- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 Dec 13
7 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
With that in mind, you should ask yourself what harm a homosexual couple in a loving, caring relationship does to anyone else. You should also ask yourself if you would have others coerce or otherwise force you out of your sexual orientation (in your case heterosexuality).[/b]
PK's point, which you keep dodging is that you did not CHOOSE your sexual orientation and from what I gather the vast majority of people (both homosexual and heterosexual do not). Based on your response to PK it would seem that you need to educated yourself on both gender and sexual orientation. Try reading the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
Can someone argue that they have an "orientation" to physically assault homosexuals then ? Can someone argue that they did not choose to be that way but were simply born with that "orientation" ?
That is an "orientation" for violence against gays.
Try looking to Jesus if you want guidance on this issue:
Matthew 7
12So in everything, do to others what you
How about the passage just before verse 10?
Matthew 7:11 - "If you then being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those who ask Him ! "
Since you approach me as a Christian with Matthew 7:12 I can respond that as a Christian, I would encourage a person to have faith in God and ask for delivering from a confusion of having strong urges that do not correspond to their physical creation.
I would urge them who wish to follow Christ - "Ask and it shall be given to you; Seek and you shall find; knock and it shall be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it shall be opened. " (v.7,8)
I would encourage the person perplexed concerning chaotic motivations to seek, ask, and knock for God's blessing. According to Christ's word in the chapter you recommend, they should not be put off by appearances but trust in their heavenly Father -
"Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks him for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or also when he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent ? If you then being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those who ask Him!" (vs.9-11)
Some struggling people need to seek for God, come closer to ask, and come even closer to knock. It may be that God is blessing them with a loaf. But some people want to persuade them that it is not a loaf for their benefit but a stone. It may be that God is blessing them with a fish, but some people want to convince them that God is handing them a serpent.
So this section of Matthew is useful in helping people to have faith in God for normal blessed humanity, including help in areas of psychological confusion. Why should they always accept that God gave them a physical body for one cause yet emotional desires not corresponding to those physical members.
"Therefore all that you wish men would do to you, so also you do to them; for this is the law and the prophets." (v.12)
In some instances I would appreciate being warned that media hype and faddish trends are being foisted upon me by some people who perhaps want to sell a best seller book, or cultivate an atmosphere of social anarchy.
I would want someone to let me know that certain people just want to see me jump on the bandwagon, to legitimize their own deviancy.
You approach me with this advice as a Christian. So I respond to your suggestion as a Christian.
This is not me imposing my morality on non-believers. This is me helping seekers for God to have faith and patience for His thorough salvation. Society will include homosexuals who also wish to know Christ's salvation. Since you brought up how a Christian should behave, I respond accordingly from the chapter you suggest I consider.
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonshipThis is so totally absurd it barely deserves a response!
[/b] Can someone argue that they have an "orientation" to physically assault homosexuals then ? Can someone argue that they did not choose to be that way but were simply born with that "orientation" ?
[/b]
It is patently clear that we all have sexual preferences
(even you) so that cannot be disputed.
Your question is asking if someone chooses to beat up someone else.
Seriously?
Unless you are going to defend all violence with
this pathetic argument you should shut up.
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonshipI know you were born male, you've told me twice now. The question though is not - are you male or female? The question is - did you choose your sexual attraction to women?
[b]Did you choose your sexual attraction to women sonship?
I told you that I was born a male.
Any temporary periods of some kind of infatuation with other young boys during puberty, I outgrew. I did not remain there or cling to those phases of my maturing.
I do not doubt that others had a great deal difficulty in accepting their sexuality. ...[text shortened]... you think that to have civilization many people have to exercise restraint upon their desires ?[/b]
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNothing like a bit of 'retrospective trolling' to expose the rank hypocrisy of Mr Carrobie.
While it's good that RC is attempting to bring his gluttony under control, here's an interesting quote from RC made in July of '09:
[quote]on the contrary my position is perfectly clear. [b]a person that is a dedicated member of the congregation that succumbs to a serious sin, whether it is gluttony, immorality, homosexuality whatever, shall be given the ...[text shortened]... lar practice of lying which has been even more extensively documented by FMF, myself and others.
Has any member of your congregation had a word with you Rob about your obesity?
28 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobSigh, I see its once again up to me to attempt to elevate the discussion above a merely personal level so beloved by our resident retrospective trolls. As far as I am concerned obesity is not condemned in scripture, perhaps you would like to point out where it is.
Nothing like a bit of 'retrospective trolling' to expose the rank hypocrisy of Mr Carrobie.
Has any member of your congregation had a word with you Rob about your obesity?
28 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNeither is smoking or heroin use, yet you have made a case on this forum that it violates Biblical principles. Why is obesity any different?
Sigh, I see its once again up to me to attempt to elevate the discussion above a merely personal level so beloved by our resident retrospective trolls. As far as I am concerned obesity is not condemned in scripture, perhaps you would like to point out where it is.
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonshipits so true, if you do not adhere to this narrow political perspective, you are labelled a bigot, a homophobe and you will be fired, that is the present state of affairs and it does not bode well.
Can you get fired from a job for not supporting same sex marriage ?
Can you get fired for not supporting a narrow political viewpoint ?
Frank Turek speaks about the [b]Marriage Anti Defamation Alliance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5QOVtxFBpY[/b]
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobI can make a case for both smoking and heroin, its your assertion about obesity, you make your own case.
Neither is smoking or heroin use, yet you have made a case on this forum that it violates Biblical principles. Why is obesity any different?
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMake a case? You agreed with me on the top of page 5 that obesity is in 'direct conflict with nature and the word of God'. Why do I need to make a case for something which you already accept?!
I can make a case for both smoking and heroin, its your assertion about obesity, you make your own case.
28 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobbecause that's my perspective, you need to prove that its anti scriptural or your assertion that my congregation should have spoken to me about it is meaningless as are your assertions of hypocrisy.
Make a case? You agreed with me on the top of page 5 that obesity is in 'direct conflict with nature and the word of God'. Why do I need to make a case for something which you already accept?!
28 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've not said your congregation should talk to you, I've asked if they have talked to you. Have they?
because that's my perspective, you need to prove that its anti scriptural or your assertion that my congregation should have spoken to me about it is meaningless as are your assertions of hypocrisy.
I don't need to make a case, you agree with me that obesity is contrary to nature and against the word of God.
