Welcome to Gaia! ::

95% of thieves, robbers, rapists, murderers, and ***** bears also say that they were born into their problems. It is all thanks to that little thing that americans like to use... it is called shifting the blade/blame. They can use science to say "It's not my fault! I just can't help it."

In the words of a diagnosed skitzo who got of with a very minor scentence after killing a man, "Ha ha! You don't actually believe this s**t, do ya?"

OMG... so the disease could have been from the outside... Ready the press and seal boys we might be able to cut this off at the source, and you, young lady, Start at song 230 and just keep on singing the lord's praises until we are through this!

I didn't know but you know enough about America to know that nothing is anyones fault. A guy breaks into a womans house in CA and trips, cutting himself on a knife. He sues her for a couple thousand and then told the judge that he was only in the house to see who lived there.

Where I come from if you are in my house and you are unannounced you could end up with lead poisoning. You get the idea. Blame the parents or blame society/genes all of these things were obviously factors that were out of your control... right? I DO have A gay friend... or well I worked with him and we got to talk alot... but I have talked to him for hours on why he is like he is and for quite a while he blamed his genes and then he did say that it was his choice.

His genes even if they were screwed up would still allow him to be with a woman. He admits that it was his choice. NO ONE can make you do anything, not even your genes! A .50 cal gun shoved in every orifice on you body set to go off if you didn't do what someone wanted couldn't force you to do something. It is still a choice.

Hold up... Honor thy father and mother. It is a sin to wish harm upon another human. That is the true reason God said were are not to Curse one another. If you wish it, it may happen and then what would you do? You asked for it.

I'm a little sick of this ignorance. God makes it painfully obvious in his word that homosexuality is sin. I will give you ample scriptural evidence of such and I will explain to you how you've taken "judgment" out of context.

Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
(keep in mind that this is under the old covenant, so the killing is justified)
Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Romans 1:32
Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things
deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also
approve of those who practice them.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

There ya go. That was from both the old testament and the new testament. Both condemn homosexuality. In this country of ours, you may believe what you like, but know that Christianity and the practice of homosexuality do not mix.

Now for the so-called judgment. I wrote a blog about this and, due to the fact that I hate clicking on links and figure others do as well, I'll copy and paste it in here.




It has come to amaze me how so many people can support a book in which they have hardly or never read. I speak of the Bible, of course. A large number of people like the “good” parts of the Bible, such as love, peace, and Heaven. They do not, however, enjoy recognizing the more sobering aspects such as sacrifice, repentance, and condemnation. I am reminded of this phenomenon more and more whenever God’s words through me cause a non-believer to have a run-in with conviction.
Most of us know that we should not judge other people, though few know the definition of the word, according to the Bible of course. My purpose here isn’t to teach on judgment, but defining terms is necessary. The Bible teaches that we should accept all people.
Romans 14:1
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
How do we accept each other? By not judging them.
Romans 14:2-3
One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
This is where everyone comes to understand that judging other people equals bad. However, the subject of judgment cannot be dropped quite yet. The people still don’t know exactly what it is yet!
Judgment: making fun, putting down, ridiculing, scoffing

There. A basic understanding for a basic concept. Yet people easily twist the meaning of judgment every day for a faulty method of accepting others. In our society today, people have developed a mentality that says, “Whatever floats your boat! If it feels good, do it! No one has a right to tell you otherwise!” Actions and behaviors that used to be considered obscene are now being embraced. In concentrated topics, people accept their brother’s sins, thinking that in this way they are abstaining from judgment. Only concerning sins that are universally unacceptable because of their strong impression on the conscience do people remember this: love the sinner, hate the sin. Is it possible to love someone, but hate what they do? Of course it is, though it may be hard in certain circumstances. Here are two hypothetical situations as an example:
Situation #1
Suppose I am sitting in an ordinary college classroom, surrounded by people on all sides. Now suppose that I shout something. I shout, “Murder is bad because it is a sin. Murderers should not murder!” After shouting, I would get strange looks from all around me for two reasons: I shouted spontaneously and I said something obvious.
Situation #2
In this situation, I am sitting in the same college classroom, surrounded by people just as before. The difference this time is what I am compelled to shout: “Homosexuality is bad because it is a sin. Homosexuals should not engage in sexual immorality!” Once again, everyone in the classroom is shocked for two reasons: My spontaneous shout and my “judgment” of homosexuals according to their ignorance. All of the sudden, people look at me as if I’ve said something foul. They glare at me and exclaim such things as “Homosexuals are people too! They should have a right to marry who they want to! You have no right to judge them!”

Are you starting to see my point? In the eyes of God, my part in both Situation #1 and #2 are the same. In both instances, I acknowledge loudly that a particular sin is bad. Is this not common sense, that sin is bad and should be hated just as God hates it?! Why is it that, though I basically took the same action in both situations, people reacted in so much more of a hostile manner when I spoke against homosexuality? The reason is simple. People have accepted homosexuality, just as so many have accepted other sins so as not to offend others or to justify themselves.

Do people really accuse others of being judgmental as their “ace in the hole?”
Let’s venture into another hypothetical situation.
Suppose I give personA a ten-question test, each question asking if personA has broken one of God’s ten commandments and asking for a “yes” or “no” answer. After having filled out the sheet, I tell personA that if he answered “yes” to any of the questions, then he is guilty of breaking God’s law and quite eligible for Hell unless he does something.

Uh oh! Here it comes! I can feel it!
“Don’t judge me!!! You’ve sinned too!!”
“You’re right that I have, but that doesn’t make it okay. Though I am guilty of breaking God’s law, I am considered righteous because I have accepted Jesus and his sacrifice for me into my life.”


Did I make my point clear enough? Thank you for your time ladies and gentlemen and goodnight!

From www.godmademegay.com/letter.htm:

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Revised Standard Version:

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.

13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death...



The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.



Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only direct references to same-gender sex in the Old Testament. They are both part of the Old Testament Holiness Code, a religious, not a moral code; it later became the Jewish Purity Laws. ["Abomination" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate sins that involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. The word relates to the failure to worship God or to worshiping a false god; it does not relate to morality.] Professor Soards tell us, "Old Testament experts view the regulations of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people's identity in relation to God."B-4 This is because God was so determined that his people would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship. (The laws say nothing about women engaging in same-gender sex; probably this had to do with man's dominance, and such acts by the subservient had nothing to do with religious impurity.)

God required purity for his worship. Anything pure was unadulterated, unmixed with anything else These Purity Laws prohibited mixing different threads in one garment, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, crossbreeding animals. A few years ago in Israel when an orthodox government came into power, McDonalds had to stop selling cheeseburgers. Hamburgers, OK. Cheese sandwiches, OK. But mixing milk and meat in one sandwich violated the Purity Laws--it had nothing to do with morality. These were laws about worshipping God, not ethics, and so have no bearing on our discussion of morality. Helmut Thielicke remarks on these passages: "It would never occur to anyone to wrench these laws of cultic purification from their concrete situation and give them the kind of normative authority that the Decalogue, for example, has."B-5



Another reason they are not pertinent to our discussion is that these laws were for the particular time and circumstances existing when they were given. If you planted a fruit tree, you could not eat its fruit until its fifth year, and all fruit the fourth year must be offered to the Lord. A worker must be paid his wage on the day of his labor. You must not harvest a field to its edge. We readily dismiss most of them as not applicable to our day and culture, and if we dismiss some of them for any reason, we have to dismiss all of them, including the sexual regulations, for that same reason.



When we add the fact that these laws were talking about heterosexuals, it makes three reasons, any one of which would be sufficient, why they have no bearing on questions about homosexuals or homosexuality or on the morality of same-gender sex by homosexuals today.




Also from the letter:



Romans 1:21, 26, 27

Revised Standard Version

21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him...

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men...



The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.



Romans 1:26 and 27 clearly speak of same-gender sex by both men and women, the only passage in the New Testament that does so. Rom. 1:18-32 speaks of Gentiles (heterosexuals) who could and should have known and served and given thanks to God but would not, so God gave them up and let them do whatever they wanted to do, and that resulted in degrading and shameful acts, including same-gender sex. It is almost a moot point, but Paul is not listing sins for which God will condemn anyone, he is listing sins that occur because people have forsaken Him. These are acts committed by those who have turned away from God and so become "consumed with passion." All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living--homosexual or heterosexual--stand condemned by the Bible. This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God.

Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, "No direct appeal to Romans 1 as a source of rules about sexual conduct is possible."B-6




From the letter:



I Corinthians 6:9

King James Version:

9...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves..., shall inherit the kingdom of God.



New International Version

9...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God.



Revised Standard Version--1952 edition:

9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.



Revised Standard Version--1971 edition:

9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.



A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators. In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first "effeminate," a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first "male prostitutes" and the second, "homosexual offenders". The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, "homosexuals". In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation "homosexuals" is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as "sexual perverts"; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable.



Malakoi literally means "soft" and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, "morally weak." There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it "homosexuals."



Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means "pederast", a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing a**l intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn't he use one of the common words? Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul's intention. If so, there is no justification for translating the word as "homosexuals." Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus. If so, it is speaking of heterosexuals given to such lust they turn to such acts.



Richard Hays tells us, "I Corinthians 6:9-11 states no rule to govern the conduct of Christians."B-7



One commentator has another reason for rejecting the NIV and original RSV translations, "homosexuals." Today it could mean that a person who is homosexual in orientation even though "of irreproachable morals, is automatically branded as unrighteous and excluded from the kingdom of God, just as if he were the most depraved of sexual perverts."B-8



So I Cor. 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality with the possible exception of condemnable pederasty.



neutral They do not condemn homosexuality. I am Christian, I am gay. OH NOEZ IT'S TEH MIXINZ'.



Click this link: www.godmademegay.com/letter.htm




Homosexuality as a sin is obviously at the very least disputable, as is obvious by what I have posted above.




How exactly can you quote this verse, WHILE ignoring what it says?



Judging in the biblical sense is telling someone what will happen to them, or actively trying to punish them for something you believe is a sin.



While people have a right to tell you otherwise, nobody has a right to make you do otherwise, and THAT is what homophobes in America are trying to do right now by making gay marriage illegal.



Yes, though as humans it's extremely likely that we will end up confusing the two at some point and destroying a friendship.



Invalid analogy. Homosexuality is a birth trait, murder is an action. neutral



No. Speaking with rocks in your mouth has a precedent for helping with oratory though, try that instead of your foot.



True.



Then why haven't people accepted murder, or theft? Simple, there's a difference between murder or theft and homosexuality. The first two are actions; clearly a choice on the part of the person to commit. The last, however, is an inborn trait, part of your biological makeup. It would not only be out of line, but completely unethical, to condemn something that is unchangeable.



I try not to, unless the issue touches on hypocrisy, which I detest. Yes, that was opening the gates. Go to town.



Well, assuming they use the "you've sinned too" line, they're Christians too, which makes them just as righteous as you, in which case you aren't only being judgmental, but hypocritical by way of condemning their sins but excusing your own.




neutral Christians are the greatest threat to Christianity.

You are contradicting yourself. You say that they are not condemned for there sin in this scripture but the sins are instead a cause of them being condemned. Either way you call it a sin, and any sin condemns us to hell. There is an easy way out, but you have to be willing to take it and change your lifestyle if it is required by scripture.



Actually, you are taking almost his whole blog entry out of context. Maybe I am too, but it seemed to to me that he was talking about how people use a false shield to hide their sins away. The blog entry mainly uses homosexuality as its main point, not the whole problem. You are geared up over the debate over homosexuality while he is only addressing a single issue or problem with the defence.

Of course I'm no great scholar so what do I know? Just seems to me you are taking the meaning of the entry as different than what was (at least what seemed the only valid way to see it to me) intended. Well done.



And I like how you keep ignoring:

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Again, well done. Right there, from your quote, it says God will make a helper for him. All the living things that are brought before Adam were made BEFORE Adam. With your argument, as you stated it, God did not do what he had said he would do right away and actually looked for an animal by bringing them for Adam to name. To me it seems like he was letting Adam try and pick one for his own but God knew none would be found. This was a real person and it was still very much the same God who let us have our free will in the first place.

Yes I know the bible doesn't say that and no I don't expect you to believe that is the way it happened nor do I believe that can truly be it either. I'm just saying that it is just as much a possibility as your idea, maybe even more when thinking about the laws put down in both the Old and New Testament.

I condemn you not, nor do I condemn anyone. It is not my place nor anyone else's to pass judgment; that is reserved for the Lord and him alone. I believe homosexuality is wrong. You believe it is not. We will find out who is right when we die and I will do my best to prove to people that it is wrong since that is my belief and I truly wish for people to go to Heaven and that no one goes to Hell. If you do not listen to me or anyone else it is your risk the way I see it, and if I am wrong I will be truly happy.

Again, I condemn you not. I pray to see you and everyone else I know or have talked to in Heaven some day. I would be a lucky man if I did.

Wrong. I say their sins are not a cause of them being condemned, I say they are an effect of earlier sins which caused condemnation. The line goes like this:

Sin(Idolatry) -> Condemnation by God -> Sin(Lust, Arrogance, Malice, etc.)



This is a debate on homosexuality, and the rest of his post dealt with homosexuality. Indeed, since this is a debate about homosexuality, even if his blog didn't deal with the topic subject, I would be going off topic not to reply to it as it refers to said topic matter. The context supports replying to his blog using homosexuality as the main case.



Just as much as me, theoretically. Saying anything else would be an appeal to authority.