Homosexuality not included.

[Walkntune]

but what does that have to do with reality?

the reality is that slaves where looking to be emancipated because the bible
condoned slavery
and women were subjected to men...gen 3:16

both were seeking justification to be counted as equal when the law said they were not....

i think all you need to do is worry about yourself and the choices you make for yourself, meaning if you are not gay don't act like you are. and stop worrying about other peoples spirituality, it makes you look like your bored with your own.

That post you were quoting was addressing all other sins as mentioned in the OP outside of homesexuality.It was addressing sin nature as a whole.
Maybe you don't spiritually understand how I addressed it but no need to try and control what i worry about out of your own inward conflict.

 

[Vasiel]

That post you were quoting was addressing all other sins as mentioned in the OP outside of homesexuality.It was addressing sin nature as a whole.
Maybe you don't spiritually understand how I addressed it but no need to try and control what i worry about out of your own inward conflict.

I mean no offence... but perhaps you should accept your own advice within yourself first. You impose this idea of sin upon people who do not necessarily agree with your belief in any way/shape/form.

Perhaps you need to remember your own words:

"No need to try and control what I worry about out of your own inward conflict"

Because not everyone believes in your faith, and not everyone believes in sin.

 

[Photonic]

That post you were quoting was addressing all other sins as mentioned in the OP outside of homesexuality.It was addressing sin nature as a whole.
Maybe you don't spiritually understand how I addressed it but no need to try and control what i worry about out of your own inward conflict.

I love how you so easily claim they misunderstand because of "spirit."

 

[Walkntune]

I mean no offence... but perhaps you should accept your own advice within yourself first. You impose this idea of sin upon people who do not necessarily agree with your belief in any way/shape/form.

Perhaps you need to remember your own words:

"No need to try and control what I worry about out of your own inward conflict"

Because not everyone believes in your faith, and not everyone believes in sin.

Then why address the OP or be in this thread? Was it not about biblical sins?

 

[waitasec]

That post you were quoting was addressing all other sins as mentioned in the OP outside of homesexuality.It was addressing sin nature as a whole.
Maybe you don't spiritually understand how I addressed it but

maybe you don't understand the real world...

no need to try and control what i worry about out of your own inward conflict.

i'm not the one who's budding my nose into someone else's business and judging people based on pseudo reality

 

[waitasec]

Then why address the OP or be in this thread? Was it not about biblical sins?

ahhh, i'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but it's a debating thread...

 

[Walkntune]

maybe you don't understand the real world...




i'm not the one who's budding my nose into someone else's business and judging people based on pseudo reality

Moderators! I am requesting that this thread be moved into drama!

 

[Vasiel]

ahhh, i'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but it's a debating thread...

Waitasec is correct. This is a debating thread. More importantly this thread is actually about why Christianity always seems to focus on Homosexuality as more important than other sins.

Which seems to be happening again. I personally don't believe in sin as per the bible. I believe that any emotion or desire, taken to the absolute expression can be harmful. I believe moderation is the key to success.

As long as that moderation takes into account the freedoms of others. I only tend to get upset with what most people refer to as "sin" if it restricts another person's potential happiness and equality.

Then, and only then will I have anything against it. Even then, a lot of my friends and family have addictions and whilst I may not like it, I know that anything I say or do in the way of advice will be meaningless until they make the decision to change. If they ask me for help, I will give advice. But until that time I will keep to myself. (Unless of course they need immediate medical attention... but that's a different ball-park altogether).

I don't like interfering with other people's lives where it can be helped.

 

[waitasec]

Because not everyone believes in your faith, and not everyone believes in sin.

which presents a problem for people who have controlling issues...
:yes:

 

[Walkntune]

Waitasec is correct. This is a debating thread. More importantly this thread is actually about why Christianity always seems to focus on Homosexuality as more important than other sins.

Which seems to be happening again. I personally don't believe in sin as per the bible. I believe that any emotion or desire, taken to the absolute expression can be harmful. I believe moderation is the key to success.

As long as that moderation takes into account the freedoms of others. I only tend to get upset with what most people refer to as "sin" if it restricts another person's potential happiness and equality.

Then, and only then will I have anything against it. Even then, a lot of my friends and family have addictions and whilst I may not like it, I know that anything I say or do in the way of advice will be meaningless until they make the decision to change. If they ask me for help, I will give advice. But until that time I will keep to myself. (Unless of course they need immediate medical attention... but that's a different ball-park altogether).

I don't like interfering with other people's lives where it can be helped.

No she is not correct.If she wants to deal with the issues of the thread then deal with the issue but leave me as a person out of the drama.

 

[Vasiel]

No she is not correct.If she wants to deal with the issues of the thread then deal with the issue but leave me as a person out of the drama.

Ok, clearly we are both going to disagree with each other on this subject. So I am going to agree to disagree and drop the conversation between us. That will save both of us from getting frustrated.



Peace!

 

[JacobEzra.]

Don't make assumptions you can't prove. I know that if two men during the samurai era were able to live together for five years without killing each other, then it was considered as legitimate as a man/woman relationship. Not sure how they treated to women though back in the day.

Marriage also is not just restricted to Christianity, Islam or Judaism. Hinduism has weddings and marriage. I am pretty sure their definitions of marriage are very different to the Abrahamic rendition.

The Ancient Celts also had "hand-fasting" which was marriage in their own fashion. I know that many African tribes also have marriages. Those same tribes also often have Homosexual Spiritual Leaders (Shamans, Witch-doctors) etc etc.

Yeah? And? You give no reason to why Christians should accept "homosexual marriage".

 

[A. T. Henderson]

Yeah? And? You give no reason to why Christians should accept "homosexual marriage".

Christians do not have to accept it. They merely have to keep out of the way and allow it to happen, as the law and justice require, since there is no valid legal objection to it. Your church does not have to perform such marriages, but neither should it stand in the way of churches which wish to.

 

[waitasec]

Yeah? And? You give no reason to why Christians should accept "homosexual marriage".

what do you mean by accept?
if you are not gay, then don't marry a gay person...seems pretty logical to me.

 

[Vasiel]

Christians do not have to accept it. They merely have to keep out of the way and allow it to happen, as the law and justice require, since there is no valid legal objection to it. Your church does not have to perform such marriages, but neither should it stand in the way of churches which wish to.

Well said. Straight to the point. :yes:

 

[waitasec]

Christians do not have to accept it. They merely have to keep out of the way and allow it to happen, as the law and justice require, since there is no valid legal objection to it. Your church does not have to perform such marriages, but neither should it stand in the way of churches which wish to.

Well said. Straight to the point. :yes:

i agree.

 

[espo35]

Christians do not have to accept it. They merely have to keep out of the way and allow it to happen, as the law and justice require, since there is no valid legal objection to it. Your church does not have to perform such marriages, but neither should it stand in the way of churches which wish to.

Here in California, they had a proposition (Prop 8) which asked if the definition of the word marriage should mean one man and one woman....it passed. The gays are fighting tooth and nail to have it overturned.
How is anyone, religious or not supposed to "keep out of the way" when it is on the ballot?

After all, weren't we voting on the accepted meaning of a word?

 

[Photonic]

Here in California, they had a proposition (Prop 8) which asked if the definition of the word marriage should mean one man and one woman....it passed. The gays are fighting tooth and nail to have it overturned.
How is anyone, religious or not supposed to "keep out of the way" when it is on the ballot?

After all, weren't we voting on the accepted meaning of a word?

Umm, prop 8 got overturned. I should know I voted against it too.

It was struck down pretty badly.

 

[9Westy9]

After all, weren't we voting on the accepted meaning of a word?

a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

 

[Fester]

Here in California, they had a proposition (Prop 8) which asked if the definition of the word marriage should mean one man and one woman....it passed. The gays are fighting tooth and nail to have it overturned.
How is anyone, religious or not supposed to "keep out of the way" when it is on the ballot?

After all, weren't we voting on the accepted meaning of a word?

IMO it should never have been on a ballot. It's a civil rights issue. Nobody took a vote to determine if women were equal to men, and nobody took a vote to determine if blacks were equal to whites. Either we are all equal, or none of us are. It's not something you can vote on.

Again, IMO.