Op-Ed: Talking with Liberals on Homosexuality

[Pale Rider]

Op-Ed: Talking with Liberals on Homosexuality



by Thomas R. Eddlem
January 20, 2006


Living in Massachusetts, I’ve had more than my share of opportunity to converse with liberals on issues of the day. And I can confirm that quite a few liberals are complete blockheads with respect to issues surrounding homosexuality, steadfastly refusing to adhere to anything resembling logic.

Pretty much every conversation I have ever had with liberals on homosexuality has gone something like this:

Liberal: I don’t see what’s wrong with gay marriage.
Me: Let’s put aside for a moment the fact that this is akin to saying “I don’t see why a triangle can’t have four sides,” and that marriage has been an institution between a man and a woman in every civilization throughout all of human history. You must admit that the state shouldn’t officially sanction immoral homosexual behavior in my name and in your name.
Liberal: I don’t see why not. It’s not like they have anything to do with choosing that they are gay. They are clearly born that way.
Me: But there has never been a shred of scientific evidence that homosexuality is an inherited trait. You must admit that – except for some modern scientific procedures – homosexuals live a sterile lifestyle and are therefore always at the end of their genetic line.
Liberal: But nobody would ever choose such a lifestyle.
Me: Why wouldn’t they?
Liberal: Because it is such a difficult lifestyle to endure. Nobody would ever willingly choose it.
Me: You mean that no one would voluntarily choose a lifestyle that would cause them so much loneliness and pain?
Liberal: I wouldn’t put it exactly that way, but something like that.
Me: I’d disagree with you there, because people choose self-destructive lifestyles such as alcoholism and drugs all the time. And sex can be at least as powerful an addiction as drugs. Let me ask you a question: Are you supporting work for a cure to homosexuality?
Liberal: What? Of course not. Are you crazy? Why would I want to do that?
Me: Well, you just got done telling me how terrible the lifestyle was to endure. I just thought you might want support a humanitarian solution that would relieve them of this terrible burden they have to bear.
Liberal: I don’t think homosexuality is so terrible, and certainly don’t think it needs a “cure.”
Me: Well, if it’s not such a terrible lifestyle to endure, if it’s not worse than drug or alcohol addiction, then you have to admit someone might choose it. Right?
Liberal: No. There is no way anyone would ever choose it.

There is the perfect circular logic of a liberal who takes it on faith that homosexuality is a genetic trait. And it is pure faith, because it is not backed up by one scintilla of scientific evidence. They say it’s a hard lifestyle for someone to endure, but are not humanitarian enough to seek a cure to relieve that burden. When called to task, they reverse themselves and say that it’s not a burdensome lifestyle.

The homosexual movement itself must live in the logical twilight, because they can never concede that their behavior is purely genetic (which implies that a cure should be found for their condition) or merely a free choice (which implies a moral condition to their behavior). Either way, their immoral lifestyle choice comes under fire. This explains why officials in the sodomy lobby have always sought out that twilight.

Many liberals made uncomfortable in conversation eventually come to the point of telling me to shut up, using one of two ruses. The first is deliberately rude and insulting: “Oh, you seem preoccupied with this issue. Perhaps thou dost protest too much.”

The second ruse is a bit more cleverly disguised, involving a statement like: “Jesus talked a lot about helping the poor, but never said a word about homosexuality. Maybe you should take an example from him.” When said sincerely (which it rarely is), the statement is proof of Irish author Elizabeth Bowen’s quip that “One can live in the shadow of an idea without grasping it.” So it is with liberals and Christianity. Though Christians are asked to help the poor as part of their faith, almsgiving is not the primary aim of Christianity. Christianity is principally dedicated toward salvation of the soul, which involves repentance from sin.

Not that liberals would accept a declarative statement by Christ or any other moral precept on homosexuality as binding. It no longer persuades in public discourse when one says “God says so” or “The Bible says…” or “This is immoral…” Saying such things in public actually discredits and pigeon-holes Christians socially.

Liberals always need a secular argument why marriage can’t be a man and a woman, and the fact that our government is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles is never enough of a reply. While there’s probably no way to get through the skulls of some liberal blockheads who exercise the circular logic above, I have made some headway in the case against sodomatrimony using historical and cultural, non-religious arguments.

I had a discussion with a social liberal recently who wanted me to give him a non-religious reason why Americans should not accept homosexual marriage. I told him that the traditional legal American view of marriage of one man and one woman was obviously drawn from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and that it is at least an objective standard that was not made up by Americans.

On the other hand, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that any two people could make a marriage (the Goodridge decision) was an arbitrary standard that they concocted. Anyone familiar with world history – or even American history – should be aware that a better cultural case can be made for polygamy than for the marriage of two people of the same sex. Polygamy was common throughout most primitive cultures, and is endorsed by Islam today. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, many of the early Hebrew patriarchs, such as Abraham, David and Solomon, practiced polygamy. Even in the United States, some early members of the Mormon faith practiced polygamy before the church repudiated the practice. Absent the objective Judeo-Christian standard, two people in a marriage becomes an entirely arbitrary number.

The Massachusetts SJC decision explicitly rejected polygamy as a legal marriage, but it offered no objective reason for rejecting it – just the say-so of a one-vote majority of court justices. A court that accepts sodomatrimony must eventually accept polygamy.

Without resting on the objective standard of America’s Judeo-Christian legal heritage, our country stands on the edge of a legal abyss. Liberals, even if they have rejected the objective Judeo-Christian standard of marriage, can at least be made to see how the Goodridge decision would eventually make marriage a meaningless social institution under the law.

Basically, my favorite tactic is to challenge the liberal to construct an objective standard to limit marriage other than the arbitrary criterion he or the one-vote majority in some court manufactured out of thin air. They can never do it (because God Himself ordained the only objective standard at the Garden of Eden). Any American, except for a few of the most dim-witted, can be made to understand this distinction.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_3099.shtml

[darin]

Just reading this I'm reminded that a couple of this board's members who are MOST critical of "Intelligent Design (creation)" Bitch about it being purely FAITH based, YET in the next thread preach about THEIR Faith of homosexuality being genetic.

Weird. :)

[TheSage]

You guys should focus on the border issue. This fixation is gay.




http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boardwalk/7151/biobasis.html

Yet perhaps the most compelling evidence that sexual orientation has a biological basis came in 1993. Dean Hamer, examining the family trees of gay men, noticed a pattern of inheritance through the maternal side; as a result, he hypothesized that homosexuality may be an X-linked trait since men inherit their X chromosome from their mother. To test this theory, Hamer collected a group of forty gay brothers and drew blood samples to examine their DNA. For thirty-three of the forty brothers, he discovered a remarkable concordance for five markers on a section of the X chromosome called Xq28, where concordance is defined to be the similarity between the markers. Statistical analysis showed that the probability of this concordance happening by sheer chance was less than one in 100,000 (138). Hamer also found that no other region of the X chromosome is linked to sexual orientation, for none of the sixteen markers outside Xq28 showed any statistically significant concordance (139). Upon repeating the study again, he obtained the same results. Thus, it makes sense that Hamer found gay men to have more maternal relatives who were gay than paternal relatives because homosexuality is X-linked. Admittedly, Hamer has not isolated a “gay gene,” but rather a region of over five million base pairs in which such a gene may exist. Critics wonder why “the researchers did not do the obvious control experiment of checking for the presence of these markers among heterosexual brothers of the gay men they studied” (qtd. in Hamer, 141). Yet the answer is obvious: Hamer was not trying to prove that Xq28 alone determines a person’s sexual orientation, but rather that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. Combined with the results of other genetic studies, Hamer’s findings only strengthen the argument that homosexuality has genetic links.

[darin]

You guys should focus on the border issue. This fixation is gay.

Don't believe the first link you find on google. :)



http://www.queerbychoice.com/gaygenelinks.html

A more recent "gay gene" study, published in April 1999 by Canadian researchers George Ebers and George Rice, attempted to duplicate Dean Hamer's results and failed. The six articles below provide some details on the Ebers and Rice study.

* "Study Questions Gene Influence on Male Homosexuality" (http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/study_questions_gene_influence_o.htm) by Erica Goode from the New York Times, April 23, 1999
* "Doubt Cast on Gay Gene" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/325979.stm) from BBC News
* "Discovery of 'Gay Gene' Questioned" (http://web.archive.org/web/20021221022605/http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/04221999/grapha.htm) by Ingrid Wickelgren from InSCIght, April 22, 1999
* "Study Fails to Support Existence of a 'Gay Gene'" (http://web.archive.org/web/20020608120322/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/html98/gayy_19990423.html) by Sue Goetinck from the Associated Press, April 23, 1999

From Pro-Gay wesbite (thanks for the link, OCA!):


But with hardly anyone noticing, Hamer's claims have unraveled. A replication of his study at the University of Western Ontario failed to find any linkage whatsoever between the X chromosome and sexual orientation. And in a follow-up, on which Hamer himself collaborated, a linkage was again found, but it was so statistically insignificant that one of the authors acknowledges that, had this study come first, it would never have been published.
Linky (http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=C5352D91-2D9E-11D4-A7AD00A0C9D84F02&Method=guidefulldisplay)

[TheSage]

There's also this. It' believed to be due to hormone exposure in the fetus's brain as it develops.

When did you guys decide to be straight?






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
The hormonal theory of sexuality holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation that emerges later in the adult. Fetal hormones may be seen as the primary determiner of adult sexual orientation, or a co-factor with genes and/or environmental and social conditions.

[OCA]

There's also this. It' believed to be due to hormone exposure in the fetus's brain as it develops.

When did you guys decide to be straight?

Got anything definitive? Anything that doesn't contain the word "may"?

[OCA]

You guys should focus on the border issue. This fixation is gay.

Oh the border issue is going to be addressed sometime this Spring, amnesty will be passed and the border will get beefed up. Solution found, game over.

[TheSage]

Oh the border issue is going to be addressed sometime this Spring, amnesty will be passed and the border will get beefed up. Solution found, game over.


Don't count on it.

[OCA]

Don't count on it.

Who's gonna stop it? Democrat congress who wants it and Bush in the oval office who wants it. Only thing left is which pen he will sign the bill with.

[CockySOB]

Just reading this I'm reminded that a couple of this board's members who are MOST critical of "Intelligent Design (creation)" Bitch about it being purely FAITH based, YET in the next thread preach about THEIR Faith of homosexuality being genetic.

Weird. :)

Yup. Sounds like Grump to a "T."

[TheSage]

Who's gonna stop it? Democrat congress who wants it and Bush in the oval office who wants it. Only thing left is which pen he will sign the bill with.


The people will stop it.

[OCA]

The people will stop it.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[TheSage]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

This is why it's a sham when you call yourself a populist. You have nothing but contempt for the average american. You think your globalism is enlightened, but you're just selling out your own people to make a buck. And I don't mean whites, I mean Americans, of all colors. Anyone here legally has a vested personal interest in protecting opportunities and standards of living for himself and his children.

[OCA]

This is why it's a sham when you call yourself a populist. You have nothing but contempt for the average american. You think your globalism is enlightened, but you're just selling out your own people to make a buck. And I don't mean whites, I mean Americans, of all colors. Anyone here legally has a vested personal interest in protecting opportunities and standards of living for himself and his children.

So you think that a protectionist and isolationist policy is bestfor the opportunities and standard of living for the average citizen? What year are you living in, 1917?

I'm an icon because I realize that this is a global economy and that America's and by proxy the people's standard of living is derived from capitalism and no shackles should be placed upon capitalism. Now with that being said America has prospered, the citizenry have become advanced and higly educated, they desire high paying technological jobs in our advanced society yet there still remains a labor segment to our economy and Americans simply are not lining up for these jobs. I realize that these jobs are stil vital and the economies that are based upon this labor are also vital to America's continued power and prosperity. We have already in country a workforce willing to pitch in and get these jobs done but they are not citizens and currently not contributing financially into the system unless of course you count the taxes they pay on gas, sales etc. etc. so it only makes sense to grant them a path to citizenship and start collecting from them.

I care about America's continued prosperity, why don't you?

[darin]

When did you guys decide to be straight?


When I was 3. or 5. I decided to be 'normal' and 'healthy' when I first learned that boys have a "thingy" and girls have a 'Hoo-hoo'. From a small unmolested or sexualized Child I learned basic anatomy. It was then, probably subconsciously, I decided boys and girls, mommies and daddies are what makes a 'family'. A 'gay couple' is NOT and never will be a family - it's manifestation of two adults of the same gender's egomaniacal desire to impart their unhealthy obsession and vices on to children in hopes one day, their destructive habbits will be sactioned by society.

[TheSage]

So you think that a protectionist and isolationist policy is bestfor the opportunities and standard of living for the average citizen? What year are you living in, 1917?


I think immigration needs to be drastically reduced to a level such that wages are not suppressed too far too quickly. Borders have naturally functioned to serve this purpose all throughout human history. It's only recently that this internationalist notion that regular people deserve no protections, not even those historically valued ones such as border enforcement, has become prevalant and popular. The border does protect. Yes.



I'm an icon because I realize that this is a global economy and that America's and by proxy the people's standard of living is derived from capitalism and no shackles should be placed upon capitalism.

Capitalism should operate within the greater moral framework. We should not legitimize slave labor by allowing it as a resource on the international market. Think of it as kiddie porn. That's capitalism too.




Now with that being said America has prospered, the citizenry have become advanced and higly educated, they desire high paying technological jobs in our advanced society yet there still remains a labor segment to our economy and Americans simply are not lining up for these jobs.

But even tech skills and white collar training do not protect us from globalization. This is the flaw your argument relies on. Even those jobs are being sourced away from america, based on the same logic you use. When americans are being gouged on everything, we simply cannot take the low wages they pay indian or chinese developers. These disparities in the global economy are a strategic manipulation to drive americans out of the global workforce, by corporations who do not have our interests at heart.





I realize that these jobs are stil vital and the economies that are based upon this labor are also vital to America's continued power and prosperity. We have already in country a workforce willing to pitch in and get these jobs done but they are not citizens and currently not contributing financially into the system unless of course you count the taxes they pay on gas, sales etc. etc. so it only makes sense to grant them a path to citizenship and start collecting from them.

I care about America's continued prosperity, why don't you?

It makes more sense to kick them out, say no to globalism, and insist that americans maintain all skills at all levels of the income spectrum, and not allow manipulated "market forces" to make us dependant and unemployed.

[darin]

The Sage - how do you reconcile your acceptance of homosexuality with your claimed christianity?

[TheSage]

The Sage - how do you reconcile your acceptance of homosexuality with your claimed christianity?


Im not so sure it's anti-christian to be gay. I don't think jesus would fault a person for a birth defect.

[darin]

Im not so sure it's anti-christian to be gay. I don't think jesus would fault a person for a birth defect.

But God calls it sinful - not to be 'drawn' to people of the same gender - for whatever reason - but to be/do homosexuality. It's quiet clear.

But interesting choice of words. We try to fix/cure/help people all the time w/ 'birth defects' - would you support research in 'curing' people of their homosexual desires?

[TheSage]

But God calls it sinful - not to be 'drawn' to people of the same gender - for whatever reason - but to be/do homosexuality. It's quiet clear.

But interesting choice of words. We try to fix/cure/help people all the time w/ 'birth defects' - would you support research in 'curing' people of their homosexual desires?




Not by force. If people want to try to be reoriented on their own that'd be fine.

[darin]

Not by force. If people want to try to be reoriented on their own that'd be fine.

What about the first part of my statement? About how the bible is so cut-and-dry against homosexuality - saying the bevhavior is as sinful as murder, adultry, lying, etc...

[TheSage]

What about the first part of my statement? About how the bible is so cut-and-dry against homosexuality - saying the bevhavior is as sinful as murder, adultry, lying, etc...


I think it's too old testamenty for me. Jesus stressed love as opposed to strict legalism.

[OCA]

Im not so sure it's anti-christian to be gay. I don't think jesus would fault a person for a birth defect.


http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=809

You're about as Christian as Louis Farrakhan.

Also Romans is in the new testament before you start your "too old testamenty" bullshit.

OWNED

[darin]

I think it's too old testamenty for me. Jesus stressed love as opposed to strict legalism.

Well, brother, either the bible is 100% true, or NONE of scripture has worth.

FWIW, Paul - who is VERY New Testamenty speaks on the issue.

In Romans 1:18-32 (he) condemns the practice in the severest terms. (http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/contempry/hompbia1.htm) Homosexuality is "unclean," "impure," "dishonoring to the body," "vile," "degrading / disgraceful," "contrary to nature," "unseemly/ obscene," "improper activity of a depraved mind," "unrighteous," "wicked," etc. Of particular importance to the apostle in this passage is the fact that homosexuality is "unnatural"--contrary to nature. In other words, nature itself teaches that the practice is wrong; we all know it intuitively. Homosexuality is, then, a particularly rebellious sin.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 the apostle Paul speaks of homosexuals as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" who "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." The terms he uses here seem to be specific references to both active and the passive participants in a homosexual relationship. Such people are "unrighteous," he says, and if they remain in that practice they will be condemned.

[TheSage]

http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=809

You're about as Christian as Louis Farrakhan.

Also Romans is in the new testament before you start your "too old testamenty" bullshit.

OWNED



THat's old jew stuff.

[darin]

THat's old jew stuff.

Brother - Christ was VERY supportive of old Jew stuff:


17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:17-20

[TheSage]

Brother - Christ was VERY supportive of old Jew stuff:



Matthew 5:17-20

But then there's this too. I kind of depends on which jesus you want to believe in.


Matt 22:36-40
36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
37 Jesus said to him," 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
38 "This is the first and great commandment.
39 "And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

[Nienna]

I think it's too old testamenty for me. Jesus stressed love as opposed to strict legalism.

False grace message... see the thread on casual sex. Read also Hebrews 12... ALL of Hebrews 12. God is MORE scary today than in ancient times, bc we have seen the revelation of His Being in Jesus Christ, and bc there is NO MORE sacrifice left for sin.

[TheSage]

False grace message... see the thread on casual sex. Read also Hebrews 12... ALL of Hebrews 12. God is MORE scary today than in ancient times, bc we have seen the revelation of His Being in Jesus Christ, and bc there is NO MORE sacrifice left for sin.

SO the salvation juice is all used up?



http://www.nomoretithing.org/ot_and_before.htm
is the Old Covenant Laws that were given to the Israelites that is the issue. No Christians that I am aware of are taught to perform animal sacrifice today. I believe Bible teachers are correct in not teaching animal sacrifice. However, the Israelites were directed to do that in the Old Covenant. Examples can be found at Leviticus chapter 3 verses 1-5 and Leviticus chapter 4 verses 1-12.

They were instructed to perform animal sacrifice for fellowship offerings, sin offerings, guilt offerings as well as other reasons. We are not taught that we should be performing animal sacrifice today so why are we taught that we should still be 'tithing'? More on that later.

[darin]

But then there's this too. I kind of depends on which jesus you want to believe in.


Matt 22:36-40
36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
37 Jesus said to him," 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
38 "This is the first and great commandment.
39 "And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Because we Love people, we try to HELP them over their sin. Loving somebody has NOTHING to do with condoning their sin, Jason.

[Pale Rider]

Im not so sure it's anti-christian to be gay. I don't think jesus would fault a person for a birth defect.

Is that a luke warm deflection, or don't you really know? In any case, let me show you. The Bible is pretty clear on homosexuality....


Homosexuality: What Does God Say About It?

The first reference to homosexuality in Scripture is in the infamous account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. The wickedness of the men of that city is obvious and is of such a severe nature that it brought divine destruction upon the entire city. Both Peter and Jude make reference to it and describe the sin of homosexuality as " ungodly, lawless, unnatural and extreme immorality" (see 2 Peter 2:6, 8; Jude 7).

In Leviticus 18:22 and 24 homosexuality is described as an "abomination" and "defiling." It is reprehensible and unclean.

In Leviticus 20:13 it is again described as an "abomination" but here as one worthy of the death penalty!

Deuteronomy 23:17 forbade the presence of a "sodomite" in the land of Israel.

An incident similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah is seen again in Judges 19. Again the sin of homosexuality is described as "wickedness."

In 1 Kings 14, 15, and 22 the removal of male prostitutes from the land of Israel is viewed as a sign of much-needed spiritual reformation.

The prohibition in Deuteronomy 22:5 of women wearing men's clothing appears to be a specific condemnation of transvestism.

In Romans 1:18-32 the apostle Paul condemns the practice in the severest terms. Homosexuality is "unclean," "impure," "dishonoring to the body," "vile," "degrading / disgraceful," "contrary to nature," "unseemly/ obscene," "improper activity of a depraved mind," "unrighteous," "wicked," etc. Of particular importance to the apostle in this passage is the fact that homosexuality is "unnatural"--contrary to nature. In other words, nature itself teaches that the practice is wrong; we all know it intuitively. Homosexuality is, then, a particularly rebellious sin.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 the apostle Paul speaks of homosexuals as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" who "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." The terms he uses here seem to be specific references to both active and the passive participants in a homosexual relationship. Such people are "unrighteous," he says, and if they remain in that practice they will be condemned.

From all this we can draw at least the following three conclusions:

1) Homosexuality is contrary to Scripture. There is no way to speak of any kind of acceptable or "Christian" homosexuality. There is never any allowance for it. It is never anything but sinful.

2) Homosexuality is contrary to nature. It is a particularly rebellious sin, a violation even of one's own conscience.

3) Homosexuality is worthy of severe judgment. The Mosaic law prescribed the death penalty for this sin. The apostle Paul specified that such people have excluded themselves from the salvation that is in Christ Jesus and are headed toward condemnation.

http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/contempry/hompbia1.htm

[TheSage]

Because we Love people, we try to HELP them over their sin. Loving somebody has NOTHING to do with condoning their sin, Jason.

I don't think a birth defect is the same as a sin, Darin, ANd neither would jesus, Darin. Darin.

[darin]

SO the salvation juice is all used up?

She's saying Animal Sacrifices no longer WORK - as they did back then. She's saying if we don't accept Christ's sacrifice, NOTHING we can do will bridge the gap between us and God.

:)

[TheSage]

She's saying Animal Sacrifices no longer WORK - as they did back then. She's saying if we don't accept Christ's sacrifice, NOTHING we can do will bridge the gap between us and God.

:)


It seem to me she was saying that christs saving grace had expired. Seriously.

[darin]

I don't think a birth defect is the same as a sin, Darin, ANd neither would jesus, Darin. Darin.

So Paul was wrong? Paul had less of an understanding of Christ than you?

(shrug).

NOT-having sex with members of the same sex is means one is NOT 'homosexual'. However - LUSTING after members of the same sex, IS homosexuality - Christ explained - unless you don't believe this particular part of the bible - than putting lust and thought and desire into a sin is AS sinful as the act itself.

[darin]

It seem to me she was saying that christs saving grace had expired. Seriously.


She wasn't. :)

[Nienna]

But then there's this too. I kind of depends on which jesus you want to believe in.


Matt 22:36-40
36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
37 Jesus said to him," 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
38 "This is the first and great commandment.
39 "And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."



"And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands." 2John 1:6

[TheSage]

So Paul was wrong? Paul had less of an understanding of Christ than you?

(shrug).

NOT-having sex with members of the same sex is means one is NOT 'homosexual'. However - LUSTING after members of the same sex, IS homosexuality - Christ explained - unless you don't believe this particular part of the bible - than putting lust and thought and desire into a sin is AS sinful as the act itself.



So you subconsiously decided to be straight, after learning basic anatomy? You're so full of it. lol.:lol:

[darin]

So you subconsiously decided to be straight, after learning basic anatomy? You're so full of it. lol.:lol:

It was innate. It was a normal biological desire. I wasn't molested or sexualized as a kid - that helps a LOT towards see people grow up 'normal'. :) I had the common sense to know the difference. People who choose a homosexual lifestyle, are missing that common sense, or have denied who they REALLY are and have accepted a destructive lifestyle.


But answer the question: Do you believe you have a GREATER understanding of Christ and God and Sin and Life and Love, than did the Apostle Paul?

[manu1959]

Im not so sure it's anti-christian to be gay. I don't think jesus would fault a person for a birth defect.

please provide a link that proves being gay is a birth defect. it is no more a birth defect than being a murderer

[Pale Rider]

Sage... of all people... YOU... defending homosexuality. I find that curious.

[TheSage]

please provide a link that proves being gay is a birth defect. it is no more a birth defect than being a murderer


Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
The hormonal theory of sexuality holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation that emerges later in the adult. Fetal hormones may be seen as the primary determiner of adult sexual orientation, or a co-factor with genes and/or environmental and social conditions.

[Nienna]

SO the salvation juice is all used up?

Not exactly sure what you mean by this.

But, God did not change once we hit the new testament.

[darin]

please provide a link that proves being gay is a birth defect. it is no more a birth defect than being a murderer

Nobody has to give a link for their opinion - only if they want to show they've FORMED their opinion on credible data...data that makes sense. :)

[Nienna]

She's saying Animal Sacrifices no longer WORK - as they did back then. She's saying if we don't accept Christ's sacrifice, NOTHING we can do will bridge the gap between us and God.

:)

Perfectly stated. Thanks, D. :)

[TheSage]

Not exactly sure what you mean by this.

But, God did not change once we hit the new testament.


That's right. Nothing changed. Let's rebuild the temple, kill gays and follow halakha. That's What a good je... i mean, christian would do.


Oh wait. That's the plan. I almost forgot.

[darin]

Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
The hormonal theory of sexuality holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation that emerges later in the adult. Fetal hormones may be seen as the primary determiner of adult sexual orientation, or a co-factor with genes and/or environmental and social conditions.

Dude - wikipedia is NOT a source...lol :) It's written by people who CARE about a given topic... :) but look - it's a THEORY...nobody can PROVE what they claim there. There's NO proof - not even credable evidence to suggest Homoseuxals are victims to their genes. And NO amount of pressure from one's genes FORCES people to ACT on ANTYHING. Every single body must CHOOSE how they behave...they must CHOOSE how they react to impulses.

[Nienna]

It seem to me she was saying that christs saving grace had expired. Seriously.

No, Christ's saving grace is in effect. What I was saying is, Christ's sacrifice was the end of the line. If we don't get it straight and OBEY God NOW, there is nothing left for us, no other way to avoid damnation.

[Nienna]

That's right. Nothing changed. Let's rebuild the temple, kill gays and follow halakha. That's What a good je... i mean, christian would do.


Oh wait. That's the plan. I almost forgot.

God NEVER desired our sacrifices, he desired our LOVE and obedience, moment-by-moment. He desired intimacy, that He would be allowed to be Lord over EVERY part of our lives. The Law was given bc people's hearts were hard, and they didn't want to let Him in. That has not changed, ever.

[TheSage]

No, Christ's saving grace is in effect. What I was saying is, Christ's sacrifice was the end of the line. If we don't get it straight and OBEY God NOW, there is nothing left for us, no other way to avoid damnation.

This discussion really just needs to be refined. There were different sets of laws in play at jesus time, different debates in the community about laws and which ones to follow. To understand the main arguments of that time period is to also understand the new testament and jesus's position on these issues more thorougly. Read about the debates and different sects in judaism at that time. It's quite good reading. Sadduccees, Pharisees, essenes, zealots.

[Nienna]

This discussion really just needs to be refined. There were different sets of laws in play at jesus time, different debates in the community about laws and which ones to follow. To understand the main arguments of that time period is to also understand the new testament and jesus's position on these issues more thorougly. Read about the debates and different sects in judaism at that time. It's quite good reading. Sadduccees, Pharisees, essenes, zealots.

No thanks. I don't need to read more... just SURRENDER more.

[OCA]

THat's old jew stuff.


What? Romans, 1 Timothy, 1 Corinthians all new testament.

You don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about...pseudoChristian

[Pale Rider]

Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
The hormonal theory of sexuality holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation that emerges later in the adult. Fetal hormones may be seen as the primary determiner of adult sexual orientation, or a co-factor with genes and/or environmental and social conditions.

The hormonal THEORY...? That's proof of nothing. Just a theory. Like darwin's theory. No proof of that either.

[OCA]

I don't think a birth defect is the same as a sin, Darin, ANd neither would jesus, Darin. Darin.


Jesus nor God consider it a birth defect, quit making stuff up out of thin air....pseudoChristian.

[Pale Rider]

I've got this strange urge to go rob a bank today. I know it's wrong, but I think I'll go do it anyway. Will all you accept this behavior as normal?

[TheSage]

I've got this strange urge to go rob a bank today. I know it's wrong, but I think I'll go do it anyway. Will all you accept this behavior as normal?

No. Sexual orientation is not like criminal urge like stealing. Though that's unique and amusing argument. What if you stole butt plugs and used them in a gay fashion, while smoking and eating high fat foods?

What if you robbed a bank WHILE crossdressing. OR if you had to steal men's clothes to stop from crossdressing, would it be ok to steal?

[Pale Rider]

No. Sexual orientation is not like criminal urge like stealing. Though that's unique and amusing argument. What if you stole butt plugs and used them in a gay fashion, while smoking and eating high fat foods?

An urge is an urge. They're all the same. Just demanding different actions.

My point is, I'd be making a conscious decision to act on my urge. Just like queers make a conscious decision to act on theirs. Only they are DEMANDING we ACCEPT their deviant actions.

[TheSage]

My point is, I'd be making a conscious decision to act on my urge. Just like queers make a conscious decision to act on theirs. Only they are DEMANDING we ACCEPT their deviant actions.

Yeah. I have issues with them forcing it down everyone's throat like they do, so to speak.:no:

[TheSage]

No thanks. I don't need to read more... just SURRENDER more.

and don't forget to REBEL against the misguided rules of men... :laugh:

[Nienna]

and don't forget to REBEL against the misguided rules of men... :laugh:

You don't know me very well. :)

[darin]

But answer the question: Do you believe you have a GREATER understanding of Christ and God and Sin and Life and Love, than did the Apostle Paul?


Did I miss a response to that?

[OCA]

Did I miss a response to that?

RWA has thouroughly gotten his ass kicked on Christianity/homosexuality today, probably not an answer coming.

LOL the highlight of all this was that Jesus considers it a birth defect no matter what the scriptures say. Its funny, out of one side of his mouth he's preaching on Christianity but out of the other he's blaspheming God by calling the old testament "old Jew stuff"....don't know that i've ever run across a bigger hypocrite.

[TheSage]

RWA has thouroughly gotten his ass kicked on Christianity/homosexuality today, probably not an answer coming.

LOL the highlight of all this was that Jesus considers it a birth defect no matter what the scriptures say. Its funny, out of one side of his mouth he's preaching on Christianity but out of the other he's blaspheming God by calling the old testament "old Jew stuff"....don't know that i've ever run across a bigger hypocrite.

Three words, ninnys.

"Beware the judaizers."



http://www.conspiracyworld.com/index0108.htm
Judaizers are fanatical in their theory that the Jewish race must be exalted as "God's Chosen People." But why is it they always avoid the many pertinent scriptures that teach otherwise?

For example, Jesus castigated the Jews who disputed His divinity: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell?" Does that sound like the Jews were "God's Chosen People?" And, if those Jews that Jesus called serpents and vipers were "Chosen" by Christ, exactly what were they chosen FOR?

Some Judaizers even insist that the physical nation of Israel is eternally "Chosen" by God. But in Matthew 21:43, Jesus declared to the Jews: "Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

So, we discover that the disobedient, unrepentant Jews are declared to be "serpents" and that the kingdom of God is taken away from them and given to another nation! Who said so? Jesus Himself.

Based, then, strictly on the testimony of Jesus our Lord, we know for sure that Jews who reject Jesus—and almost all the Jews who live in the U.S.A. and who populate today's nation of Israel fall into this category—are not God's Chosen. They are in fact, of the "Synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9 and 3:9).

The conclusion is clear, dear friends. Do not let the Judaizers deceive you. Do not be a racist. Reject Jewish supremacism. Believe what Jesus said. Refuse to go along with the Lie.

[OCA]

Quality reply.:pee: :rolleyes:

[Pale Rider]

Please do NOT derail this thread with jew propaganda. It is NOT about jews. You're welcome to talk all you want about jews, in your own jew thread.

[TheSage]

Quality reply.:pee: :rolleyes:

Whatever, Shooter McGavin.

[darin]

For example, Jesus castigated the Jews who disputed His divinity: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell?" Does that sound like the Jews were "God's Chosen People?"



For the record - Jesus was SPECIFICALLY speaking to some of the JEWISH LEADERS of the day; Leaders who had FORSAKEN The law of Moses; twisted and corrupted it to serve themselves. If they'd REALLY been following God's Law - and living in accordance with the Pacts God had made w/ the Jews (as a people), they would have INSTANTLY recognized Jesus as the promised Messiah.

Those words from that page show me the author biblically ignorant.

[OCA]

Ok thread degenerated into RWA ranting about Jews again

Closed.