Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[Storm]

So for an "unsaved" person, what sort of sex they engage in is irrelevant to the fate of their soul?

If you consider eternity in hell irrelevant

But they CAN repent, right?

So... when we unpack everything, it turns out that in your view, homosexuality doesn't actually cause harm most of the time; the only people who would suffer anything mire because of it is a very narrow category of people: "saved" people who engage in same-sex sexual acts but don't repent before they die.

Youve got to be kidding

No, he's not kidding.

I gave you a link on using the Quote feature. Please read it.

 

[Storm]

What did you find so compelling about these messages if you didn't actually heed them?

What makes you think she didn't? Are messages from God subject to your review?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

What makes you think she didn't? Are messages from God subject to your review?

I assume the message was to repent of something and turn to Jesus. It sounds like she didn't choose to heed that message

 

[Agnostic75]

Yes Adam and Eve were specifically created by God with no human ancestors.

I believe that it is more reasonable for people to trust people who study science over your own personal opinion.

You said that you reject the global flood theory. Why is that? If because of science, why don't you take science's word for humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor?

It is not reasonable to believe that God opposes homosexuals merely because they practice homosexuality, without any regard for anything else that they do. A gay couple who have sex in private are not harming anyone. There are not any good reasons for a God to oppose that.

 

[Storm]

I assume the message was to repent of something and turn to Jesus. It sounds like she didn't choose to heed that message

It sounds to me more like you're judging her based on unjustifiable assumptions. Why don't you try asking what the message was, instead of guessing and flinging accusations before she's even had a chance to correct you?

 

[allright]

He hasn't changed me, or any of the queers I know.


Youve never gotten saved.



Uh huh. Got any hard evidence for this story?[/quote]

It was claimed on national television, stated in her book, verified by his doctor a cardiologist from Philadelphia George Mitchell, futher verified by a panel of seven cardiolgists, one from the medical board at Harvard.
It was put out publically to the entire country, to check on and debunk if they could. It has never happened
Also Arthur Davis was the first black counselor in the Philadelphia school district
with a very successful career. He had everthing to lose if he lied about something like this. Also he went to the meeting because his father insisted, he wasnt interested

 

[Storm]

Youve never gotten saved.

How do you know, exactly? All you know about me is that I'm not a raging homophobe.

It was claimed on national television, stated in her book, verified by his doctor a cardiologist from Philadelphia George Mitchell, futher verified by a panel of seven cardiolgists, one from the medical board at Harvard.
It was put out publically to the entire country, to check on and debunk if they could. It has never happened
Also Arthur Davis was the first black counselor in the Philadelphia school district
with a very successful career. He had everthing to lose if he lied about something like this. Also he went to the meeting because his father insisted, he wasnt interested

Yeah? I really don't believe you. I believe there may have been a hoax of some sort, but that's about it. It'll take more than regurgitating the claims to qualify as evidence.

Oh, and seriously? Learn to quote properly. You're giving me a headache.

 

[allright]

I believe that it is more reasonable for people to trust people who study science over your own personal opinion.

Everything Jesus did science says is impossible, Ill stick with him. He walked all over the laws of nature

You said that you reject the global flood theory. Why is that? If because of science, why don't you take science's word for humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor?

Im going by what Genesis says, not science

It is not reasonable to believe that God opposes homosexuals merely because they practice homosexuality, without any regard for anything else that they do. A gay couple who have sex in private are not harming anyone. There are not any good reasons for a God to oppose that.[/quote]

God says My ways are not your ways nor are my thoughts yours thoughts
The Bible tells us who God is, why were here and what he expects.
Hey I had to give up lots of things I liked doing that God calls sin when I became a Christian
I did it for one reason, the God of the Bible is the real God.

 

[allright]

I really don't believe you. I believe there may have been a hoax of some sort, but that's about it. It'll take more than regurgitating the claims to qualify as evidence.


You dont want it to be true, so no evidence would convince you

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"No explanation" does not necessarily have anything to do with a particular God since people from many religions claim miracle healings. Even some atheists have had healings that doctors have no explanation for, and even wild animals have such experiences.

According to Niel DeGrasse Tyson, a renowned and widely celebrated physicist, who has taught physics to future medical doctors, doctors are not necessarily a smart group of people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Im taking about God changing people, not some reparative therapy. Whatever that is its not in the Bible

Why did god not change me, despite many, many years of prayer, pleading, begging, restless nights, and mental anguish?

Youve never gotten saved.

What an arrogant assumption.

 

[Shermana]

And not only to gays, but to straights as well. Why would you want to have sex with women if you are not into them?


Shermana,
Your view on women and sexuality is extremely insulting.
And old fashioned. Are you aware that it is 2012 now?

Women and men are able to decide with whom and when they have sex, purity has nothing to do with it.
Why would having sex make you unpure in the first place?

Some of your posts here are against the rule of conduct.
Please be respectful, talking about wear and tear on vagina's is completely uncalled for, all it does is to expose your extreme ignorance on the subject of sexuality.

Maya

In my religion, having premarital sex makes you impure and is written to condemn your soul in many writings, so that's that. I really shouldn't have to qualify my religious belief on the subject it here especially in lieu of the OP and thread title.

What's offensive is people telling me that my religious and cultural belief on the matter is offensive or a "polished turd" or whatnot. It's pretty obvious that this thread is a giant mousetrap that Captain Obvious could spot from a mile away, but what kind of responses are people expecting here? I simply made a comment on why I believe Lesbianism is a good thing, and from my experiences, most girls I know have experimented and like other girls, so this whole Semantic issue about what it means to be "Lesbian" is a debatable yet moot point to begin with.

Now if you find my posts (and religious beliefs) disrespectful, by all means write a post report and explain why the answer to the question I was asked and the statement of my beliefs is against the forum rules of conduct, then the mods could surely teach me a lesson if what I said was against what the rules state. Whether you find my beliefs offensive and insulting and misogynistic is not my concern. As for the "Wear and tear" thing, I'm sorry if anyone finds it offensive but you'll find this is hardly my own view by any stretch.

Accusing me of extreme ignorance because of my beliefs on the matter doesn't exactly change the fact that probably the majority of men also see the same way as I do on this worldwide, but that's for another thread, as I've mentioned several times. I could just as easily say that one who disagrees with my perspective has limited experience on the issue and is more concerned about changing social norms than examining the reality of the situation, so it's not so much about "ignorance" per se as it is about disagreement with one's viewpoint.

 

[dgirl1986]

Hold on here, what's that "Don't sleep around "part all about?

As for New Zealanders, I'll find the statistic if requested, it was reported they have the highest average partner count. And the New Zealand girls who came to visit when I was staying at my friend's place near NYC were.....ahem...quite wild to say the least, but so was the Israeli girl and the local girls to be fair.

What do you think it means? Someone who doesnt bed hop, you know...different sleeping partner every week kinda thing.

Id be interested to see the official stats for this.

 

[Shermana]

What do you think it means? Someone who doesnt bed hop, you know...different sleeping partner every week kinda thing.

Id be interested to see the official stats for this.

I'm still not entirely clear on this, are you saying that "sleeping around" and "bed hopping" is a negative thing that is frowned upon?

Sounds like we're more on the same page than I first thought, but I could be wrong, so let's clarify. Are you in fact saying that "bed hopping" is held as a bad idea even by the non-religious Aussies?

 

[dgirl1986]

I'm still not entirely clear on this, are you saying that "sleeping around" and "bed hopping" is a negative thing that is frowned upon?

Sounds like we're more on the same page than I first thought, but I could be wrong, so let's clarify. Are you in fact saying that "bed hopping" is held as a bad idea even by the non-religious Aussies?

If you are being sarcastic, you may want to improve your technique.

People usually don't mind having experienced partners, what they usually don't like is a partner who has been with half the city.

 

[Shermana]

If you are being sarcastic, you may want to improve your technique.

People usually don't mind having experienced partners, what they usually don't like is a partner who has been with half the city.

So, you're saying there's a limit to the number of partners that people prefer?

Looks like you're making half my point for me already.

Now why would there POSSIBLY be a limit if the person's been clean and wearing protection? Is it the result of all that religious indoctrination? Is there a point where a person decides "Hmmm, maybe 1,000 partners is too much for me to want a long-term relationship with this person"? If so, where does that limit begin, and what's the point of the limit?

So we are clear, that you are saying there's a problem with having too many partners, and that there's some limit that eventually when its passed renders a person as "unfit for relationship?" If so, looks like we're halfway towards agreement!

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

opcorn:

 

[dgirl1986]

So, you're saying there's a limit to the number of partners that people prefer?

Looks like you're making half my point for me already.

Now why would there POSSIBLY be a limit if the person's been clean and wearing protection? Is it the result of all that religious indoctrination? Is there a point where a person decides "Hmmm, maybe 1,000 partners is too much for me to want a long-term relationship with this person"? If so, where does that limit begin, and what's the point of the limit?

So we are clear, that you are saying there's a problem with having too many partners, and that there's some limit that eventually when its passed renders a person as "unfit for relationship?" If so, looks like we're halfway towards agreement!

How you know its been clean and protected?

The problem isnt the relation, the the problem is the potential issues it brings on. I see how you wish for my words to twist to prove your point, but it will not.

Yay for sex before marriage.

That is all.

 

[Shermana]

dgirl1986:

How you know its been clean and protected?

You don't. In fact, a person who has only one partner could become diseased. But it would be way too insulting to possibly ask a person for their history, right? You'd be surprised how many women don't tell their partners about their STDs until well after they begin the carnality. So with that said, why does the partner count matter matter only if its a high number if someone could become diseased after just one or two partners? Where do you draw the line? How do you ask them if they've been protected every time and what their history is? Lots of diseases stay dormant and you wouldn't know for a while if ever. And there's the whole issue of mostly undetected Cervical cancer, STAGGERING numbers on that.

The problem isnt the relation, the the problem is the potential issues it brings on. I see how you wish for my words to twist to prove your point, but it will not.

Well by all means, please get into these "potential issues" so we don't have any words to twist and we can get it straight exactly as you want to present it.

Yay for sex before marriage.

Boo.

 

[sojourner]

Allright:

I do not believe the flood was global. I believe Genesis is describing a flood over a specific area.

That's not what the bible says. The bible says, "I am going to destroy them (all flesh) along with the earth." (6:13b) "Everything that is on the earth shall die." (6:17b) "The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that ll the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered ... and all flesh died that moved on the earth." (7:19,21a)

So, are you going with the bible, or with science here? And if with science (as your answer says you are), why not side with science on the homosexuality issue, as well?