No you are wrong in your conclusion. You do not understand God at all. Being a sinner Does Not predestine one to the lake of fire, if that was the case then all human beings would be destined to the lake of fire before they where born. God has provided a way for sinners to be redeemed from the lake of fire and that is through the Messiah Jesus. All sinners including homosexuals have access to this Redemption. Sin is not what destroys but ones approval or disapproval of sin. The will of God determines what is sin and ones reaction to the will of God in either rejecting of accepting His will on all matters determines ones eternal location. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Your approval of evil and your rebellion against the will of God is abominable. See two can play at the same one-line statements. It adds absolutely nothing to the thread of course. All Praise The Ancient of Days
Who are you to say that someone doesn't know God. What? Now your the expert on God? His righthand man? Puh-leeze. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Get over it.
You are incorrect. Logic would suggest, that if i had no choice in being gay, then indeed the creator intended all that was to be for me. Don't intend to blame the devil. In effect, we are all very very lucky. Sin is an illusion, for we just need to ask for his forgiveness, and he takes us into His bosom. In all the universe, and the heavens, no other creature can make such a boast. Therego, Jehovah has made this simple. Everything ordianed to exist according to His will, and that will was of man to be born unto his own likeness, therefore, even God must be gay... As i do believe it is written; ''And God created man in His own image... male and female He created them.'' And here alone, God was talking about Adam, for this was before the seperation.
The God of Love Who Hates Gays The title is a paradox. It is an intentional one i have provided, to argue against this oxymoronic attitude right now, with what God thinks about homosexuals. Think of it this way. God brought love to a select no. of people in the old testament. Jesus showed compassion for all. This must also mean gay men and gay women. They are still Gods children. & For all of those who are straight here, and keep using God as a defense of proclaiming medieval sins, then keep this in mind: God tests his subjects. Maybe he is testing even your compassion against the world of homosexual women and men. Remember Jacob... go and cut off your son's head...? A test of faith that one was, maybe this one is a test of one's own compassion.
Marriage between a man and a woman is prophetic, an can only be between a man an a woman. If it's about the privliges I don't see why gays won't accept the title of civil union? Is being able to place a sacred religious title on the abomination so important? Is the goal further degradation of the righteousness of the union in the minds and sight of the people? You know it's wrong, but you can't help it. It's not that simple. A paraplegic may know it's good to walk, but it dosen't give their legs strength. You want to be accepted, and regarded for the righteouness you are capable of; so do most men. No one likes to be reviled, but the fact is most are. Everyones got their quirks, their weak points, and blind spots. Which is why I think we seek acceptance so much, because we realize we need help, cause some things we can't fix ourselves, even arguably everything that truly matters. With everyone being sick there's none to care. An as sick people their miserable, dwelling in their various states of affliction. Gays maybe hated for their difference of infirmity, but loved for the distraction they allow from ones own weakness. Your like people with bird flu in a world dominated with tuberculosis. Without being able to love in simplicity, people need hate to knit them together, so they perhaps won't take out their frustration on the ones they hope to love, and be loved by. You give them reason to band together expanding their potential for cooparetive social opportunities, and they give gays a seemingly external opponent to focus together upon as well, allowing for an increase in hope and expectation of community for both. Yeah, being gay is a sin, it's wrong, but so is adultery, so is fornication, masterbation, even to the very thoughts of evil that plague us; all is infirnity. I don't expect any one to accept homosexuality. It's unacceptable. And I'm no advocate of their rights save one, to have their faults overcame and remembered no more.
An untenable statement. Indeed, an ignorant, incredulous, and silly one to boot. Why? If the answer is because of [insert religious superstition], then this, too, is an untenable statement since there is evidence that marriage has existed long before any of the extant religious cults. In fact, I challenge you to name a single extant religious cult that existed before the concept of marriage. The reason is one to do with legalities and civil policy. "Civil unions" don't have the same legal status as marriages. Civil unions and marriages should have the same legal status and hold the same legal weight. However, bigots within certain religious cults wish to see "marriage" be something of a higher privilege and status, as if their superstitions really meant something beyond their own delusions. Marriage is only sacred to the couple who consider themselves married and, perhaps, to their family. Religious nutters don't hold the patent to the concept of marriage. Nor should they. If bigots want to keep gays from marrying each other in their churches, then they should. If they don't want their cult leaders performing marriages on the side, then they should prohibit it. But they have no business sticking their superstitious noses into the private lives of those who love each other and don't share their bigoted views and superstitious delusions. Marriage is a societal institution. That religious cults have attempted to take this institution over only further demonstrates the desire for religious nutters to dominate their society and control the people they influence. The fact that religious cults fallaciously believe that marriage belongs to religious cults is a degradation of righteousness. Its easier for bigots to hate than it is for them to break free of the spells of their superstitions.
Of course, but the word sin applies to juedochristianity. So, if you're a christian or a jew sodomy is prohibited by your god and is called a sin, as easy as that.
So they must disapprove of themselves to be saved. This has always been my problem with Christianity. It is teaching us to hate ourselves.
What is more important in life? Nagging on others peoples private life or watching 2 happy people, no matter who or what they are?
Rubbish. Firstly, even if you see homosexuality as a disease, it is no one's business to force a 'cure' on someone aganst their will. If I overdose on vindaloo and get intestinal problems, do other people have the right to paternalistically force treatment on me whether I want it or not? Secondly, an atheist and logical society would have no need to eradicate homosexuality, because it is no threat to anyone. There have always been more heteros than gay people, and there's no evidence to suggest that they will take over and the human race will die out.
Originally Posted by Baron Max Oh, it isn't always right .....but in this case, it is! However, I'm a big believer in "society" ...and in the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual. So.... Baron Max It's not a 'need' though. Need denotes necessity, and there is no necessity for eradicating homosexuality. It is of no consequence for heterosexuals. Don't abuse the 'one versus many' argument as an excuse to attack those who are different. According to that argument I could be committed for having facial piercings and wearing leather or spraying my hair neon blue, because 'normal' people don't like it, they feel it is their business and decide that it is an act of hostility against them, therefore I am bothering the majority and must be controlled. Oh no, don't tell me, you actually do think that.
So how come is it that you have this vastly superior understanding of God and his 'will?' I think you overplay your hand grossly.
Then are you saying you have no problem with what is instructed of us in truth? Because actually the oppisite is required. But you wouldn't know that, because you haven't had faith enough to believe to follow on to know him. How would you feel if some one judged you, without getting to know you? Especially, when you've given them an open invitation of love. What is, your stance on prejudice? Are you so hard against it? What do you think, of bigotry? Are you so open, yet won't hear, won't consider, for a moment a conflicting testimony of the one you presumptuously judge?
Do you think homosexuals choose the oppression? If we had the choice, do you not think we would live a life more appeasing? Think about what you are saying in the future.
Who one chooses to have sex with is a choice. I'm already grown up. They choose who they have sex with. One does not choose to be black or female. Having sexual intercourse is a choice (in most cases), I may find that I only prefer sleeping with married women but it doesn't mean I should follow my whim.l Why is it that you can't you have sex with a women (assuming you are homosexual)? An honest inquiry. Jan.
