If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

angel_magic2007

New Internatinonal Version
First off I would just like for you to take another look at Sodom and Gomora. Genesis 19 veruses 1-29 particually veruses 1-11 and and importnat ones veruses 4-5 "Before they had gone to bed, all the men form every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the ouse. They called to Lot 'Where are the men who caome to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot wanted the two angels to come into his house because he was tring to protect them from the homosexual men of the city. He was even willing to give his two virgin daugthers to the crowd of men that had gathered at his house to try and save the two angels. So...what did the two angels do? They (veruses 10-11) "But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struk the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that thye cound not find the door." Now my question to you is, if were suck bad christians then why did God allow the two angels to blind the homosexual men of Sodom, then later God destory the two cities?

The men of Sodom weren't anything you could call homosexual. They were a rape gang. A lot of incarcerated men aren't homosexual either, but that doesn't mean they don't go around raping the other inmates.

Why doesn't God abolish free will altogether? What do you mean, why did God allow the angels to blind the Sodomites? They were there, and they blinded them. God destroyed the cities later because they were full of ******** people who were running around raping the visitors.

angel_magic2007

Some more versues for you:
Forbidden relationship, Leviticus 18:22-23; 20:13

Moot and only against men lying with men in the first place.

angel_magic2007

Male prostitues, Deuteronomy 23:17

So? And that's moot anyway.

angel_magic2007

Example of homosexual conduct, Judges 19:22-24

One of the more ******** up stories of the bible. I'm going to go ahead and assume that "know" is in the carnal sense, and that the sons of Belial wanted to have TEH GHEY SEKS with him (although I'm still unclear as to how group sex is wholly pertinent to homosexuality).

It doesn't matter anyway, as this is based on the old law, which is moot.

But if you still think this is relevant, you can come here, because I say so and I'm a man, and you have to let me and anyone else I want ******** you, abuse you, and whatever else I deem, until you're near death. Sound good? I didn't think so.

angel_magic2007

Approved masculine love, 1 Samual 18:1-4;

Since when is becoming enemies "approved masculine love?"

angel_magic2007

20:17;

This is one of the vaguest verses in the bible. What do you mean by this?

angel_magic2007

2 Samual 1:26;

Wow, that's a lot of love. Surpassing women, eh?

Did their conversations go anything like this, I wonder?:

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/7305/rbhhwjhednhpkc2.jpg

angel_magic2007

19:1-6

Ohhh-kay? And this means what?

angel_magic2007

Unatural passion and desire, Romans 1:24-27

Contested. Show how this passage is damning or relevant.

angel_magic2007

Homosexual activity condemned, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Same as the above verse.

angel_magic2007

Sexual perversion, 1 Timothy 1:10

Go ahead. Prove that arsenokoites was used as a term for homosexual. I can't wait to hear this one.

angel_magic2007

Mother of perversion, Revelation 17:5

This refers to harlots and abominations. What the ******** does this have to do with homosexuality?

angel_magic2007

IceDust3

I apologize if it seemed like I was calling you a bad Christian...that was not my intentions. But at the same time doesn't it go against what Jesus taught to hate people for who they are?

Not at all...I'm just sorry it took so long, I wasn't paying any attention to the site...sorry about that. Yes Christ did say that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, and I don't know about you and most other people, but I actually have two homoseuxal friends.

This sounds suspiciously like the "but I have a black friend, so I'm not racist" fallacy.

angel_magic2007

And matter of factly they my just be the nicest people that you may ever meet. I don't treat them any differnely then I do any of my other friends that aren't homosexual.

Besides thinking that they're walking sinbags?

angel_magic2007

I just know that homoseuxallyity is immoral and punishable by God.

Sorry, "just knowing" isn't anything like proof, and unless God's been talking to you, I don't believe you have a leg to stand on.

angel_magic2007

I've even told my two friends this.

At least you didn't lie. Yeshua wasn't keen on that.

angel_magic2007

To me it felt like I wasn't be a good friend if I didn't say something, at least know I tried.

To what, turn them un-gay?

Not happening. It's not a problem that needs fixing, and it's in you from the time God ostensibly forms foetuses in the womb, if I may be so bold.

If you've got issues with people's sexual predisposition, I recommend taking it up with God. You're ramming your head into a brick wall and making your friends feel like s**t.

angel_magic2007

They didn't say much on the subject just that they know, or seem to know but for them its a drive. Just like when a male and female fall in love. They say it's the same for them just the same sex that they are falling in love with.

That's pretty much how it is. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[IceDust3]

angel_magic2007

IceDust3

I apologize if it seemed like I was calling you a bad Christian...that was not my intentions. But at the same time doesn't it go against what Jesus taught to hate people for who they are?

Not at all...I'm just sorry it took so long, I wasn't paying any attention to the site...sorry about that. Yes Christ did say that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, and I don't know about you and most other people, but I actually have two homoseuxal friends. And matter of factly they my just be the nicest people that you may ever meet. I don't treat them any differnely then I do any of my other friends that aren't homosexual. I just know that homoseuxallyity is immoral and punishable by God. I've even told my two friends this. To me it felt like I wasn't be a good friend if I didn't say something, at least know I tried. They didn't say much on the subject just that they know, or seem to know but for them its a drive. Just like when a male and female fall in love. They say it's the same for them just the same sex that they are falling in love with.

Agreed, I just dont think its right for people to hate homoseuxal people, not to metion protesting and deminstrating agaianst them...

[linaloki]

mouseylae02

Different people have different opinions.
No one has any right to come and invade that opinion.

Not quite true. When opinion defies fact, we have the right to correct them. I could be of the opinion that the earth is a giant kinderegg. Nice and chocolatey, filled with random candy goodness. However, we know for a fact that the ground is dirt, not chocolate, much to my sadness. Therefore, the opinion is wrong and must be corrected. Much like the opinion that the Holy Texts of Christianity, aka the Bible, condemns homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

[shliv]

-sigh-

LIVE AND LET LIVE!!

[TrunkstheSlayer]

shliv

-sigh-

LIVE AND LET LIVE!!

Wow, what an astonishing and influential statement stare
One liners aren't allowed in ED. Give some actual contribution to the thread or leave

[Ananel]

Elf Lord Chiewn

Ananel

2) The judgment of actions is not condemned. Even the book of Galatians, despite its stressing of Christian freedom under the gospel, still has the warnings of the fifth chapter. So long as they are sticking to judgment of action and not the person, that is consistent with Scripture. Their judgments may be wrong in and of themselves, but judgment is not completely unheard of in a Scriptural context.

This raises the question of when, if ever, one ought to condemn the actions of others.

However, I am very concerned with the stigma often applied to homosexuals in connection with such condemnations. Is it ever okay for us to tell someone that they're a terrible person, or that they are destined to falter? What do we call someone who has sinned many times? Someone who keeps on sinning? Are they worse than someone who does not sin?

Destined to falter because they're human? Fine. (All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. --Paul, I believe.)
Fags are destined to falter specifically because they like the c**k? Not so hot.

Beyond my particular feelings on the legitimacy of homosexual marriage, I have often felt it detestable that homosexuals were singled out as particularly corrupt. I believe that a source of this viewpoint may be found in the fact that a lot of people aren't even bicurious. This is a sin they feel 'safe' in hammering, because they don't have it. Add to this the "Them's different than us" mentality, and you've a recipe for disastrous theological problems.

What do we call a person who has sinned many times? Human.
What do we call someone who is recalcitrant in sin, knows they are sinning and refuses to stop in flagrant defiance of the Law? ...a work in progress. As a Christian, they should seek to follow God's Will. For some, they are mired in unrepentant sin. For others, there are particular flaws of character that are VERY difficult for them to fight, and they acknowledge this. (I for, reference, fall under the second of those types. I have BIG problems with certain sins *pokes 6th commandment*)

Now, are sinners worse than other sinners? Not in divine terms. It's a +/- relationship: Holy/Unholy. Degrees do not appear to factor into the equation, scripturally. Degrees of righteousness (ala the parable of Talents) do appear to be present, but not of unrighteousness. Given that a person's true righteousness is dependant upon the vicarious atonement of Christ on the Cross, a person who has been made righteous is righteous and is made anew through repentance and forgiveness, the faith present in them acknowledging that gift. A person who denies that gift, on the other hand, and flagrantly thrusts it away, denies it and stands upon their own righteousness (which, as I said, is lacking for all humans.).

In human terms are there degrees of unrighteousness? Yes. That's why our legal code is as complex as it is.

What about non-believers of other faiths and those who haven't heard the gospel, or who the H.S. hasn't worked through word and sacrament (or other means) upon? ...that is a long-winded debate of another time. Suffice it to say that I view God as being more merciful than some, and don't think we want to get into this one here. It's a long one and rather off-topic.

[Ananel]

angel_magic2007

New Internatinonal Version
First off I would just like for you to take another look at Sodom and Gomora. Genesis 19 veruses 1-29 particually veruses 1-11 and and importnat ones veruses 4-5 "Before they had gone to bed, all the men form every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the ouse. They called to Lot 'Where are the men who caome to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot wanted the two angels to come into his house because he was tring to protect them from the homosexual men of the city. He was even willing to give his two virgin daugthers to the crowd of men that had gathered at his house to try and save the two angels. So...what did the two angels do? They (veruses 10-11) "But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struk the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that thye cound not find the door." Now my question to you is, if were suck bad christians then why did God allow the two angels to blind the homosexual men of Sodom, then later God destory the two cities?

...post saved. I will return to this later, Angel, when my mind is calmed and my heart eased.

I do not wish to verbally bash your head into the wall. The S&G narrative and its flagrant misinterpretation/misrepresentation derived from pagan practice tends to .... set me off. Gagnon did his exegesis no favors in upholding it, and you've done fewer. I will clean this post and edit it to reflect a complete understanding later.... when I am soothed.

[PoeticVengeance]

IceDust3

If your true to god ...your going to play by his rules ALL of them.
If your untrue you pick and choose which one you want to!

By the by you didn't comment on the whole 'what right do you have to judge them' thing.

And one of his rules tells you that the Old Laws are now no longer applicable.

So you appear to be ignoring that important one.

[PoeticVengeance]

angel_magic2007

New Internatinonal Version
First off I would just like for you to take another look at Sodom and Gomora. Genesis 19 veruses 1-29 particually veruses 1-11 and and importnat ones veruses 4-5 "Before they had gone to bed, all the men form every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the ouse. They called to Lot 'Where are the men who caome to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot wanted the two angels to come into his house because he was tring to protect them from the homosexual men of the city. He was even willing to give his two virgin daugthers to the crowd of men that had gathered at his house to try and save the two angels. So...what did the two angels do? They (veruses 10-11) "But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struk the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that thye cound not find the door." Now my question to you is, if were suck bad christians then why did God allow the two angels to blind the homosexual men of Sodom, then later God destory the two cities?

That is a piss poor translation.

Especially since the Bible never actually stated that the men of the cities were homosexual or not.

Also, they wished to rape the angels as newcomers to the city.

Gang rape =/= homosexuality.

Your argument == fail

Quote:

Some more versues for you:
Forbidden relationship, Leviticus 18:22-23; 20:13

Leviticus does not apply under the New Covenant.

If you believe in Jesus as the messiah then you should not be following the Old Laws.

Quote:

Male prostitues, Deuteronomy 23:17

This deals in prostitution only.

Quote:

Example of homosexual conduct, Judges 19:22-24

Quote it. From a relevant translation please.

Quote:

Approved masculine love, 1 Samual 18:1-4; 20:17; 2 Samual 1:26; 19:1-6

Same as above

Quote:

Unatural passion and desire, Romans 1:24-27

This does not mention homosexuality at all as one of the unnatural passions or desires. It does mention a few people that may of been homosexual who were doing unnatural things, but their homosexuality and the unnatural things they were doing were treated as seperate aspects.

If you wear red shoes while you kill someone, that doesn't mean wearing red shoes is condemned.

Quote:

Homosexual activity condemned, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Quote it from a relevant translation

Quote:

Sexual perversion, 1 Timothy 1:10

Quote it frome a relevant translation

Quote:

Mother of perversion, Revelation 17:5

Same as above

[IceDust3]

PoeticVengeance

IceDust3

If your true to god ...your going to play by his rules ALL of them.
If your untrue you pick and choose which one you want to!

By the by you didn't comment on the whole 'what right do you have to judge them' thing.

And one of his rules tells you that the Old Laws are now no longer applicable.

So you appear to be ignoring that important one.

So if there is a law that says that the old laws no longer apply, then why do we have Seventh Day Adventists?

[IceDust3]

TrunkstheSlayer

shliv

-sigh-

LIVE AND LET LIVE!!

Wow, what an astonishing and influential statement stare
One liners aren't allowed in ED. Give some actual contribution to the thread or leave

I rather like the statement! It is direct and too the point...and has a wonderful message. So why not live and let live?

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

IceDust3

TrunkstheSlayer

shliv

-sigh-

LIVE AND LET LIVE!!

Wow, what an astonishing and influential statement stare
One liners aren't allowed in ED. Give some actual contribution to the thread or leave

I rather like the statement! It is direct and too the point...and has a wonderful message. So why not live and let live?

Depends. If it's in M&R, and doesn't have a clear, supported purpose, allowing it is antithetical to the nature of the forum and encourages similar behavior in others.

[dice_14]

I used to agree with this thread until I read this
http://www.layhands.com/IsHomosexualityASin.htm

but how do you know if theres 'bad' christians
check dictionary.com OR websters.
One definition for 'bad' is
2. having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible

So theres such thing as a wicked christian?
If you looked in the bible, God never spoke of christians not being any good (from what I know of)

What a christian is is believing in God and that he died for your sins. can you believe that God died for your sons in a BAD way?

Show me in the bible what defines a bad christian and a good one, please.

[AciDSniper]

dice_14

I used to agree with this thread until I read this
http://www.layhands.com/IsHomosexualityASin.htm

but how do you know if theres 'bad' christians
check dictionary.com OR websters.
One definition for 'bad' is
2. having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible

So theres such thing as a wicked christian?
If you looked in the bible, God never spoke of christians not being any good (from what I know of)

What a christian is is believing in God and that he died for your sins. can you believe that God died for your sons in a BAD way? S

how me in the bible what defines a bad christian and a good one, please.

Read the first post, it's hard to form a coherent argument in ten words or less. Committing a horrible injustice against millions of people in the name of Christ is indeed counter-productive to what Christ taught. Also due to the clear end of the old law in Colossians 2 and Acts 15 and the translational issues of Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 there's clear condemnation of homosexuality anywhere within the original text.

[PoeticVengeance]

IceDust3

PoeticVengeance

IceDust3

If your true to god ...your going to play by his rules ALL of them.
If your untrue you pick and choose which one you want to!

By the by you didn't comment on the whole 'what right do you have to judge them' thing.

And one of his rules tells you that the Old Laws are now no longer applicable.

So you appear to be ignoring that important one.

So if there is a law that says that the old laws no longer apply, then why do we have Seventh Day Adventists?

Because people are exceedingly bad at reading the older translations.