NationStates Jolt Archive

(This is not about if homosexuality is a sin or not, so lets not go down that road, nor is it about gay marriage)

If your a Christian, and you believe homosexual sex is a sin, then that should in no way affect the way you treat any homosexuals you would know. The Bible clearly says

Do not judge, or you too will be judged (Matthew 7:1)

Basicly meaning you shouldnt take it upon yourself to pass judgement on someone else because of their sin. They are no better than you for it, as we are all siners. Obviously if asked, state you hold that belief but dont go forcing it into the faces of others. Many non Christians think Chrisitains are guilty of this of late, however the reason for it is that homosexuality as an issue has come to the forefront recently. A quote I heard once was that

"In 40 years we have moved from the love that dare not speek its name to the love that can't shut up"

The problem for some Christians is that the docrine of "love the sinner, hate the sin" becomes difficult to follow when the people it refers to refuse to seperate themselves from there sin. But as Christians you should never be hating any people. People are all to be loved, never hated.

Agreed.

Way to generalize. As if being a Christian is equivalent to abusing homosexuals or treating them as unworthy of equal rights.

Way to generalize. As if being a Christian is equivalent to abusing homosexuals or treating them as unworthy of equal rights.

\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/

The problem for some Christians

You're all right, honestly. Don't hate gays cause you're a Christian. Hey, not all Christians hate gays. There used to be a day when sexuality was something called "private." For all we know, we might die and find out homosexuality is a sin, or we may find out heterosexuality is a sin and 99% of the population will be burning with me. Even if it is a sin, hating them for it is equally a sin. But, if this be the case, its still a sin. God knows, I don't.

You're all right, honestly. Don't hate gays cause you're a Christian. Hey, not all Christians hate gays. There used to be a day when sexuality was something called "private." For all we know, we might die and find out homosexuality is a sin, or we may find out heterosexuality is a sin and 99% of the population will be burning with me. Even if it is a sin, hating them for it is equally a sin. But, if this be the case, its still a sin. God knows, I don't.

I am all for treating everyone with respect and leaving choice of sexuality up to each person. Same way I don't tell someone how to decorate their house, no one should tell another person how to live their life with another consenting adult.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Not love the sinner, accept the sin.

Last time I looked you are not being "forced" to accept any beliefs. Sure you're not allowed to be married to another person of the same sex within the United States, so what? They had a vote on it in several states and in every state you lot lost. Civil unions are not that far off, which gives you the same thing without causing grief to the religious community.

I'm tired of all these homosexuality and religion threads, you lot are not really out to express views, just get on your proverbial soapbox and see how many agree with you.

\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/

If your a Christian, and you believe homosexual sex is a sin, then that should in no way affect the way you treat any homosexuals you would know.

When this is the first line singling out Christians, well, darn, what else are we to take it for? If "some Christians" had been in the first line, I may have reacted differently.

There are plenty of non-Christians who are intolerant fools, too, you know.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Not love the sinner, accept the sin.

Last time I looked you are not being "forced" to accept any beliefs. Sure you're not allowed to be married to another person of the same sex within the United States, so what? They had a vote on it in several states and in every state you lot lost. Civil unions are not that far off, which gives you the same thing without causing grief to the religious community.

I'm tired of all these homosexuality and religion threads, you lot are not really out to express views, just get on your proverbial soapbox and see how many agree with you.
No freedoms should be restricted just because it is popular to do so

Yeah, but he couldn't have used that extract from the Bible on non-Christians, 'cause we don't care about the Bible :D.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Not love the sinner, accept the sin.

Last time I looked you are not being "forced" to accept any beliefs. Sure you're not allowed to be married to another person of the same sex within the United States, so what? They had a vote on it in several states and in every state you lot lost. Civil unions are not that far off, which gives you the same thing without causing grief to the religious community.

I'm tired of all these homosexuality and religion threads, you lot are not really out to express views, just get on your proverbial soapbox and see how many agree with you.

Yes, good old separate but equal institutions. And democracy is a humungous farce, no matter how big the majority it never gives you the right to infringe upon another man's free will. After all, free will would be God's most important gift to man, would it not?

No freedoms should be restricted just because it is popular to do so

Marry me. :D

Marry me. :D
I hardly know you :) hehehe

I mean it is completely bullshit to turn peoples rights into a popularity contest, we set things up originally to make sure that the rights of the minority are not steamrolled by the majority.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Not love the sinner, accept the sin.

Last time I looked you are not being "forced" to accept any beliefs. Sure you're not allowed to be married to another person of the same sex within the United States, so what? They had a vote on it in several states and in every state you lot lost. Civil unions are not that far off, which gives you the same thing without causing grief to the religious community.

I'm tired of all these homosexuality and religion threads, you lot are not really out to express views, just get on your proverbial soapbox and see how many agree with you.

Forgive me if I'm wrong here but didn't they win in Massachusetts?

The problem for some Christians is that the docrine of "love the sinner, hate the sin" becomes difficult to follow when the people it refers to refuse to seperate themselves from there sin. But as Christians you should never be hating any people. People are all to be loved, never hated.

The person generalizing isn't Sanx, maybe you should actually read the whole statement rather than going off on another "boo hoo he's picking on the christians again" rant.

As noted, there are some who follow their mythology and don't judge and there are some who judge it a sin but, let their lord do judgement. Then there are others who only use their religion as a cudgel against anything they find uncomfortable.

Yeah, but he couldn't have used that extract from the Bible on non-Christians, 'cause we don't care about the Bible :D.

Exactly my point. The whole thread is aimed at Christians, with the implication that Christians (and no one else) are intolerant.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Not love the sinner, accept the sin.


I never said that. I agree you dont have to accept the sin and I dont agree with Gay marriage, but I dont think its right for anyone to hate anyone else because of a sin.

Exactly my point. The whole thread is aimed at Christians, with the implication that Christians (and no one else) are intolerant.

I'm a Christian myself, and I am making my point about those Chrisitans who believe homosexual sex to be a sin, of whom I am one. Many use it as a platform of hatered against people which is wrong

I hardly know you :) hehehe

I mean it is completely bullshit to turn peoples rights into a popularity contest, we set things up originally to make sure that the rights of the minority are not steamrolled by the majority.

Quit talking that way! I'm getting all giddy.

The person generalizing isn't Sanx, maybe you should actually read the whole statement rather than going off on another "boo hoo he's picking on the christians again" rant.

As noted, there are some who follow their mythology and don't judge and there are some who judge it a sin but, let their lord do judgement. Then there are others who only use their religion as a cudgel against anything they find uncomfortable.

Perhaps you have a problem with reading nuance. If Sanx mentioned other intolerant people, fine. If he didn't pull out the Bible and preaching to Christians alone, fine. But Sanx did.

Here are reports of some people being intolerant of homosexuals. Should I then say, "If your a Muslim, and you believe homosexual sex is a sin, then that should in no way affect the way you treat any homosexuals you would know?"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001086.php
http://www.whrnet.org/fundamentalisms/docs/doc-wsfmeeting-2002.html

No. Because that argument presupposes that this is how ALL Muslims will react. And taking the whole group to task over the reactions of some IS generalization.

Main Entry: gen·er·al·ize
Pronunciation: 'jen-r&-"lIz, 'je-n&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
transitive senses
1 : to give a general form to
2 a : to derive or induce (a general conception or principle) from particulars b : to draw a general conclusion from
3 : to give general applicability to <generalize a law>; also : to make indefinite
intransitive senses
1 : to form generalizations; also : to make vague or indefinite statements
2 : to spread or extend throughout the body
- gen·er·al·iz·abil·i·ty /"jen-r&-"lI-z&-'bi-l&-tE, "je-n&-/ noun
- gen·er·al·iz·able /-"lI-z&-b&l/ adjective
- gen·er·al·iz·er noun

So kindly take your "boo hoo, you've no right to express that not all Christians are intolerant" rant elsewhere as well.

*snip*

Kindly refrain from thread-jacking

This debate has been rehashed in forty-two different threads this past week alone. Here's the synopsis:

People don't like being judged, so don't judge others.
Simply disagreeing with homosexuality is not meant to be a personal affront against homosexuals. After all, one is to love the sinner and hate the sin.
The self-image of many homosexuals are too closely tied with their sexuality for the doctrine of separating sinner from sin to be as mollifying as it should be.
It's unfair to assume that all Christians have an obdurate animosity toward homosexuals.
Any type of proselytizing, be it Christian, Islamic, or Libertarian, is inherently grating, unbidden, and supererogatory.
Civil unions, while a step in the right direction, are unsatisfactory. See Brown v. Board of Education.
Majority rule is not meant to be a license to oppress minorities.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's discuss something new, shall we?

I can't debate the message of this thread. A lot of Christians I know would do well to remember that verse. I know you said this thread wasn't about whether homosexuality is a sin, but thats the entire reason that the Church( with perhaps the exception of the UCC and other denominations that are smaller) is fighting so hard against gay marriage.

I leave u with this fun fact: In the original Hebrew, the verse in Leviticus states " A man shall not lie with a boy." Most likely an admonition against pedophilia, not being gay.

I agree with Unified Fundamentalism on one point: To assume all Christians are homophobic is ridiculous. I'm not sure if thats what the thread-starter was trying to say or not. However, it is still an ignorant assumption.

Speaking of assumptions...

I'm wondering how Unified Fundamentalism knows how homosexuals view themselves as people. :rolleyes:

I'm wondering how Unified Fundamentalism knows how homosexuals view themselves as people. :rolleyes:

Mostly because I have spoken to many homosexuals on this issue. That and, for the sake of simplicity, one could call me gay as well.

I can't debate the message of this thread. A lot of Christians I know would do well to remember that verse. I know you said this thread wasn't about whether homosexuality is a sin, but thats the entire reason that the Church( with perhaps the exception of the UCC and other denominations that are smaller) is fighting so hard against gay marriage.

I leave u with this fun fact: In the original Hebrew, the verse in Leviticus states " A man shall not lie with a boy." Most likely an admonition against pedophilia, not being gay.

However it also says elsewhere not to have anal sex, and in the new testament that homosexuality is a sin (though not necessarily in those words - I can't remember the exact ones, but that's the gist of it).

However it also says elsewhere not to have anal sex, and in the new testament that homosexuality is a sin (though not necessarily in those words - I can't remember the exact ones, but that's the gist of it).
Oh care to prove the bible has any statement about anal sex?

In my religion, being Christian is a bigger sin than being homosexual. The idea of worshipping a man is blasphemy. The idea of man on man butt sex is merely frowned upon.

In my religion, being Christian is a bigger sin than being homosexual. The idea of worshipping a man is blasphemy. The idea of man on man butt sex is merely frowned upon.

What religion do you follow?

What religion do you follow?

Islam

Oh care to prove the bible has any statement about anal sex?

Uh oh, here we go again...

* Upward steps up to the plate *

Islam



Christ was not a mere human, he was the physical incarnation of God.

Christ was not a mere human, he was the physical incarnation of God.

If you say so ...

However, even if God ever did manifest physically, to worship the manifestation is blasphemy.

Christ was not a mere human, he was the physical incarnation of God.

Therein lies the fundamental disconnect between Islam and Christianity. You will not convince Muslims of this any more than Muslims will convince you that Christ was but a man.

Therein lies the fundamental disconnect between Islam and Christianity. You will not convince Muslims of this any more than Muslims will convince you that Christ was but a man.

I guarantee you that Jesus never once prayed to himself.

Nor did he, in keeping with the topic, ever once admonish homosexuals.

Uh oh, here we go again...

* Upward steps up to the plate *
Lol I have seen quotes that say possibly laying with a man (argueable) but never ANYTHING specificaly about anal sex lol

If you say so ...

However, even if God ever did manifest physically, to worship the manifestation is blasphemy.



True, I would not worship the avatar, I worship the immaterial God.

I guarantee you that Jesus never once prayed to himself.

Nor did he, in keeping with the topic, ever once admonish homosexuals.



We just can't go one thread without bringing up the issue of Paul, can we? :)

We just can't go one thread without bringing up the issue of Paul, can we? :)

Well it's difficult to discuss Christianity without discussing Paul, now isn't it? ;)

Otherwise, I rarely ever mention the man.

In my religion, being Christian is a bigger sin than being homosexual. The idea of worshipping a man is blasphemy. The idea of man on man butt sex is merely frowned upon.

And here I was thinking that most of Islam was rather tolerant of Christianity - merely seeing us as a bit misguided. ;-)

After all, Christ's teaching are seen as important in Islam, correct?

Its funny as homosexuality is bad for both Christians and Evolutionists, as with Evolutionists homosexuals take up valuable resources that are needed for the continuation and survival of the Human Race, so they really sin against everyone. But to be honest i consider homosexuality to be a sin against God and thus only applicable to Gods judgement, its not a human crime unless your raping them (i.e. Pulp Fiction).

We just can't go one thread without bringing up the issue of Paul, can we? :)

That would be an admission that: yes, Jesus never directly said anything about homosexuality or anal sex.

The questions of whether Paul did and how important that should be considered are separate points.

And here I was thinking that most of Islam was rather tolerant of Christianity - merely seeing us as a bit misguided. ;-)

It is ... but that doesn't stop the worship of a man as being blasphemy.

After all, Christ's teaching are seen as important in Islam, correct?

Yes, of course, but not seen as the end-all be-all.

Its funny as homosexuality is bad for both Christians and Evolutionists, as with Evolutionists homosexuals take up valuable resources that are needed for the continuation and survival of the Human Race, so they really sin against everyone. But to be honest i consider homosexuality to be a sin against God and thus only applicable to Gods judgement, its not a human crime unless your raping them (i.e. Pulp Fiction).
Not nessisarily true ... there has been some study that a certian percentage of non normaly breeding healthy adults for help in childcare situations is an evolutionary advantage

It is ... but that doesn't stop the worship of a man as being blasphemy.

I know, I was just kidding.

Of course, much of Christianity teaches that one should not worship the Christ-figure, but should instead worship God through Christ. Would that be considered blasphemy as well?

Its funny as homosexuality is bad for both Christians and Evolutionists, as with Evolutionists homosexuals take up valuable resources that are needed for the continuation and survival of the Human Race, so they really sin against everyone.

There are plenty of reasons why nonbreeding adults can be beneficial to a population. Altruistic service to the community is one. Self-serving behaviour which ultimately leads to increased survivability of the group is another. Contributing to the general wealth, well-being, or productivity of the community is yet another.

Not nessisarily true ... there has been some study that a certian percentage of non normaly breeding healthy adults for help in childcare situations is an evolutionary advantage
On top of the fact that the argument about resources that s/he used is not tied to evolution.

Jesus never directly said anything about


No, but he did say a great deal about "sexual imorality" which is defined as being (amoungst other things) faunication, incest, bestiality and homosexuality. The word "porneia" is what Jesus used here, and that has been translated as sexual imorality, but it includes many other things. Read this for more infomation

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

In 40 years we have moved from the love that dare not speek its name to the love that can't shut up



Which explains threads such as this, bible passages, TV evangelists, Focus on the Family, and so on.

Way to generalize. As if being a Christian is equivalent to abusing homosexuals or treating them as unworthy of equal rights.

I'm a fundamentalist Christian who thinks homosexuality is just a normal human variation.

No, but he did say a great deal about "sexual imorality" which is defined as being (amoungst other things) faunication, incest, bestiality and homosexuality. The word "porneia" is what Jesus used here, and that has been translated as sexual imorality, but it includes many other things. Read this for more infomation

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

Um, that is an extreme reach.

Your article refers to Mark 7:21 and Jesus's reference to sexual immorality and then says merely "in Jesus’ day, and for many centuries before and thereafter, porneia was universally understood in Judaism to include
same-sex intercourse." That is both inaccurate and begs the question.

I know, I was just kidding.

Of course, much of Christianity teaches that one should not worship the Christ-figure, but should instead worship God through Christ. Would that be considered blasphemy as well?

Not so much, no. We don't think there needs to be nor should there be a "go between", but having one isn't really that bad. So long as you're not actually and actively worshipping Jesus himself, there's no problem.

Um, that is an extreme reach.

Your article refers to Mark 7:21 and Jesus's reference to sexual immorality and then says merely "in Jesus’ day, and for many centuries before and thereafter, porneia was universally understood in Judaism to include
same-sex intercourse." That is both inaccurate and begs the question.

Well the section in Leviticus which covers sexual imorrality is what Jesus is refering to. Also, his silence on the issue (as the article correctly points out) must be understood. By remaining silent he is agreeing with the Levitical code, and he's not been shy about disagreing with it before.

Well the section in Leviticus which covers sexual imorrality is what Jesus is refering to. Also, his silence on the issue (as the article correctly points out) must be understood. By remaining silent he is agreeing with the Levitical code, and he's not been shy about disagreing with it before.

Technically, he was silent on abortion. Does that mean he agrees with it?

Remaining "silent" may mean something as simple as "they didn't write down everything he said on every subject".

Well the section in Leviticus which covers sexual imorrality is what Jesus is refering to. Also, his silence on the issue (as the article correctly points out) must be understood. By remaining silent he is agreeing with the Levitical code, and he's not been shy about disagreing with it before.

So, we've now moved from "he expressly said something against it" to "we can infer he was against it from his silence."

Thank you for conceding the original point. :)

Technically, he was silent on abortion. Does that mean he agrees with it?

Remaining "silent" may mean something as simple as "they didn't write down everything he said on every subject".

Now this is getting scary. We agree again. I must be a nutter. ;)

Yes, good old separate but equal institutions. And democracy is a humungous farce, no matter how big the majority it never gives you the right to infringe upon another man's free will. After all, free will would be God's most important gift to man, would it not?

the US is a republic, not a democracy... democracy would come to mob rule.

hehe

I'm a fundamentalist Christian who thinks homosexuality is just a normal human variation.

You use the term "fundamentalist" as it relates to religion in a different way than most. Based on the sociological classification of fundamentalism I have seen, I wouldn't put you in that bucket, as it were. =)

You use the term "fundamentalist" as it relates to religion in a different way than most. Based on the sociological classification of fundamentalism I have seen, I wouldn't put you in that bucket, as it were. =)

Oh sure, sociological stereotyping. A drive-by religious profiling! Bigot! ;) :D

Technically, he was silent on abortion. Does that mean he agrees with it?

Big diffrence. The idea of killing an unborn child did not exist then.

So, we've now moved from "he expressly said something against it" to "we can infer he was against it from his silence."


I was using the "even if" logic. As in "even if he was silent (which I have stated he wasnt) there is still this issue..."

And heres another point. There is no Biblical example of God ever blessing or endorcing a homosexual relationship, in the same way he does with hetrosexual relations in marriage.

Big diffrence. The idea of killing an unborn child did not exist then.

Incorrect.

Kiling of the unborn was addressed in the OT. The penalty for doing so by causing injury to the mother was a fine paid to her husband.

There were also numerous concoctions one could use to end a pregnancy.

Contrary to popular belief, the idea of abortion is not a new thing. The only thing related to abortion that has come to being in the last century is medically safe abortions.


And heres another point. There is no Biblical example of God ever blessing or endorcing a homosexual relationship, in the same way he does with hetrosexual relations in marriage.

There are many instances in which the Bible makes a statement to men, but it is interpreted as applying to both men and women. The same could be said for the regulations and endorsements placed upon heterosexual unions - that they may also be applied to homosexual unions. Obviously, this is a matter of interpretation, but is perfectly rational.

You use the term "fundamentalist" as it relates to religion in a different way than most. Based on the sociological classification of fundamentalism I have seen, I wouldn't put you in that bucket, as it were. =)

Hmm. I'm pretty firm on the following:

We believe in one God
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand
of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
and the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in the one holy catholic
(Christian) and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Big diffrence. The idea of killing an unborn child did not exist then.

Wrong.

Please play again. :D

http://www.ecolivingcenter.com/board/spirituality/messages/134.html

Why some christians hate gays but love bacon...

Incorrect.

Kiling of the unborn was addressed in the OT. The penalty for doing so by causing injury to the mother was a fine paid to her husband.

There were also numerous concoctions one could use to end a pregnancy.

Contrary to popular belief, the idea of abortion is not a new thing. The only thing related to abortion that has come to being in the last century is medically safe abortions.

bah, you people and your 'beliefs that match up to reality'. overrated, i say. why look for factual accuracy when convenience is more, well, convenient?

To clarify the Catholic position, homosexuality is NOT a sin. But anal sex, oral sex and masterbation are. Whether you are hetrosexual, homosexual or otherwise.

Big diffrence. The idea of killing an unborn child did not exist then.


Incorrect.

Kiling of the unborn was addressed in the OT. The penalty for doing so by causing injury to the mother was a fine paid to her husband.

There were also numerous concoctions one could use to end a pregnancy.

Contrary to popular belief, the idea of abortion is not a new thing. The only thing related to abortion that has come to being in the last century is medically safe abortions.

Not only was abortion practiced in Caanan, it was also in the Roman Empire, Native American cultures, and many, many more. Abortion, contraception and homosexuality have been around as long as people have.

Kindly refrain from thread-jacking

I hardly think clarifying my position was thread-jacking. Certainly far less than people pulling abortion, the tenets of Islam, and atheism were.

Big diffrence. The idea of killing an unborn child did not exist then.

Things you should look up:

Talmud Yevamot 69b
Gittin 23b
Temurah 10b-11a, 19a, 25a-b, 30b-31a
Shabbat 135b-136a

This is what Jesus would have studied concerning embryology and abortion. Jesus knew that sometimes abortion was necessary. That's probably why he didn't speak out against it.

The more you know. (cue music)

I was using the "even if" logic. As in "even if he was silent (which I have stated he wasnt) there is still this issue..."

And heres another point. There is no Biblical example of God ever blessing or endorcing a homosexual relationship, in the same way he does with hetrosexual relations in marriage.

You deduct a RULE from not having an example???

So, the bible never endorsed reading books. From that we can deduct that reading books is a sin???

Big diffrence. The idea of killing an unborn child did not exist then.

It did. Some of the earliest accounts of abortion are from Ancient Egypt, some 2000 years before Jesus was born.
Rome had laws as to when abortion was allowed, and so had Ancient Greece. It's very naive to assume that abortion had only been a recent discovery. It has been around as long as civilisation has...

You deduct a RULE from not having an example???

So, the bible never endorsed reading books. From that we can deduct that reading books is a sin???



Look, he provides an example of marriage which is heterosexual. Now, the old law no longer applies, but can't we deduce from His condemnation of homosexuality in it that he probably isn't too fond of homosexual marriages? If you're provided an example of something and its antithesis is condemned previously (plus having no example of said antithesis), the only logical inference is that the opposite state is also condemned. Add that to Romans 1, and you can clearly see that the evidence against homosexuality is far more prominent than the evidence supporting it.

Look, he provides an example of marriage which is heterosexual. Now, the old law no longer applies, but can't we deduce from His condemnation of homosexuality in it that he probably isn't too fond of homosexual marriages? If you're provided an example of something and its antithesis is condemned previously (plus having no example of said antithesis), the only logical inference is that the opposite state is also condemned. Add that to Romans 1, and you can clearly see that the evidence against homosexuality is far more prominent than the evidence supporting it.

If the old law no longer exists, god must have changed his mind. We can no longer assume that anything that was condemned under that law is still seen in a negative light, otherwise somebody somewhere would have said so. [/old law]

Now, if you adhere to EVERYTHING Paul ranted about in his letters, you for one wouldn't be even allowed to discuss matters of the faith with others, as he stated explicitly that women are not to speak in church nor to teach faith.

Hey, not all Christians hate gays

I know, I'm one of them


personally I beleive being Gay is a Sin

but not one that will send you streight to hell
more like a mistake, but I will not be mean or rude to anyone that IS gay, because it's their choice to make, not mine

anyways, these topics are starting to get old

I don't know how many times I've come across identical topics

Well I've thrown my 2 cents in on every other thread like this, so why not. The point made in the original thread, and one that has been ignored here, is that some people define themselves by their sins. Homosexuality is an evil, but not a personal evil, any more than depression or pedophilia is. The sin is the act, not the inclination. But when people define themselves and present themselves primarily through their sinful actions, it's extremely hard to love the sinner while hating the sin.

Secondly, I ascribe this entire mess to the mistaken assumption that someone's private sexual orientation and actions is something the rest of the world should give a shit about. You're gay? Fine. Just don't force me to subsidize it.

If the old law no longer exists, god must have changed his mind. We can no longer assume that anything that was condemned under that law is still seen in a negative light, otherwise somebody somewhere would have said so. [/old law]

Now, if you adhere to EVERYTHING Paul ranted about in his letters, you for one wouldn't be even allowed to discuss matters of the faith with others, as he stated explicitly that women are not to speak in church nor to teach faith.

All yall's problem is that you're posturing on authority that's 1900 years old. And well you should, because you don't have anybody who claims to speak with Christ's authority from roughly that point on.

Oh wait, you do. It's called the Catholic Church.

If you're not gonna accept that, of course you're going to have problems. Jesus and the apostles effectively updated the Old Testament to make it applicable to Jews and Gentiles. He didn't stop after the first century A.D. - He just passed the buck to His earthly representative.