|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:19 pm
Like I said in the post above I have not called you out personally. I have just been stating my beliefs.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:23 pm
I am going to cease since all you seem to want to do is call me names. I have not called you one name throughout our whole conversation. WWJD? You can go on about with what you like. I am sorry, but I won't be here to read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:28 pm
Yuck-FOO The fact that I think homosexuality is wrong is beside the point. It is the point, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up. If you don't wish to discuss it, concede and leave this discussion. Quote: I am not trying to belittle your beliefs or your status. Yet you do. Our actions don't always bring about the desired intent, and the loving thing to do, is to accept when our actions have hurt another unintentionally, and apologise for it. To not do so is then intentionally defending the offense that you perpetrated. Quote: This is what I believe, and I did not call you out on your sexuality. You condemned homosexuals. I am a homosexual. Sure, you did not name me brother, but you condemned me nonetheless. Either your beliefs need to change, or you need to accept that you are condemning me, to do otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Quote: I did not say that your a freak, You called me a sinner, that is what I take issue with. Quote: I did not call you names, You called me sinner, and full of lust. WHy do lie like this? Do you honestly not know what you do? Wake up! Your words carry meaning and weight and affect those around you, not always for the better! It is not what goes out of your mouth that defiles you brother, it is what comes out of it! Quote: I did not make fun of you in anyway. I make no fun. I am dead serious. You condemn me behind a veil of hypocrisy and lies. You, the one who obviously knows not what he does. Quote: why do you quarrel with me? Because I love you, and am most hurt that you would condemn me so. Quote: This is one of the reasons homosexuality is frowned upon. Only homosexuals argue with people such as you? I doubt that. Quote: When a problem arises you act on your emotions. I act on my emotions because I am an emotional person, not because I am gay, you bigot. Quote: This year when Christians were protesting gay marriage, a gay mob took some of their signs and started beating the protesters with them. And Christians have NEVER done anything like that to gays. EVER. You're naive. No, I want you to see how you sin for yourself, and how your words defile you. Whether you accept me is irrelevant, whether you save yourself is. Quote: You want to be loved by the nation? ACT CIVILCivility is not a commandment, and there are times when it would be best dispensed with, and that time is now. You condemn and spit upon me and my love, and for this, you have called my righteous anger. Just as Jesus threw over the tables of those who defiled his father's house, I throw over the tables of those who defile my house, and you have defiled my house. This is the whirlwind that you have reaped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:30 pm
Yuck-FOO Like I said in the post above I have not called you out personally. And? You condemned me and all my gay brothers and sisters. You condemend me and much that I cherish, and you condemn me and the love God has given me. How dare you. How ignorant of your own actions you are. Quote: I have just been stating my beliefs. Beliefs that condemn me, brother!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:32 pm
Yuck-FOO I am going to cease since all you seem to want to do is call me names. I call you what your words have proven you as. The truth isn't nice, and today, neither am I. Quote: I have not called you one name throughout our whole conversation. You called me a sinner and one who lusts. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Jesus would probably tell you to check that plank in your eye. Quote: You can go on about with what you like. I am sorry, but I won't be here to read it. May God judge you fairly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:01 pm
Yuck-FOO I am aware of Boxy's beliefs but do not share them rmc. Why? I what is your interpretation of the verses you mentioned and why do you hold your views? Are you of a tradition that interprets it as such or did you come to this conclusion on your own? Explain how you came to your conclusion. @Gho the Girl: You might want to be a peace brother. Yes Yuck-FOO may hold a different interpretation than we might but he might have come this interpretation based on his tradition or he might have come to this interpretation on his own. We must be open and see what his response is. Yes he did pass judgment but we are called to forgive not demand an apology. We must be open to the fact that we could be wrong lest we become arrogant, and that is definitely contrary to agape. I say we because I know I can get pretty righteous too. Don't worry though I know where you are coming from bro, I've been and will be in your shoes again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:55 pm
rmcdra Yuck-FOO I am aware of Boxy's beliefs but do not share them rmc. Why? I what is your interpretation of the verses you mentioned and why do you hold your views? Are you of a tradition that interprets it as such or did you come to this conclusion on your own? Explain how you came to your conclusion. @Gho the Girl: You might want to be a peace brother. Yes Yuck-FOO may hold a different interpretation than we might but he might have come this interpretation based on his tradition or he might have come to this interpretation on his own. We must be open and see what his response is. Yes he did pass judgment but we are called to forgive not demand an apology. We must be open to the fact that we could be wrong lest we become arrogant, and that is definitely contrary to agape. I say we because I know I can get pretty righteous too. Don't worry though I know where you are coming from bro, I've been and will be in your shoes again. I am aware of this, and have sent a message of apology. Thank you for pointing out the plank in my own eye brother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:38 pm
Anyone can be sexually immoral; I don't think it depends on gender preference. I can't judge homosexuality; I've never been in your shoes, but I don't see how anyone would willingly choose that as a viable lifestyle, knowing the prejudice and condemnation that is going to come with it---I could be wrong, again, I have never walked in your shoes. That's entirely between you and God; This isn't even a close comparison, but an anonymous Gnostic writer wrote a piece of scripture a couple thousand years ago, that took the condemnation off from physical prostitution, and put it where it belongs---straight on the unrepentant soul. Quote: Yet the greatest struggle has to do with the prostitution of the soul. From it arises the prostitution of the body as well. Therefore Paul, writing to the Corinthians (1Co 5:9-10), said, "I wrote you in the letter, 'Do not associate with prostitutes,' not at all (meaning) the prostitutes of this world or the greedy or the thieves or the idolaters, since then you would have to go out from the world." - here it is speaking spiritually - "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood - as he said (Ep 6:12) - but against the world rulers of this darkness and the spirits of wickedness."
Kosmokrator (g288 cool kos-mok-rat'-ore; from 2889 and 2902; a world-ruler, an epithet of Satan: - ruler.
Kosmos (g2889) kos'-mos; prob. from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by impl. the world (in a wide or narrow sense, includ. its inhab., lit. or fig. [mor.]): - adorning, world.
Krateo (g2902) krat-eh'-o; from 2904; to use strength, i.e. seize or retain (lit. or fig.): - hold (by, fast), keep, lay hand (hold) on, obtain, retain, take (by).
High places:
Epouranios (g2032) ep-oo-ran'-ee-os; from 1909 and 3772; above the sky: - celestial, (in) heaven (-ly), high. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 1Co.15:40 As long as the soul keeps running about everywhere copulating with whomever she meets and defiling herself, she exists suffering her just deserts. But when she perceives the straits she is in and weeps before the father and repents, then the father will have mercy on her and he will make her womb turn from the external domain and will turn it again inward, so that the soul will regain her proper character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:47 pm
Soulgazer the Gnostic Anyone can be sexually immoral; I don't think it depends on gender preference. I can't judge homosexuality; I've never been in your shoes, but I don't see how anyone would willingly choose that as a viable lifestyle, knowing the prejudice and condemnation that is going to come with it---I could be wrong, again, I have never walked in your shoes. That's entirely between you and God; This isn't even a close comparison, but an anonymous Gnostic writer wrote a piece of scripture a couple thousand years ago, that took the condemnation off from physical prostitution, and put it where it belongs---straight on the unrepentant soul. Quote: Yet the greatest struggle has to do with the prostitution of the soul. From it arises the prostitution of the body as well. Therefore Paul, writing to the Corinthians (1Co 5:9-10), said, "I wrote you in the letter, 'Do not associate with prostitutes,' not at all (meaning) the prostitutes of this world or the greedy or the thieves or the idolaters, since then you would have to go out from the world." - here it is speaking spiritually - "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood - as he said (Ep 6:12) - but against the world rulers of this darkness and the spirits of wickedness."
Kosmokrator (g288 cool kos-mok-rat'-ore; from 2889 and 2902; a world-ruler, an epithet of Satan: - ruler.
Kosmos (g2889) kos'-mos; prob. from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by impl. the world (in a wide or narrow sense, includ. its inhab., lit. or fig. [mor.]): - adorning, world.
Krateo (g2902) krat-eh'-o; from 2904; to use strength, i.e. seize or retain (lit. or fig.): - hold (by, fast), keep, lay hand (hold) on, obtain, retain, take (by).
High places:
Epouranios (g2032) ep-oo-ran'-ee-os; from 1909 and 3772; above the sky: - celestial, (in) heaven (-ly), high. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 1Co.15:40 As long as the soul keeps running about everywhere copulating with whomever she meets and defiling herself, she exists suffering her just deserts. But when she perceives the straits she is in and weeps before the father and repents, then the father will have mercy on her and he will make her womb turn from the external domain and will turn it again inward, so that the soul will regain her proper character. Have you considered that I never made this choice? The only choice I made was in accepting the cross God gave to me. This isn't a lifestyle, this is a lovestyle. This isn't some community I willingly join, this is the identity of me that I cannot deny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:18 pm
Gho the Girl Have you considered that I never made this choice? The only choice I made was in accepting the cross God gave to me. This isn't a lifestyle, this is a lovestyle. This isn't some community I willingly join, this is the identity of me that I cannot deny. When I said that I didn't think anyone would consciously make that choice, That's what I meant. I didn't mean to imply anything negative; it's entirely between you and God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:46 am
..........uh, wow. I missed a catfight earlier.
Anywho, here's my two-cents.
I believe homosexuality is wrong, no offense peeps. No biblical passages to support this position. As far as I can tell there's nothing in there to back it up, just vauge statements of immorality that they expected us to have already defined.
But what I will say is that I believe homosexuality goes against God's design for the human body. I mean, your arm was made for a reason, your heart was made for another. I'd rather not go into detail here, so I'm hoping you get the picture right now. smile
And my God isn't a wishy-washy God as far as I know and believe so I doubt that he'd change his mind on something's purpose after he made it with one in mind.
So, any comments people? Hoping rmcdra does. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:34 am
Act of Random Kindness ..........uh, wow. I missed a catfight earlier. Anywho, here's my two-cents. I believe homosexuality is wrong, no offense peeps. No biblical passages to support this position. As far as I can tell there's nothing in there to back it up, just vauge statements of immorality that they expected us to have already defined. But what I will say is that I believe homosexuality goes against God's design for the human body. I mean, your arm was made for a reason, your heart was made for another. I'd rather not go into detail here, so I'm hoping you get the picture right now. smile And my God isn't a wishy-washy God as far as I know and believe so I doubt that he'd change his mind on something's purpose after he made it with one in mind. So, any comments people? Hoping rmcdra does. smile I don't know why you want to hear from me? I mean I openly admit to being a heretic. I don't agree with the "sin because it goes against design argument" even from a non-Gnosticism view point simply because there is "design" evidence that supports homosexuality. One example is that animals have homosexual sex. The other more pertinent "design element" is the male G-Spot is one p***s length up the a**s. Using the "design" argument I could just as easily say, "If God didn't want us to be Gay, why are we designed to have our most erogenous spot to be in one of the most logical spots for homosexual sex?" Seriously I've already showed scripturally why I don't view it as a sin and to be honest, it really doesn't matter to me what one does in their own bed rooms as long as one can honestly say that their activity passes this litmus test: Is it loving toward God? Is it loving to your enemy? Is it loving to your neighbor? Is it loving to yourself? If you can't answer yes to all of these than it probably is not inline with agape, the love God first showed us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:22 am
And that's why I wanted to hear somethin' from you. More powerful rebuttals than others, but without the flaming usually involved. :3
So one last question remains I guess. Why the no children? If God was perfectly fine with homosexuality, wouldn't he allow them the joy of parenting a child of their own flesh and blood too?
Comments, verses, discussions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:39 am
Act of Random Kindness And that's why I wanted to hear somethin' from you. More powerful rebuttals than others, but without the flaming usually involved. :3 So one last question remains I guess. Why the no children? If God was perfectly fine with homosexuality, wouldn't he allow them the joy of parenting a child of their own flesh and blood too? Comments, verses, discussions? Again an argument from design. Then why can some heterosexual couples not produce children if God is perfectly fine with it. We "multiply" by calling others to Christ, unlike in Judaism one can be "born" a Jew and thus has no need for proselytizing to convert others to Judaism. No one, except Christ, is born Christian (He was born Jewish too though but that should also be a given). Paul in 1 Corinthians actual advocates celibacy and treats marriage as a last resort if you can't be celibate. If we "had" to be producing babies, why would Paul advocate celibacy at all? Paul really does screw up the argument by design argument here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:30 pm
Gho the Girl Chapter and verse please. isn't this a Christian guild? i didn't expect to have to cite something that would be common knowledge among people who have read the Bible before. Gho the Girl Appeal to ridicule/appeal to tradition. A misunderstanding 2000 years old is still a misunderstanding. again, i recall this being a Christian forum where Christian tradition was respected. guess not. Gho the Girl And yet you deride this for being on an internet forum? At least rmcdra's infodump was well sourced and cited. You're just spouting. How does your blatant hypocrisy strike you? i shared my thoughts on a subject. i'm not looking to debate. is that a crime? additionally, all i said was that i hold the rich orthodoxy of the Church in much higher regard than some anonymous person on an online forum. Gho the Girl I remember vaguely some mention in the Bible about reaping the whirlwind. chapter:verse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
