Help stop homosexual agenda

[cce1302]

You make many assumptions. You don't know whether I'm an unbeliever or not, I haven't said either way, so how could I wear it like a badge?

your post #113 made your position quite clear without specifically stating anything.

I said I could no longer call myself a Christian. Now, do you believe I never was? Because if I was, couldn't I have had the guidance of the Holy Spirit as I read my Bible and prayed for understanding? Or do you believe once saved always saved? If so, might not I still be guided? Or do you have a lock on how God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus relate to me?

being raised in a family of Christians (how you relate your youth) is not the same as having a personal relationship with the God of the Bible, as you well know. I am not judging whether you are or are not a believer, just responding to your posts.

I defend your right to believe homosexuality is wrong. I don't think it makes you a homophobe, or a hater. It's your self-righteousness I object to.

It's not my own personal standards that I am advancing. It's the standards written in the Bible that I am relating. If you can point to anywhere that I said "I think homosexuals are bad people" you'd be making a valid point. I pointed out that the Bible calls it sin, the same as any other, and that there should not be any specific political protection for it.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Most pedophiles have a particular sex and age they are attracted to. If you want to lump pedophiles who are attracted to children of the same sex with homosexuals who are attracted to adults of the same sex, then logic dictates you must make that link to heterosexuals as well. Once you do that, your point becomes meaningless.

Ok, I see what you are saying, so...

A homosexual whom happens to like young children is a pedo.
A heterosexual whom happens to like young children is a pedo.
A bi-sexual whom happens to like young children is a pedo.

How is my point meaningless?

The big difference between a pedo and a homo is the part of consent.
Same would apply between a pedo and a hetero...consent.
Yes, there may also be other smaller factors, but consent is definitely the major difference.
I guess the same could be said of a rapist and a hetero...consent.

Pedophiles violate those of non-consenting individuals
Heterosexuals, homosexuals and bi-sexuals do not.

 

[jeremy]

I pointed out that the Bible calls it sin, the same as any other, and that there should not be any specific political protection for it.

Can you quote that passage for me?

 

[techres]

Please explain how homosexuality is natural. Are you saying that because certain animals and certain humans practice it, it should be respected? Before you say yes, think of other things that certain animals and certain humans do that should be seen as natural "because certain animals and certain humans practice it."

"natural" = existing in nature, or of nature.

You confuse natural with moral. The reason natural is used in this context is only because a common argument against gays is to say, "It just ain't normal/natural!" So people go back to nature to look. A similar argument was made here and responded to.

Don't confuse natural with moral, it muddies waters.

 

[dross]

Ok, I see what you are saying, so...

A homosexual whom happens to like young children is a pedo.
A heterosexual whom happens to like young children is a pedo.
A bi-sexual whom happens to like young children is a pedo.

How is my point meaningless?

The big difference between a pedo and a homo is the part of consent.
Same would apply between a pedo and a hetero...consent.
Yes, there may also be other smaller factors, but consent is definitely the major difference.
I guess the same could be said of a rapist and a hetero...consent.

Pedophiles violate those of non-consenting individuals
Heterosexuals, homosexuals and bi-sexuals do not.

I think I misunderstood you. If I understand you correctly now, I mostly agree with you, I just think being a pedophile trumps the more traditional definitions of sexuality.

 

[cce1302]

Can you quote that passage for me?

Thanks, I'd be glad to. There are quite a lot of common activities in this group.
Here's one of the passages:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

 

[esrice]

This thread is gonna need cliff notes soon. . .

 

[jennybird]

This thread is gonna need cliff notes soon. . .

I think I'll wait for the movie.

 

[4sarge]

I think I'll wait for the movie.

You Perv

 

[rcuhljr]

Thanks, I'd be glad to. There are quite a lot of common activities in this group.
Here's one of the passages:

Did you read the link I posted in my first post that explains that passage?

 

[cce1302]

Did you read the link I posted in my first post that explains that passage?

Nope. Did you read the passage?

 

[ATF Consumer]

I think I misunderstood you. If I understand you correctly now, I mostly agree with you, I just think being a pedophile trumps the more traditional definitions of sexuality.

Agreed.

I have seen many homosexual and bi-sexual comments in the past from other posts that want to separate themselves as far away from pedophiles as possible...understandable, but not exactly correct.

To me, a pedophile is no different than a bank robber.
They may be hetero, homo, or even bi, it is their ability/drive to break past what is right to carry out their desires that makes them what they are.

I've been told before that a pedo doesn't care about the sex of a child, just so long as it is a child, that's what matters....I strongly disagree with this. To place every pedo on the same level of thinking would be the same as putting all heteros in the same basket.

 

[rcuhljr]

Nope. Did you read the passage?

Yes. Not only that but I put it into context.

 

[cce1302]

Yes. Not only that but I put it into context.

What context? that you found someone that conducted an interview on the internet who has "Rev" in front of her name that disagrees with me? that somehow that proves me wrong and now I should start promoting your view, or someone else's view of homosexuality?

 

[rcuhljr]

What context? that you found someone that conducted an interview on the internet who has "Rev" in front of her name that disagrees with me? that somehow that proves me wrong and now I should start promoting your view, or someone else's view of homosexuality?

Actually that's someone with a reverend and a doctor in front of their name who did a thesis on Christianity. I think their opinion is relevant here. What that does is points out how silly it is to think one statement made by Paul while he's ranting against what he views as decadence is hardly condemnation by the bible of homosexuality as a sin. Now if you want to start calling eating shellfish and laying in the same bed as your wife during her menstrual cycle as sins on par with 'homosexuality' you're welcome to it, but the rest of the world is capable of viewing the bible with a little more discerning gaze.

 

[dross]

Now if you want to start calling eating shellfish and laying in the same bed as your wife during her menstrual cycle as sins on par with 'homosexuality' you're welcome to it,

Now that you mention it, those three are about the same - matters of personal taste that aren't very interesting in themselves and that aren't anyone else's business, either.

 

[dross]

In defense of the original post and some of the other folks' opinions here, I do believe that there's an agenda by the homosexual community to be publically acknowledged and accepted. As long as they are using methods of persuasion, I have no beef. The problem comes in when they want to use the schools to advance their beliefs at the expense of others, when they want laws making it illegal to discriminate against them, and when they want the government to be the vehicle for their societal acceptance. Like in all things, persuasion is fine, coercion is evil.

 

[cce1302]

Actually that's someone with a reverend and a doctor in front of their name who did a thesis on Christianity. I think their opinion is relevant here.

ok, but there are plenty of "Reverend Drs" on both sides. Most of those on the side opposing her don't have an agenda like she has. What's your point?

What that does is points out how silly it is to think one statement made by Paul while he's ranting against what he views as decadence is hardly condemnation by the bible of homosexuality as a sin.

Paul's words were inspired by God, not his personal views. Again, here is where our belief in God's Word colors our conversation.

Now if you want to start calling eating shellfish and laying in the same bed as your wife during her menstrual cycle as sins on par with 'homosexuality' you're welcome to it, but the rest of the world is capable of viewing the bible with a little more discerning gaze.

When God calls those an "abomination," then they're equal to his treatment of homosexuality.

I believe in the perfect inspiration of God's Word (per 2 Timothy 3:16). If you don't, then we have no common ground on which to discuss the meaning of specific passages.

 

[rcuhljr]

When God calls those an "abomination," then they're equal to his treatment of homosexuality.

You've read the bible right? These are commandments punishable by a horrible death and condemnation. Along with the fact that you aren't allowed to shave your beard, your wife is unclean for 33 days after giving birth (66 if it's a girl! go-go double standards) and that it's immoral to wear clothing made of more then one fabric type. Not to mention I'm assuming you aren't perfectly restful on the sabbath and you don't follow through the commanded animal sacrifices either do you?

All of this is wrapped up with the warning

"If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up."

There's your perfect inspiration.

 

[dross]

Paul's words were inspired by God, not his personal views. .

Paul doesn't argue that his words are always God's. You give Paul an infallibility he didn't even give to himself.