.
So you don't go to a church of any kind on a regular basis? Why not?
Stopping someone from sinning (or at least trying), is EXACTLY what you're talking about. Our methods are to refuse openly practicing homosexuals who will not admit that their actions are sinful from worshipping with believers who, in accordance with Church teachig, oppose homosexuality. We do this in the hope that homosexuals will indeed stop their sinful lifestyle if they wish to regain fellowship with us...that is exactly what we're talking about, trying to stop people from sinning...which you just admitted is not discrimination. Case closed.
Weren't you the one just saying that the mainstream isn't always right?
"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Has not God made foolish the wosdom of this world?" 1 Cor. 1:20
"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." Romans 12:2
"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." John 15:18-19 Perhaps you should take note of God's word over the words of a non-Christian man.
Sir, obviously if God has spoken directly to us and told us flat out that certain people are not going to heaven, then it's pretty safe to say we can also in confidence claim God's words to us, and call it like God sees it. Again, don't shoot the messenger please.
Calling something sinful which God plainly declares is sinful is acting like I'm perfect? By what twisted assessment do you come to that conclusion?
Sir, as you can see from the context, the issue there is HYPOCRITICAL judgement. It does not mean we are to never judge anything, ever. As I've already shown you the Church is expressly TOLD to judge (1 Cor. 6:2-3; 11:13; John 7:24). Seeing as the people who are opposed to homosexuality are not gay, it's hardly hypocritical not to tolerate homosexuality. If you're saying it's hypocritical to judge or condemn anyone for any sin just because no one is perfect, then the world will be in complete anarchy because no one can execute any justice at all. However, obviously there are degrees of sin. God has declared that homosexuality is a particularly serious sin, probably because it's a sexual one, which is unique (1 Cor. 6:18). Thus, the Church's also righteously judges, and, in accordance with God's clearly stated decree, does not tolerate homosexuality.
As I've shown you directly from the Bible, God does give us some pretty clear indications on how He will judge in certain cases, including the cases of homosexuals (1 Cor. 6:9)
Sure, but again, there are degrees of sin. Homosexuality is particularly serious, and condoning it by allowing gay people to legally sanction their unions together is an obvious mistake.
If the Holy Spirit is pulling you, He should be pulling you away from condoning sin, especially sin as serious as homosexuality. Yet you continue to insist that these people should have their egregious sin legally sanctioned in the name of "tolerance". While I can appreciate a person of moral conscience and fiber, a Christian who doesn't take a stand against homosexuality needs to take a look at GOD'S conscience and moral fiber. He's against it; we should be too.
FerventGodSeeker
FerventGodSeeker
Believer
Sorry about the lack of quotations in the first part of my last post. My post was too many words so I had to eliminate some of the quotes I was replying to. The replies go in order to Mr. T's last set of replies, so just follow down the list and you should be fine.
FerventGodSeeker
FerventGodSeeker
It would be amusing if it wasn't sad how many people put their prejudices into God's mouth, saying God doesn't like this that and the other when the truth is we haven't a clue what God likes and dislikes. The Bible only tells us what the authors think the deity is thinking, which isn't the same thing at all!