God rejects homosexuals...this is a fact

[keithnurse]

Only an idiot would believe that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality instead of GANG RAPE. Especially since the men were clearly NOT homosexual, since they settled for Lot's DAUGHTERS. For those of you having trouble with this very simple concept, "daughters" means they were female. Homosexual men have no sexual interest in females.

You need to read Genesis 19 again, Storm. Lot offered his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom but they refused the offer. I do agree with you though that the story is about gang rape, not homosexuality per se. It is very poor reasoning to use a story of male-male gang rape to condemn homosexuality in general. Ezekiel 16:49 says the sin of Sodom was that they were living in prosperous ease and did not take care of the poor.

 

[Autodidact]

ok now I think your just screwing with me . just turn it around and you'll have it right.the first is not prohibited the second is.geeez

gzus, we're going around in circles. You're driving me crazy. YOU AGREED THREE TIMES that the first (remarriage after divorce) is prohibited. You agree readily. But as soon as I ask you what you do about that, you backpedal and again say it's not.

Luke 16:18
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Divorce and remarriage is clearly prohibited, in the new testament, by Jesus Himself.
Can we stop going over that now? Are we agreed on that? O.K., then, my first question: Why do you support people's legal right to do this, but oppose same-sex marriage. Certainly you'll agree that the Biblical position regarding same-sex marriage is much less clear, and never clearly prohibited. So why the hypocrisy on this issue?

 

[SYNICtheAtheist]

Religion is against homosexuality. Its also against shellfish and wearing polyester. Its against women speaking in church and its PRO slavory. Drivingbackwards is right. His god is a bigot.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Religion is against homosexuality. Its also against shellfish and wearing polyester. Its against women speaking in church and its PRO slavory. Drivingbackwards is right. His god is a bigot.

So there is light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[gzusfrk]

gzus, we're going around in circles. You're driving me crazy. YOU AGREED THREE TIMES that the first (remarriage after divorce) is prohibited. You agree readily. But as soon as I ask you what you do about that, you backpedal and again say it's not.

Luke 16:18
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Divorce and remarriage is clearly prohibited, in the new testament, by Jesus Himself.
Can we stop going over that now? Are we agreed on that? O.K., then, my first question: Why do you support people's legal right to do this, but oppose same-sex marriage. Certainly you'll agree that the Biblical position regarding same-sex marriage is much less clear, and never clearly prohibited. So why the hypocrisy on this issue?

man oh man this is driving me crazy to.matthew 5:32 everyone who divorces his wife EXCEPT for the cause of unchastity. matthew 19:9 whoever divorces his wife except for immorality and marries another woman commits adultery. ..so we have finely got threw this. we know you can remarry if your spouse cheats or dies. 1 corinthians 7:2 because of immoralities let each man have his own wife and let each woman have here own husband...........................................................man oh man..where do we go from here?

 

[gnomon]

An amazing view on TV was to watch the US beauty contest where the California representative said with few words God's position about homosexuality which is against the millions of words of Christian preachers arguing that God "loves" homosexuals.

The girl is Right and the several preachers who say the contrary of her words are priests of Satan, because God rejects homosexuals.

It is clear in the Bible that homosexuals were ruling the city of Sodom. Note that in the biblical narration the homosexuals were in control of the city to the point of enjoying the freedom of demonstrating their homosexual desires plus trying to impose them with the attempt to rape the angels of God who stayed on Lot's house!

Such a "freedom" of the homosexuals is becoming also popular in today's society, to the point that to be against such a desire makes you to be known as a "bigot".

Well, if to be against homosexuality makes me a "bigot", then MY GOD IS A BIGOT AS WELL AND I STAND WITH MY GOD.

In the Old Testament God has expressed clearly that having homosexual encounters deserve the death penalty, and God calls homosexuals as "dogs". It is also clear that in the New Testament homosexuality is rejected by the new Christian assemblies having the apostle Shaul asking homosexuals to stop such a wrong choice.

To put more clear how homosexuality is a "no no" by all means, we can read in the book of Revelation that Jesus clearly states that no fornicators, no liars, no "dogs" (read homosexuals) will enter to the new city of God.

I have the feeling that a believer in God who thinks that God loves homosexuals has been deceived by false preachers of God, because God is clear about this issue: No homosexual fits in the plan of salvation.

In order to fit in the salvation plan, the sinner must repent first, and to repent means to stop the wrongdoings and not doing them anymore. This mneans that while homosexuals keep doing their wrong sexual desires, they still are out of God's will, and the families or friends who "support" homosexual family members or friends are also part of the wrongdoings.

A true believer must take one side about this issue: or you are with God or you are against God.

I stand with what God has said and no human rights, human philosophy, and or human theories can overcome what God has said.

And, this is what FAITH is about: to stand with God regardless the opinions of humans challenging His words.

My regards.

I say your faith sucks.

My regards.

 

[SYNICtheAtheist]

So there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Yes there is. All things change with time. Human advancement in society always points towards a more progressive/liberal agenda. We are getting it right just sometimes depending on the issue it takes more time to move foward. Society drives us forward while religion which tries to controls us is set in the ways of "drivingbackwards"

 

[Green Gaia]

where do we go from here?

Why not try answering her questions:

Why do you support people's legal right to do this, but oppose same-sex marriage. Certainly you'll agree that the Biblical position regarding same-sex marriage is much less clear, and never clearly prohibited. So why the hypocrisy on this issue?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes there is. All things change with time. Human advancement in society always points towards a more progressive/liberal agenda. We are getting it right just sometimes depending on the issue it takes more time to move foward. Society drives us forward while religion which tries to controls us is set in the ways of "drivingbackwards"

Seems to me like you're embracing a sort of evolutionary theory of society - some folks used to believe that before WWI and WWII.

Religion isn't the only thing that's holding people back - just take a gander at Stalin for the bloodiest atheist that the world had ever seen, and try to argue that religious visionaries like Ghandi (who liberated India) or Martin Luther King are driving society backwards.

Very curious that you were accusing someone else of ignorance.

 

[Autodidact]

man oh man this is driving me crazy to.matthew 5:32 everyone who divorces his wife EXCEPT for the cause of unchastity. matthew 19:9 whoever divorces his wife except for immorality and marries another woman commits adultery. ..so we have finely got threw this. we know you can remarry if your spouse cheats or dies. 1 corinthians 7:2 because of immoralities let each man have his own wife and let each woman have here own husband...........................................................man oh man..where do we go from here?

We're not talking about death, so you can drop that. We're talking about divorce, O.K.? We agree that it's either that:
1. You can't divorce and remarry, period OR
2. You can only divorce and remarry if your spouse was unfaithful.
(It's not clear because Christ said conflicting things.)
Now, are you therefore in favor of reforming the divorce laws to either prohibit divorce, or limit it to those cases when your spouse cheated?
Would you vote for someone who themselves committed adultery, then married the person they were having an affair with, like Newt Gingrich?
Would you welcome in your church someone who divorced and remarried, when their spouse had not been unfaithful?

 

[SYNICtheAtheist]

Seems to me like you're embracing a sort of evolutionary theory of society - some folks used to believe that before WWI and WWII.

Religion isn't the only thing that's holding people back - just take a gander at Stalin for the bloodiest atheist that the world had ever seen, and try to argue that religious visionaries like Ghandi (who liberated India) or Martin Luther King are driving society backwards.

Very curious that you were accusing someone else of ignorance.

Stalin's wished to create a whole totalitarian society. The basic meaning of Atheist is that, that individual does not hold a belief in god. To generalize a simple meaning like that would be like saying everyone that collects stamps should be killed because hitler collected stamps. Thats a strawman arguement and as with all strawman arguements it is a reflection of the authors ignorence to comprehend the scenerio.

 

[gzusfrk]

We're not talking about death, so you can drop that. We're talking about divorce, O.K.? We agree that it's either that:
1. You can't divorce and remarry, period OR
2. You can only divorce and remarry if your spouse was unfaithful.
(It's not clear because Christ said conflicting things.)
Now, are you therefore in favor of reforming the divorce laws to either prohibit divorce, or limit it to those cases when your spouse cheated?
Would you vote for someone who themselves committed adultery, then married the person they were having an affair with, like Newt Gingrich?
Would you welcome in your church someone who divorced and remarried, when their spouse had not been unfaithful?

I am in favor of reforming divorce laws.I would not vote for anyone that I knew commited adultery.I did not vote for newt. we would welcome anyone in our church,

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Stalin's wished to create a whole totalitarian society. The basic meaning of Atheist is that, that individual does not hold a belief in god.

*how to avoid a question*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Religion isn't the only thing that's holding people back - just take a gander at Stalin for the bloodiest atheist that the world had ever seen, and try to argue that religious visionaries like Ghandi (who liberated India) or Martin Luther King are driving society backwards.

:run:

 

[Autodidact]

I am in favor of reforming divorce laws.I would not vote for anyone that I knew commited adultery.I did not vote for newt. we would welcome anyone in our church,

Thank you. Now, what have you done, personally, to get the divorce laws changed to make it illegal to divorce or remarry unless your spouse is unfaithful?
What threads have you started here at Rf in favor of this proposal?

So if a Gay couple came to your Church, they would be welcome? Could they get married? Could a divorced couple?

 

[Tristesse]

Seems to me like you're embracing a sort of evolutionary theory of society - some folks used to believe that before WWI and WWII.

Religion isn't the only thing that's holding people back - just take a gander at Stalin for the bloodiest atheist that the world had ever seen, and try to argue that religious visionaries like Ghandi (who liberated India) or Martin Luther King are driving society backwards.

Very curious that you were accusing someone else of ignorance.

Wait a second, no one has ever said martin luther king is holding society back or gahndi for that matter. Stalin didn't do his bad deeds in the name of atheism, stalin did his bad deeds in the name of what he did believe in, not what he didn't believe in. A lack of belief doen't make you do anything, it's what you believe thats the driving force. Stalin had a perverted veiw of marxism, that he believed in heavily. He happened to be an atheist, there's a difference. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god, it doesn't enail what you should or shouldn't do. Stalin also had a mustache and so did hitler, would you suggest that men with mustache's are driving the society in a bad direction? No, because it's absurd. Your not driven by what you don't believe in, it's what you believe that drives you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

man oh man this is driving me crazy to.matthew 5:32 everyone who divorces his wife EXCEPT for the cause of unchastity. matthew 19:9 whoever divorces his wife except for immorality and marries another woman commits adultery. ..so we have finely got threw this.

No - you just said we did. We didn't actually.

we know you can remarry if your spouse cheats or dies.

We know you can remarry if your spouse dies.
We know you can divorce if your spouse cheats.
We don't know you can remarry after divorce if your spouse cheats.

Luke 16 says that every person who remarries after divorce commits adultery. No exceptions. No "but it's okay to remarry if your spouse cheated on you". Every person.

I'm tempted to draw a Karnaugh map to show the logic involved here.

1 corinthians 7:2 because of immoralities let each man have his own wife and let each woman have here own husband...........................................................man oh man..where do we go from here?

Dunno. And I don't see how this verse approves of remarriage after divorce.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wait a second, no one has ever said martin luther king is holding society back or gahndi for that matter. Stalin didn't do his bad deeds in the name of atheism, stalin did his bad deeds in the name of what he did believe in, not what he didn't believe in. A lack of belief doen't make you do anything, it's what you believe thats the driving force. Stalin had a perverted veiw of marxism, that he believed in heavily. He happened to be an atheist, there's a difference. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god, it doesn't enail what you should or shouldn't do. Stalin also had a mustache and so did hitler, would you suggest that men with mustache's are driving the society in a bad direction? No, because it's absurd. Your not driven by what you don't believe in, it's what you believe that drives you.

Yes, it's quite constructive to read things in context...

Yes there is. All things change with time. Human advancement in society always points towards a more progressive/liberal agenda. We are getting it right just sometimes depending on the issue it takes more time to move foward. Society drives us forward while religion which tries to controls us is set in the ways of "drivingbackwards"

Stalin is an example of an atheist who went "backwards;" Martin Luther and Ghandi are examples of religious people moving forwards.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[SYNICtheAtheist]

*how to avoid a question*

Its not avoiding the question when the question is created on a false pretense. You are implying that since stalin didn't believe in god it lead him to attrocities. And i'm stating that it was stalins beleif in a totalitarian society governed by him is what drawed him to attrocities. I'm sure if you looked up some examples of totalitarianism you can see the point i'm making and the falacy in your arguement. Its also a strawman that you are puposing. Example: jeffrey damer was a christian so all christians eat people. (Athough i do have to say thier is some joke in thier about the catholics eating the body and blood of christ)

 

[Tristesse]

Yes, it's quite constructive to read things in context...



Stalin is an example of an atheist who went "backwards;" Martin Luther and Ghandi are examples of religious people moving forwards.

This isn't rocket science.

It may be, but out of context is way more fun. Well, my statement still holds true to what you guys were talking about.