Originally posted by ThinkOfOne1. I corrected the link. Try again.
For one, you messed up your link.
For another, I'm not all that interested in haveing to listening to the guy yammer on about his neice so that I can find out what he might have to say.
Why don't you just summarize the salient points?
2. there is no reason to be belligerent.
You see what I teach is love that the Gospel entails.
You want me to teach some kind of tolerance.
The Love of the Savior is better.
I'll write you out something in a little while.
If you're really interested in the issue well analyzed I think you would watch Greg Koukle field the question on both videos. That's up to you.
Originally posted by SuzianneThis sort of thing comes up on the Debates Forum all the time... 'Why should I be forced to accept the practice of homosexuality...?' as if the homosexuality is not going to be practised by only the homosexuals, but somehow the practice is going to be "forced" on non-homosexuals too.
"forced to accept"??
exactly who is being "forced" here?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI'm not sure why you think I'm being "belligerent".
1. I corrected the link. Try again.
2. there is no reason to be belligerent.
You see what I teach is love that the Gospel entails.
You want me to teach some kind of tolerance.
The Love of the Savior is better.
I'll write you out something in a little while.
If you're really interested in the issue well analyzed I think you would watch Greg Koukle field the question on both videos. That's up to you.
I had already found the link and two full minutes in he had not even begun to address the point.
Maybe there's something worth hearing and maybe there isn't, but if you can't be bothered to summarize what he's saying, why should anyone be bothered to listen to what the guy has to say? Especially when he spends an inordinate amount of time not addressing the issue?
5 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Maybe I needed to state it more explicitly: By your very begining with the premise that homosexuality is a moral matter and that Jesus considered it a moral matter, shows the strong level of prejudice that you have against homosexuality.
[b]It is true that there is no mention of homosexuality by Jesus in the "red letters" sense.
Then what makes you believe that Jesus considered it a moral matter?[/b]
Then what makes you believe that Jesus considered it a moral matter?
Jesus spoke of the judgment of Sodom - (Matthew 10:15; 11:23,24; Luke 10:12; 17:29) . Jesus therefore used the story of Sodom and Gamorrah as history and foundational to His own teachings on man's accountability to God.
Furthermore Jesus spoke of marriage according to the Genesis proclamation - one man for one woman. Since His teaching on marriage was according to this standard announced in the beginning of the human race, it should be the case that Jesus would not regard man with man or woman with woman marriage as legitmate. See (Mark 10:7; Gen. 2:24)
Now if you say that the silence of Jesus concerning some matter means that He condones it that makes no sense.
Then someone could argue that His silence on gay bashing indicates His condoning of gay bashing with the same rational.
Then someone can argue that the silence of Jesus on cocaine shooting shows that He condoned cocaine shooting.
You cannot take the silence of Jesus as a signal that He endorsed this or that. (Perhaps you are not saying that. But some might).
Lastly, Jesus taught He was the God of the Old Testament incarnate. Whether you agree or not is not the point here. He believed that. So His attitude as God in Genesis 19 is His attitude still. He just did not always make an example.
And Jesus said all manner of sins which men commit may be forgiven. That is except the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. And many teachers are not sure what that is. But we are sure that ALL MANNER of sins can be forgiven men who come to Christ the Savior.
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecathomophobic, lol, sure i wear a chastity belt going into certain parts of Edinburgh because of my fear! scary stuff.
I could probably find the link again, but if you weren't prepared to read it the first time I can't see you doing it this time, so I'm happy to leave you to your homophobic delusions.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat you wear under your kilt is of no concern of ours Robbie.
homophobic, lol, sure i wear a chastity belt going into certain parts of Edinburgh because of my fear! scary stuff.
However I am concerned you may mis-understand homophobia,
it is not necessarily a fear of being ravaged by another man as
your post insinuates.
"Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and
feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or
perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).
It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion,
or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI thought this was belilligerent. But maybe it was not.
I'm not sure why you think I'm being "belligerent".
I had already found the link and two full minutes in he had not even begun to address the point.
Maybe there's something worth hearing and maybe there isn't, but if you can't be bothered to summarize what he's saying, why should anyone be bothered to listen to what the guy has to say? Especially when he spends an inordinate amount of time not addressing the issue?
For another, I'm not all that interested in having to listening to the guy yammer on about his niece so that I can find out what he might have to say.
Anyway, what I don't think you have done is pinpointed out my begotted attitude.
I realize that you would like to brush me off this way as another homophobic and biased prejudiced fanatic. But you haven't been able to show that I am less lenient on say liars, fornicators, perjurers, beaters of mothers or beaters of fathers than I am on homosexuals.
What we preach as Christians is the love of Jesus for the sinners - all of them.
Strictly speaking you do not know me. You really don't know if I have a backround as a homosexual or not. You may ASSUME - "Oh here is a guy strong against homosexuals, Therefore he cannot empathize with this."
Strictly speaking, you do not know that about me. Enough said.
Paul told Timothy not to be partial but be even handed concerning ALL of the apostles instructions. He was not to show favoritism one way or another way.
This is an instruction from an elder apostle to a junior apostle -
"I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels that you keep these things without prejudice, doing nothing by way of partiality." ( 1 Timothy 5:21)
I understand this as not having "pet sins" that you feel particularly prone to harp on. The sober Christian should be even handed in teaching men to follow Christ. He has not pet faults that really get his goad. He has no sins which he feels more lenient towards. He is not to lead others to Jesus with prejudice or do things in partiality.
This is how I wish to be. This is how Christ is.
[b]"
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipC'mon jaywill, in none of those passages does Jesus explicitly state or even imply that He considered homosexuality a moral matter as you claim.
Then what makes you believe that Jesus considered it a moral matter?
Jesus spoke of the judgment of Sodom - [b](Matthew 10:15; 11:23,24; Luke 10:12; 17:29) . Jesus therefore used the story of Sodom and Gamorrah as history and foundational to His own teachings on man's accountability to God.
Furthermore Jesus spoke of m ...[text shortened]... is. But we are sure that ALL MANNER of sins can be forgiven men who come to Christ the Savior.[/b]
Certainly none of the passages from Matthew or Luke even remotely imply this.
The verse from Mark 10:7 is in a passage where He is questioned about "whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife." The passage has nothing at all to do with how He views homosexuality. It's about how He views marriage between a man and wife.
Perhaps the fact that you believe that any of the these passages indicates that Jesus considered homosexuality a moral matter is an indication of how deeply your prejudice runs.
If you want to understand what Jesus did and did not consider to be sin, I suggest you look at what He did say:
Matthew 7
12“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 22
39“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
What harms others are sin: Murder, lying, rape, stealing, etc.
What doesn't harm others are not sin: Eating of shellfish, wearing of fabrics containing multiple types of fiber, homosexuality, etc.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonship[/b]Anyway, what I don't think you have done is pinpointed out my begotted attitude.
I thought this was belilligerent. But maybe it was not.
For another, I'm not all that interested in having to listening to the guy yammer on about his niece so that I can find out what he might have to say.
Anyway, what I don't think you have done is pinpointed out my begotted attitude.
I realize that you would like to brush me things in partiality.
This is how I wish to be. This is how Christ is.
[b]"
Actually I did here:
Maybe I needed to state it more explicitly: By your very begining with the premise that homosexuality is a moral matter and that Jesus considered it a moral matter without showing that either is true, shows the strong level of prejudice that you have against homosexuality.
Do you similarly begin "with the premise that [the eating of shellfish] is a moral matter and that Jesus considered it a moral matter without showing either is true"?
I'm guessing you don't even though it is condemned in the OT right along with homosexuality.
You just pick and choose according to your prejudices or your echoing of Paul's prejudices.
Originally posted by wolfgang59an irrational fear, LOL, chastity belt it is next time i go to the playhouse in Edinburgh. I have merely stated that it is contrary to nature (physiologically) and contrary to scripture, you will please now state why that fits your definition.
What you wear under your kilt is of no concern of ours Robbie.
However I am concerned you may mis-understand homophobia,
it is not necessarily a fear of being ravaged by another man as
your post insinuates.
"Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and
feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or
perceived as b ...[text shortened]...
or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
Originally posted by FMFI understand that there is a certain sexual act that is often associated with homosexuals that certain inmates of prisons sometime force on other inmates. Maybe that is what the concern is all about.
This sort of thing comes up on the Debates Forum all the time... 'Why should I be forced to accept the practice of homosexuality...?' as if the homosexuality is not going to be practised by only the homosexuals, but somehow the practice is going to be "forced" on non-homosexuals too.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"What doesn't harm others are not sin: Eating of shellfish, wearing of fabrics containing multiple types of fiber, homosexuality, etc. "
C'mon jaywill, in none of those passages does Jesus explicitly state or even imply that He considered homosexuality a moral matter as you claim.
Certainly none of the passages from Matthew or Luke even remotely imply this.
The verse from Mark 10:7 is in a passage where He is questioned about "whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife." The ...[text shortened]... ng of shellfish, wearing of fabrics containing multiple types of fiber, homosexuality, etc.
Who says? You? Have you been granted some special insight as to what does harm to humans both physically, mentally and spiritually that only God can see?
But speaking still of homosexuality, even if they are consenting adults and if they have any concept of God and what he has said in the Bible that in his eyes it is a disgusting action to him, should that person not care about his viewpoint? Or that it offends him? Or that he has said clearly that anyone who practises such a thing will NOT be allowed to live in any part of his Kingdom?
Should that not be a concern or would this person just laugh at God and say I'm going to do as I please no matter what?