Dear Lunar, I'm glad that you became a Christian. It made my heart glad. If we can help you in anyway. I will. As for me, I can only tell the Truth, like my earlier posts here...as there is no greater love to lay down for their friends by telling the Truth.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
Why all the focus on homosexuality?
- Thread starter Lunar
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why not? It's a big sin in today's world. And even some Churches are accepting it,which is wrong. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
The 2 greatest Commandment are "Love the Lord thy God with all your heart soul and mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself".A good point was made regaurding"If you love Me keep my commandments".We have these commandments thanks to the recorded message of the Bible.Homosexuality is rtecorded within the Bible as one of the sins that will keep you out of paradise.Loving someone of the same sex is not a sin,but sexual activity with this person is.I can understand ones desire to love and be loved,but following and inapropriate form of love is showing hatred towards God,just as hatred towards anyone shows hatred towards God.I understand many sinners either do not feel convicted of their sins and this is because they are so wraped up in their sins they are blind to Gods truth.The major focus on homosexuality is because many are trying to force their lifestyles upon the rest of us and demand we acknowledge them as being appropriate.I dont see murderers,thieves,or liars demanding acceptance of their life choices,so why should we be forced to accept any sin as acceptable?We must also consider that if we accept sins as appropriate,then we are just as guilty as those who commit the sin.Dont get me wrong,we must reach out to all sinners and accept all into faith,but we should not condone any form of sin and we should not judge anyone on our own.Judgement is Gods not ours,and we should seek that none should be judged and condemned,therefor all should repent,go and sin no more.Do not focus on the speck in anothers eye,while you have a beam in your own.Go to all in love and seek that they may be found guiltless in the sight of God.I am sorry,but I did not read all the posts to this thread.I have edited this to congradulate Lunar one your acceptance of faith.
Called 2 Conquer:If you read the original post, the point of this thread is not whether homosexuality is a sin. It's why such a disproportionate amount of attention of Christian groups is placed on it. A recent search on a conservative Christian web site produced 500 hits for "homosexuality" and only 132 for "Darfur." Which of these ought to be a more important issue to a Christian? Which was more central to Jesus' message - the immorality of homosexuality, or helping the poor, abused and underprivileged? Jesus himself never mentions homosexuality once; he mentions the latter topic too many times to count.Secondly, you equate particular aims of certain gay rights activists with homosexuality itself, which is fallacious. Hypothetically, some activists might want to make it a crime to speak out against classical music, but this would not make classical music wrong, it would simply make the activists wrong. Even as a person who identifies as homosexual I can't support the movement to criminalize speaking out against homosexuality - that's an infringement of free speech, plain and simple - but that doesn't mean homosexuality itself is wrong, in the same way that a person who sees affirmative action as wrong is not committed to the belief that being a minority is wrong.Third, I don't think any historian would tell you that homosexuality was a significant cause of the decline of the Roman Empire. There are, however, a significant number of historians who would partially attribute the the spread of Christianity to its downfall. The fall should be primarily attributed to political corruption and instability, constant foreign and civil wars, poor public health, overdependence on barbarian mercenaries, and the threat of Germanic invaders - not homosexuality.Lastly, as a side note, we are taxed by the government, not the economy. Also, prefacing something as "your opinion" and then saying there's no room for debate on the subject is a little disingenuous, no?
(Lunar;24418)
A quick question I had.It seems as though many Christian communities today have made the issue of homosexuality and gay rights one of their most important issues. Now, while it's debatable, there's obviously some evidence in the Bible that you could find to support the view that homosexuality is a sin. But what stands out to me more is how much the Bible - and especially the New Testament, which I consider to be the cornerstone of the Christian tradition - mentions things like kindness and forgiveness of sinners, and caring for the poor and unfortunate.Even if homosexuals are sinners, why so much demonization? Why would that sin in particular be focused on, when the Bible teaches that we are all sinners, and what's most important is faith in Christ? I heard someone say straight-faced in another thread that someone should be wary of ending up as "sex fodder for a bunch of degenerate fruitcakes." I just can't find what sort of passage in the Bible would inspire such hate.When we are, say, looking at who we would choose as a political candidate, doesn't it seem more important to look at who would be more likely to help the poor and unfortunate, a topic which the New Testament mentions hundreds of times, than to look at his stance on homosexuality and abortion, which to the best of my knowledge the New Testament does not mention at all? And shouldn't we be viewing homosexuals as fellow sinners who are equally deserving of our compassion, rather than degenerates?I, personally, don't think that homosexuality is a sin according to Christian beliefs. But even if it were, it seems as though a disproportionate amount of attention is directed towards it.
I'll give you a simple answer, that is true.The reason there is all this fuss over homosexuality is because it is *the sin that society propigates as unsinful*. If society was saying, "It's okay to lie", "It's okay to steal", "It's okay to murder", or any of those things... we would stand up and say, "It is not okay. God's Word says otherwise."The reason Christians fuss about homosexuality is because the world is fussing about it. When the world wags it's finger and says, "This is sin is okay!" We wag ours back and say, "Not so."Oh, and homosexuality most certainly is sinful.
A quick question I had.It seems as though many Christian communities today have made the issue of homosexuality and gay rights one of their most important issues. Now, while it's debatable, there's obviously some evidence in the Bible that you could find to support the view that homosexuality is a sin. But what stands out to me more is how much the Bible - and especially the New Testament, which I consider to be the cornerstone of the Christian tradition - mentions things like kindness and forgiveness of sinners, and caring for the poor and unfortunate.Even if homosexuals are sinners, why so much demonization? Why would that sin in particular be focused on, when the Bible teaches that we are all sinners, and what's most important is faith in Christ? I heard someone say straight-faced in another thread that someone should be wary of ending up as "sex fodder for a bunch of degenerate fruitcakes." I just can't find what sort of passage in the Bible would inspire such hate.When we are, say, looking at who we would choose as a political candidate, doesn't it seem more important to look at who would be more likely to help the poor and unfortunate, a topic which the New Testament mentions hundreds of times, than to look at his stance on homosexuality and abortion, which to the best of my knowledge the New Testament does not mention at all? And shouldn't we be viewing homosexuals as fellow sinners who are equally deserving of our compassion, rather than degenerates?I, personally, don't think that homosexuality is a sin according to Christian beliefs. But even if it were, it seems as though a disproportionate amount of attention is directed towards it.
I'll give you a simple answer, that is true.The reason there is all this fuss over homosexuality is because it is *the sin that society propigates as unsinful*. If society was saying, "It's okay to lie", "It's okay to steal", "It's okay to murder", or any of those things... we would stand up and say, "It is not okay. God's Word says otherwise."The reason Christians fuss about homosexuality is because the world is fussing about it. When the world wags it's finger and says, "This is sin is okay!" We wag ours back and say, "Not so."Oh, and homosexuality most certainly is sinful.
(Called 2 Conquer;47759)
Second the reason you find few post on darfur is because the church is trying to do something about darfur unlike our goverment.
Regardless of who's doing what, Darfur is bigger news than homosexuality. It demonstrates misplaced priorities.(Called 2 Conquer)
Third yes it is certain activist groups and lobbies however what I do not read about or hear on the radio in either secular or christian news is homosexuals protesting the actions of these activist and lobbies.
That's because it's not exclusively homosexuals that are protesting it. Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike can see it as a violation of free speech; there's no reason to report it as solely a homosexual protest.You can't honestly say that the views of any one group represent an entire population. Of course there are homosexuals that disagree with it. There are homosexuals that disagree with hate crimes legislation (I'm good friends with one). There are even a few homosexuals who don't agree with gay marriage. It's just plain wrong to act as though activists speak for all homosexuals, or are representative of homosexuality itself.(Called 2 Conquer)
Fourth there is nothing hypothetical about what they are trying to do as I was one of multiple thousands that called the government and told them to shoot down those bills. One of the attempt only gave people a few Hours to react and call the capital.
You misunderstood my post. I was detailing a hypothetical situation of someone trying to make it illegal to speak out against classical music to demonstrate why it's fallacious to equate him with classical music itself. In much the same way, in the non-hypothetical case, you can't equate gay activists with homosexuality.(Called 2 Conquer)
Fifth homosexuality is wrong. It produces nothing but the fulfillment of lust. The creation of life is impossible between same sex couples.
Is the implication here that heterosexual couples produce nothing but lust and children? Well, some heterosexual couples do, I'm sure. But you're missing out on an important factor - love. And love is definitely possible between heterosexual and homosexual couples alike.If all I wanted in a relationship was sex, I would have long since moved on. But that's the whole point. Why would gays want to marry if the only thing motivating it was lust? Why wouldn't they just be having casual sex with many different partners? They want to marry because they love each other. I can speak from experience on this.(Called 2 Conquer)
Sixth your right a historian wouldn't point that of but a study of the society of the time at or near the fall of the Roman Empire will conclusively show the aboration of the sexual nature of the rulling class among Roman citizens.
Correlation is not the same thing as causation. A study of the Roman Empire will also show that people ate food, drank water and breathed air, but surely that wasn't the cause of the Roman Empire's fall.(Called 2 Conquer)
Ninth And this is not in my previous post. I am a student of moral and sexual purity. I do not claim perfection by anymeans but I have studied the topic extensively by some of the most learned doctors in the country especially the published works of Dr. Carnes who is the foremost expert in the feild of sexual addiction which homosexuality falls into. I expect you to deny homosexuality is a sexual addiction and to even debate the existance of sexual addiction at all. However it doesn't change the facts that sexual addiction is real and recognized by the medical and pshycriatric fields.
The American Psychiatric Association has long since repealed the notion of homosexuality as a mental disorder (25 years ago, in fact).As for Patrick Carnes, I can't claim to have read his works, but if he does actually claim that homosexuality is a sexual addiction (a quick Google search doesn't produce any mention of this, though) then his views are quite out of line with the APA. You'd have to produce other examples because I'm really not inclined to take the word of one man over the unanimous consent of a 38,000-member panel of experts.
Second the reason you find few post on darfur is because the church is trying to do something about darfur unlike our goverment.
Regardless of who's doing what, Darfur is bigger news than homosexuality. It demonstrates misplaced priorities.(Called 2 Conquer)
Third yes it is certain activist groups and lobbies however what I do not read about or hear on the radio in either secular or christian news is homosexuals protesting the actions of these activist and lobbies.
That's because it's not exclusively homosexuals that are protesting it. Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike can see it as a violation of free speech; there's no reason to report it as solely a homosexual protest.You can't honestly say that the views of any one group represent an entire population. Of course there are homosexuals that disagree with it. There are homosexuals that disagree with hate crimes legislation (I'm good friends with one). There are even a few homosexuals who don't agree with gay marriage. It's just plain wrong to act as though activists speak for all homosexuals, or are representative of homosexuality itself.(Called 2 Conquer)
Fourth there is nothing hypothetical about what they are trying to do as I was one of multiple thousands that called the government and told them to shoot down those bills. One of the attempt only gave people a few Hours to react and call the capital.
You misunderstood my post. I was detailing a hypothetical situation of someone trying to make it illegal to speak out against classical music to demonstrate why it's fallacious to equate him with classical music itself. In much the same way, in the non-hypothetical case, you can't equate gay activists with homosexuality.(Called 2 Conquer)
Fifth homosexuality is wrong. It produces nothing but the fulfillment of lust. The creation of life is impossible between same sex couples.
Is the implication here that heterosexual couples produce nothing but lust and children? Well, some heterosexual couples do, I'm sure. But you're missing out on an important factor - love. And love is definitely possible between heterosexual and homosexual couples alike.If all I wanted in a relationship was sex, I would have long since moved on. But that's the whole point. Why would gays want to marry if the only thing motivating it was lust? Why wouldn't they just be having casual sex with many different partners? They want to marry because they love each other. I can speak from experience on this.(Called 2 Conquer)
Sixth your right a historian wouldn't point that of but a study of the society of the time at or near the fall of the Roman Empire will conclusively show the aboration of the sexual nature of the rulling class among Roman citizens.
Correlation is not the same thing as causation. A study of the Roman Empire will also show that people ate food, drank water and breathed air, but surely that wasn't the cause of the Roman Empire's fall.(Called 2 Conquer)
Ninth And this is not in my previous post. I am a student of moral and sexual purity. I do not claim perfection by anymeans but I have studied the topic extensively by some of the most learned doctors in the country especially the published works of Dr. Carnes who is the foremost expert in the feild of sexual addiction which homosexuality falls into. I expect you to deny homosexuality is a sexual addiction and to even debate the existance of sexual addiction at all. However it doesn't change the facts that sexual addiction is real and recognized by the medical and pshycriatric fields.
The American Psychiatric Association has long since repealed the notion of homosexuality as a mental disorder (25 years ago, in fact).As for Patrick Carnes, I can't claim to have read his works, but if he does actually claim that homosexuality is a sexual addiction (a quick Google search doesn't produce any mention of this, though) then his views are quite out of line with the APA. You'd have to produce other examples because I'm really not inclined to take the word of one man over the unanimous consent of a 38,000-member panel of experts.
(Lunar;24418)
Even if homosexuals are sinners, why so much demonization? Why would that sin in particular be focused on, when the Bible teaches that we are all sinners, and what's most important is faith in Christ? I heard someone say straight-faced in another thread that someone should be wary of ending up as "sex fodder for a bunch of degenerate fruitcakes." I just can't find what sort of passage in the Bible would inspire such hate.
I agree with you. Homosexuality should be in the same league with other sexual sins like fornication, adultery, and divorce. I mean heck, How many Christians are divorced eh? I sure don't see any hatred for the divorcees sitting in those pews out there!"32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Matt 5:32Heck, if a preacher had a sermon about the sin of divorce, he would probably lose half of his congregation overnight.
Even if homosexuals are sinners, why so much demonization? Why would that sin in particular be focused on, when the Bible teaches that we are all sinners, and what's most important is faith in Christ? I heard someone say straight-faced in another thread that someone should be wary of ending up as "sex fodder for a bunch of degenerate fruitcakes." I just can't find what sort of passage in the Bible would inspire such hate.
I agree with you. Homosexuality should be in the same league with other sexual sins like fornication, adultery, and divorce. I mean heck, How many Christians are divorced eh? I sure don't see any hatred for the divorcees sitting in those pews out there!"32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Matt 5:32Heck, if a preacher had a sermon about the sin of divorce, he would probably lose half of his congregation overnight.
Ok, in my opinion, everyone should read what RobinD69 wrote earlier on this page. Excellent points there.
RaddSpencer said: Heck if a preacher had a sermon about the sin of divorce, he would probably lose half of his congregation overnight.
I would love to hear a preacher preach a message about divorce. I'd love to hear a preacher preach a message about fornication. These sins are far more rampant than homosexuality, and the Word needs to be proclaimed loudly and clearly on them!When I decided to fornicate with my fiancee, I spent weeks before the decision perusing my Bible, trying to find loopholes to justify it. I really wanted to do it, but had always had the conviction that I could not (was still a virgin at 21! Very difficult!). However, the pressure was so great, and my desire to be with her was so strong, that I eventually justified it to myself. BIG mistake. I have since repented, but let me just say...if you WANT to find a loophole in the Bible that will let you commit the sin you want, you will find (create) it.
RaddSpencer said: Heck if a preacher had a sermon about the sin of divorce, he would probably lose half of his congregation overnight.
I would love to hear a preacher preach a message about divorce. I'd love to hear a preacher preach a message about fornication. These sins are far more rampant than homosexuality, and the Word needs to be proclaimed loudly and clearly on them!When I decided to fornicate with my fiancee, I spent weeks before the decision perusing my Bible, trying to find loopholes to justify it. I really wanted to do it, but had always had the conviction that I could not (was still a virgin at 21! Very difficult!). However, the pressure was so great, and my desire to be with her was so strong, that I eventually justified it to myself. BIG mistake. I have since repented, but let me just say...if you WANT to find a loophole in the Bible that will let you commit the sin you want, you will find (create) it.
Lunar,I am so overjoyed to hear that you have realized your sins, and realized that Jesus is the only one who can save you from those sins.What confuses me is how you can have any substance to that claim. What does "Savior" mean to you? How can you have a relationship with Jesus if you do not know who He is? He chose to reveal Himself through the Bible.What does sin mean to you? God shows what He means by sin in the Bible.How can you know what God's will for your life is? Found in the Bible.Do you see my confusion? Vague things can be known about God, as seen by observing the world, and examining what is written in our hearts. But God chose to reveal Himself to mankind through His word. Check out Psalm 119 (the longest chapter in the Bible). The entire song is written in praise of God's word/law. I pray you learn to love it, as I pray the same for myself.
(medicalmatt;48121)
Lunar,I am so overjoyed to hear that you have realized your sins, and realized that Jesus is the only one who can save you from those sins.What confuses me is how you can have any substance to that claim. What does "Savior" mean to you? How can you have a relationship with Jesus if you do not know who He is? He chose to reveal Himself through the Bible.
medicalmatt:I am sorry to disappoint you, but my stay with Christianity was a brief one, I'm afraid, and my inability to accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God greatly contributed to it. As I see it, all the evidence points towards its being a compilation of literature by a number of different authors, many of which had different viewpoints on key issues in Christianity, some of whom wanted to promote particular agendas to certain audiences, and which were the product of the redaction of various sources.So when I hear about Paul's renunciation of homosexuality in his epistle to the Romans, I'm more inclined to see a man using his religious authority to propagate the homophobic and outdated ideals of a two-century old society that is littered with classical prejudices than the word of God.
Lunar,I am so overjoyed to hear that you have realized your sins, and realized that Jesus is the only one who can save you from those sins.What confuses me is how you can have any substance to that claim. What does "Savior" mean to you? How can you have a relationship with Jesus if you do not know who He is? He chose to reveal Himself through the Bible.
medicalmatt:I am sorry to disappoint you, but my stay with Christianity was a brief one, I'm afraid, and my inability to accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God greatly contributed to it. As I see it, all the evidence points towards its being a compilation of literature by a number of different authors, many of which had different viewpoints on key issues in Christianity, some of whom wanted to promote particular agendas to certain audiences, and which were the product of the redaction of various sources.So when I hear about Paul's renunciation of homosexuality in his epistle to the Romans, I'm more inclined to see a man using his religious authority to propagate the homophobic and outdated ideals of a two-century old society that is littered with classical prejudices than the word of God.
(Lunar;48288)
medicalmatt:I am sorry to disappoint you, but my stay with Christianity was a brief one, I'm afraid, and my inability to accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God greatly contributed to it. As I see it, all the evidence points towards its being a compilation of literature by a number of different authors, many of which had different viewpoints on key issues in Christianity, some of whom wanted to promote particular agendas to certain audiences, and which were the product of the redaction of various sources.So when I hear about Paul's renunciation of homosexuality in his epistle to the Romans, I'm more inclined to see a man using his religious authority to propagate the homophobic and outdated ideals of a two-century old society that is littered with classical prejudices than the word of God.
If that is the case, then tell my why prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled 2000+ after the fact. The truth is that it couldn't have been put together by normal men.
medicalmatt:I am sorry to disappoint you, but my stay with Christianity was a brief one, I'm afraid, and my inability to accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God greatly contributed to it. As I see it, all the evidence points towards its being a compilation of literature by a number of different authors, many of which had different viewpoints on key issues in Christianity, some of whom wanted to promote particular agendas to certain audiences, and which were the product of the redaction of various sources.So when I hear about Paul's renunciation of homosexuality in his epistle to the Romans, I'm more inclined to see a man using his religious authority to propagate the homophobic and outdated ideals of a two-century old society that is littered with classical prejudices than the word of God.
If that is the case, then tell my why prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled 2000+ after the fact. The truth is that it couldn't have been put together by normal men.
(Wakka;48289)
If that is the case, then tell my why prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled 2000+ after the fact. The truth is that it couldn't have been put together by normal men.
Wakka:We should probably start a separate thread if we want to discuss biblical prophecies, since this thread is about homosexuality. However, I don't think the fulfillment of prophecy is a strong suit for the Bible. First, and most importantly, the biggest and most important prophecy of the Bible - the second coming of Jesus - didn't pan out. If we look at Matthew 16:27-28, and Matthew 10:23, Jesus makes it explicitly clear that his second coming was supposed to occur within the lifetime of his followers. There are at least six other passages which suggested that the second coming was imminent as well. Clearly, this did not occur. The book of Revelation also makes it clear that the apocalypse would occur during the reign of the Roman Empire. This also did not occur.Second, if the prophecy is made in the Bible and the only recorded fulfillment of it is also in the Bible, then this is obviously of questionable authenticity. There is substantial evidence that Bible source documents were redacted to fit better with prophecies and theological traditions. Of course, it's not just the Bible that is guilty of this; there are many prophecies in the Qu'ran that were also "fulfilled." It is one of the hallmarks of religious tradition to use redaction of core texts for the purpose of increasing religious authority. Also, many prophecies are very vague or broad, which makes their fulfillment virtually inevitable.Lastly, there are many, many unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible. You seem to know your Bible well, so I am sure you are aware of them.
If that is the case, then tell my why prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled 2000+ after the fact. The truth is that it couldn't have been put together by normal men.
Wakka:We should probably start a separate thread if we want to discuss biblical prophecies, since this thread is about homosexuality. However, I don't think the fulfillment of prophecy is a strong suit for the Bible. First, and most importantly, the biggest and most important prophecy of the Bible - the second coming of Jesus - didn't pan out. If we look at Matthew 16:27-28, and Matthew 10:23, Jesus makes it explicitly clear that his second coming was supposed to occur within the lifetime of his followers. There are at least six other passages which suggested that the second coming was imminent as well. Clearly, this did not occur. The book of Revelation also makes it clear that the apocalypse would occur during the reign of the Roman Empire. This also did not occur.Second, if the prophecy is made in the Bible and the only recorded fulfillment of it is also in the Bible, then this is obviously of questionable authenticity. There is substantial evidence that Bible source documents were redacted to fit better with prophecies and theological traditions. Of course, it's not just the Bible that is guilty of this; there are many prophecies in the Qu'ran that were also "fulfilled." It is one of the hallmarks of religious tradition to use redaction of core texts for the purpose of increasing religious authority. Also, many prophecies are very vague or broad, which makes their fulfillment virtually inevitable.Lastly, there are many, many unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible. You seem to know your Bible well, so I am sure you are aware of them.
(Lunar;48319)
Wakka: First, and most importantly, the biggest and most important prophecy of the Bible - the second coming of Jesus - didn't pan out. If we look at Matthew 16:27-28
Immediately after that last verse, there was the transfiguration of Christ. That is Christ being transfigured.Peter was an eye witness of the transfiguration.2 Peter 1:16-18
Matthew 10:23,
You misinterpreted this one. Christ was saying that all of Israel will not accept Jesus until "the Son of Man comes". We could go from city to city and be persecuted.The Word of God really is perfect. There is no point in trying to look for flaws. Thousands of people have in the past and they all have come up empty handed.
Wakka: First, and most importantly, the biggest and most important prophecy of the Bible - the second coming of Jesus - didn't pan out. If we look at Matthew 16:27-28
Immediately after that last verse, there was the transfiguration of Christ. That is Christ being transfigured.Peter was an eye witness of the transfiguration.2 Peter 1:16-18
Matthew 10:23,
You misinterpreted this one. Christ was saying that all of Israel will not accept Jesus until "the Son of Man comes". We could go from city to city and be persecuted.The Word of God really is perfect. There is no point in trying to look for flaws. Thousands of people have in the past and they all have come up empty handed.
(Wakka;48321)
Immediately after that last verse, there was the transfiguration of Christ. That is Christ being transfigured.
It says very clearly, that Christ will come and every man will be rewarded according to his works. How could that be referring to the transfiguration? The second coming of Christ is when every man will be rewarded according to his works.If that passage is saying that there will be some who will witness the transfiguration before they die, then that requires Christ to have a) completely changed the subject from the second coming to the transfiguration for no apparent reason and
thought that a substantial portion of his audience was going to die within the next six days. It simply doesn't make any sense. Why would he throw in the prophecy of his transfiguration as an afterthought?(Wakka)
You misinterpreted this one. Christ was saying that all of Israel will not accept Jesus until "the Son of Man comes". We could go from city to city and be persecuted.
I don't see how you're getting this from the text at all.
For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Traveling through all the cities of Israel is something that someone could have easily done within a year, let alone a lifetime. This passage is clearly stating that the Son of Man is coming soon.I'm going to quote some more verse at you, because I think the Bible is abundantly clear that the second coming was supposed to come iminently.
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord
- 1 Thessalonians 4:16
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
- Mark 13:30-31
And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”
- Mark 9:1
Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
- Matthew 26:64I don't know what to call any attempts to explain that away except delusional.(Wakka)
The Word of God really is perfect. There is no point in trying to look for flaws. Thousands of people have in the past and they all have come up empty handed.
That's not really much of an argument. Clearly the theologians and historical scholars who have written all about it don't think they've come up empty-handed, nor do the billions of people who aren't Christians.
Immediately after that last verse, there was the transfiguration of Christ. That is Christ being transfigured.
It says very clearly, that Christ will come and every man will be rewarded according to his works. How could that be referring to the transfiguration? The second coming of Christ is when every man will be rewarded according to his works.If that passage is saying that there will be some who will witness the transfiguration before they die, then that requires Christ to have a) completely changed the subject from the second coming to the transfiguration for no apparent reason and
You misinterpreted this one. Christ was saying that all of Israel will not accept Jesus until "the Son of Man comes". We could go from city to city and be persecuted.
I don't see how you're getting this from the text at all.
For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Traveling through all the cities of Israel is something that someone could have easily done within a year, let alone a lifetime. This passage is clearly stating that the Son of Man is coming soon.I'm going to quote some more verse at you, because I think the Bible is abundantly clear that the second coming was supposed to come iminently.
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord
- 1 Thessalonians 4:16
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
- Mark 13:30-31
And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”
- Mark 9:1
Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
- Matthew 26:64I don't know what to call any attempts to explain that away except delusional.(Wakka)
The Word of God really is perfect. There is no point in trying to look for flaws. Thousands of people have in the past and they all have come up empty handed.
That's not really much of an argument. Clearly the theologians and historical scholars who have written all about it don't think they've come up empty-handed, nor do the billions of people who aren't Christians.
(Lunar;48323)
It says very clearly, that Christ will come and every man will be rewarded according to his works. How could that be referring to the transfiguration? The second coming of Christ is when every man will be rewarded according to his works.If that passage is saying that there will be some who will witness the transfiguration before they die, then that requires Christ to have a) completely changed the subject from the second coming to the transfiguration for no apparent reason and
thought that a substantial portion of his audience was going to die within the next six days. It simply doesn't make any sense. Why would he throw in the prophecy of his transfiguration as an afterthought?I don't see how you're getting this from the text at all.Traveling through all the cities of Israel is something that someone could have easily done within a year, let alone a lifetime. This passage is clearly stating that the Son of Man is coming soon.I'm going to quote some more verse at you, because I think the Bible is abundantly clear that the second coming was supposed to come iminently.- 1 Thessalonians 4:16- Mark 13:30-31- Mark 9:1- Matthew 26:64I don't know what to call any attempts to explain that away except delusional.That's not really much of an argument. Clearly the theologians and historical scholars who have written all about it don't think they've come up empty-handed, nor do the billions of people who aren't Christians.
Those arguments can be easily refuted with scripture. I would love to answer them, but I do not have time right now to look through scripture. I'm actually multitasking by visiting these forums, doing homework, and whatever else comes up at the moment.Perhaps another time. Maybe Kriss can help you before I do.
It says very clearly, that Christ will come and every man will be rewarded according to his works. How could that be referring to the transfiguration? The second coming of Christ is when every man will be rewarded according to his works.If that passage is saying that there will be some who will witness the transfiguration before they die, then that requires Christ to have a) completely changed the subject from the second coming to the transfiguration for no apparent reason and
Those arguments can be easily refuted with scripture. I would love to answer them, but I do not have time right now to look through scripture. I'm actually multitasking by visiting these forums, doing homework, and whatever else comes up at the moment.Perhaps another time. Maybe Kriss can help you before I do.
(Called 2 Conquer)
STOP MAKING EXUSES. You know in your heart what you are doing is wrong. I will leave you with this quote from Dr. David Jeramiah. An excuse is the skin of a reason stuffed with a lie.
Called 2 Conquer:It's very kind that you want to help me. However, if you want to help someone, you really need to understand him first. I have heard a lot of religious people say that others "know in their heart that they're wrong." If you want to help people, you need to come to terms with the fact that this is wrong. Homosexuals don't think that they're wrong. They aren't making excuses. They actually believe that there's nothing wrong with it.Now, of course, you may actually believe that it is wrong. Maybe you are even right about it! But I cannot tell you earnestly enough - I am not deluding myself or making excuses. I don't think that homosexuality is wrong. Please, if we are going to discuss this, let's do it with the understanding that both of us are being honest with each other, okay? It profits no one to just accuse me of being dishonest and say that I must be lying to myself.(Called 2 Conquer)
You argue why to eloquently to be a fool so I believe deep inside, where you fear to go, you know without a doubt that there is a God.
Again, please give me the credit of at least being honest with myself. If I really did know that, there would be no reason whatsoever for me not be a Christian. It would be utter lunacy of me to not be a Christian. So I'd like to have the benefit of the doubt and not be considered a lunatic. The problem here isn't that I know your view is right and are just too stubborn and worldly to accept it. The problem is that I actually, truly, seriously don't believe you're right.Honestly!
STOP MAKING EXUSES. You know in your heart what you are doing is wrong. I will leave you with this quote from Dr. David Jeramiah. An excuse is the skin of a reason stuffed with a lie.
Called 2 Conquer:It's very kind that you want to help me. However, if you want to help someone, you really need to understand him first. I have heard a lot of religious people say that others "know in their heart that they're wrong." If you want to help people, you need to come to terms with the fact that this is wrong. Homosexuals don't think that they're wrong. They aren't making excuses. They actually believe that there's nothing wrong with it.Now, of course, you may actually believe that it is wrong. Maybe you are even right about it! But I cannot tell you earnestly enough - I am not deluding myself or making excuses. I don't think that homosexuality is wrong. Please, if we are going to discuss this, let's do it with the understanding that both of us are being honest with each other, okay? It profits no one to just accuse me of being dishonest and say that I must be lying to myself.(Called 2 Conquer)
You argue why to eloquently to be a fool so I believe deep inside, where you fear to go, you know without a doubt that there is a God.
Again, please give me the credit of at least being honest with myself. If I really did know that, there would be no reason whatsoever for me not be a Christian. It would be utter lunacy of me to not be a Christian. So I'd like to have the benefit of the doubt and not be considered a lunatic. The problem here isn't that I know your view is right and are just too stubborn and worldly to accept it. The problem is that I actually, truly, seriously don't believe you're right.Honestly!
(Called 2 Conquer;48353)
I have noted that most non believe cherry pick the christian responses they are given. i am pretty sure I posted a bit more than what you responded too all of which is important to the case I made. For example, If you are a juror and all you listen too is the opening and closing statements then you probable won't be able to make a good decision. While I am sure you read the whole post you did cherry pick what to respond too. If you really want to debate this further then take more time and work through your answers to the entire post please. As to the little bit you did comment on there is an old saying: if you tell yourself a lie often enough it will be come your truth. That is what the homosexual lifestyle is. I believe you when you say you don't think its wrong but then you haven't been convicted yet either. I really don't want to see you or anyone else face the Great White Throne judgement but if you continue to deny Christ you will indeed face it and I guarantee you that you won't be happy.
Called 2 Conquer:Your entire post was about homosexuals making excuses. That's what I responded to, in the most concise we possible - that we aren't. I'm sorry if you expected a more elaborate response but it was 4:30 in the morning and this is an internet forum.The reason that I find it difficult to argue with you is that you don't actually make an attempt to argue. You just assert things and then threaten me with eternal damnation when I disagree. I think you can see how this comes off as disingenuous. Look at your post, for example. We've already established that I don't adhere to the Christian belief system, but you continue to assert the notion of Christian sin and salvation as though that is meaningful to me. That's not where the future of this argument lies, obviously.I also object to your labeling homosexuality as a "lifestyle." This seems to imply that homosexuality changes the entire way one lives his life. This is false. Homosexuality is about who one is attracted to and nothing else. It doesn't make you sexually promiscuous. It doesn't give you a lisp. It doesn't give you good fashion sense (and what a shame about that!). It just means that you are romantically and sexually attracted to people of the same sex. The "homosexual lifestyle" is a sensationalist myth.Also, having had discussions with many Christians both on this forum and elsewhere, the notion that it's only non-Christians who respond selectively is just outrageous.
I have noted that most non believe cherry pick the christian responses they are given. i am pretty sure I posted a bit more than what you responded too all of which is important to the case I made. For example, If you are a juror and all you listen too is the opening and closing statements then you probable won't be able to make a good decision. While I am sure you read the whole post you did cherry pick what to respond too. If you really want to debate this further then take more time and work through your answers to the entire post please. As to the little bit you did comment on there is an old saying: if you tell yourself a lie often enough it will be come your truth. That is what the homosexual lifestyle is. I believe you when you say you don't think its wrong but then you haven't been convicted yet either. I really don't want to see you or anyone else face the Great White Throne judgement but if you continue to deny Christ you will indeed face it and I guarantee you that you won't be happy.
Called 2 Conquer:Your entire post was about homosexuals making excuses. That's what I responded to, in the most concise we possible - that we aren't. I'm sorry if you expected a more elaborate response but it was 4:30 in the morning and this is an internet forum.The reason that I find it difficult to argue with you is that you don't actually make an attempt to argue. You just assert things and then threaten me with eternal damnation when I disagree. I think you can see how this comes off as disingenuous. Look at your post, for example. We've already established that I don't adhere to the Christian belief system, but you continue to assert the notion of Christian sin and salvation as though that is meaningful to me. That's not where the future of this argument lies, obviously.I also object to your labeling homosexuality as a "lifestyle." This seems to imply that homosexuality changes the entire way one lives his life. This is false. Homosexuality is about who one is attracted to and nothing else. It doesn't make you sexually promiscuous. It doesn't give you a lisp. It doesn't give you good fashion sense (and what a shame about that!). It just means that you are romantically and sexually attracted to people of the same sex. The "homosexual lifestyle" is a sensationalist myth.Also, having had discussions with many Christians both on this forum and elsewhere, the notion that it's only non-Christians who respond selectively is just outrageous.
Lunar,Homosexuality is a large issue in society, and Christians talk about it because it is one sin in partcular that society is pushing as unsinful, and normal. If there was some other sin that society was pushing as non sinful and normal, we would protest the teaching of that too. But it is, more than any other I know of, a sin that society is progressively giving its stamp of approval to... and making it as normal as eating or drinking. It is not.Can you accept that we will argue against homosexuality because God says it is wrong, and we need no greater answer?If you can't we can all just chase our tails for awhile and call it a day.
(treeoflife;48430)
Homosexuality is a large issue in society, and Christians talk about it because it is one sin in partcular that society is pushing as unsinful, and normal. If there was some other sin that society was pushing as non sinful and normal, we would protest the teaching of that too. But it is, more than any other I know of, a sin that society is progressively giving its stamp of approval to... and making it as normal as eating or drinking. It is not.
You say that more than any other sin, society is giving acceptance to homosexuality.Let me ask you this. What about materialism? What about self-centeredness? What about flagrant disregard for the poor and needy? These are all sins that the Bible denounces far more thoroughly than homosexuality - in fact, they are one of the most central things that Jesus preaches - and they are running rampant throughout society. When you compare homosexuality to brutal corporate dogma, homosexuality is trivial.And yet I see ten times as many Christian groups that focus on "the family" and "family values" (their convenient euphemism for abject homophobia) as those that are interested in curbing the growing gap between the haves and the have nots. America's wealth distribution now resembles that of a third world nation, and you say homosexuality is the biggest sin that's being pushed as normal? Social inequity is the real sin that needs to stop being considered normal.
Homosexuality is a large issue in society, and Christians talk about it because it is one sin in partcular that society is pushing as unsinful, and normal. If there was some other sin that society was pushing as non sinful and normal, we would protest the teaching of that too. But it is, more than any other I know of, a sin that society is progressively giving its stamp of approval to... and making it as normal as eating or drinking. It is not.
You say that more than any other sin, society is giving acceptance to homosexuality.Let me ask you this. What about materialism? What about self-centeredness? What about flagrant disregard for the poor and needy? These are all sins that the Bible denounces far more thoroughly than homosexuality - in fact, they are one of the most central things that Jesus preaches - and they are running rampant throughout society. When you compare homosexuality to brutal corporate dogma, homosexuality is trivial.And yet I see ten times as many Christian groups that focus on "the family" and "family values" (their convenient euphemism for abject homophobia) as those that are interested in curbing the growing gap between the haves and the have nots. America's wealth distribution now resembles that of a third world nation, and you say homosexuality is the biggest sin that's being pushed as normal? Social inequity is the real sin that needs to stop being considered normal.
(Lunar;48459)
You say that more than any other sin, society is giving acceptance to homosexuality.Let me ask you this. What about materialism? What about self-centeredness? What about flagrant disregard for the poor and needy? These are all sins that the Bible denounces far more thoroughly than homosexuality - in fact, they are one of the most central things that Jesus preaches - and they are running rampant throughout society. When you compare homosexuality to brutal corporate dogma, homosexuality is trivial.And yet I see ten times as many Christian groups that focus on "the family" and "family values" (their convenient euphemism for abject homophobia) as those that are interested in curbing the growing gap between the haves and the have nots. America's wealth distribution now resembles that of a third world nation, and you say homosexuality is the biggest sin that's being pushed as normal? Social inequity is the real sin that needs to stop being considered normal.
"What about materialism? What about self-centeredness?" What about them? They are sinful. However, nobody is out there, vehemently, and pointidly saying, verbatim, "materialism" (a general term), and "self-cernteredness" (also a general term) "IS GOOD AN OKAY!" If they were, and when they are... I guarantee you Christians are standing up against it. Those sins are descriptive but you can't put you finger on them. What is, "materialism" and what is "self-certeredness"? I agree, they are sinful... but if I asked you what homosexuality is, you could define it, *specifically*. It is a physical act. You either do it, or you don't. It is easily detected. Given that and the fact God expressly forbids it, specifically, and society is pushing it as okay... this is why all the fuss.There is no express command against "corporate dogma," because I'm not sure if anyone could define what it is you mean by that. If you define it, then we can talk about it. Jesus certainly spoke against selfishness... and so do we... he spoke against being self centered... and so do we. As soon as those sins, specifically, somehow, go to the house to have a bill passed making them okay... so do we. Until then... so do we not.Just go to church and you'll see. However, there aren't many "pro-self-centeredness" and "pro-materialsim groups" out there preaching what is unsinful about their views. If there were... we would speak against it. At least, they mask by another name... but that's the point... they can. Homosexuality is expressly forbidden, and it is an obvious, distinct sin that is easily detectable and defined.As to why all the focus on homosexuality, the answer is just that it is a speicific sin, and it is specifically being focused on by society. Therefore we focus on it. It is as simple as that. Most everyone can define homosexuality and point to where God says it is wrong in the Bible. I'm not saying there isn't sin all over the place (there is). I'm not even saying there isn't hypocrisy (there is). But, we can all agree, the hypocrite and the non-hypocrite alike, who has a Bible... that homosexuality is obviously wrong in God's Word. For that reason, it gets ganged up on. That doesn't make it any less sinful mind you, but that is to answer your question. It is out there... and it is expressly forbidden. Perhaps that makes it an easy target, but if it wasn't important, God would not have expressly forbid it.
You say that more than any other sin, society is giving acceptance to homosexuality.Let me ask you this. What about materialism? What about self-centeredness? What about flagrant disregard for the poor and needy? These are all sins that the Bible denounces far more thoroughly than homosexuality - in fact, they are one of the most central things that Jesus preaches - and they are running rampant throughout society. When you compare homosexuality to brutal corporate dogma, homosexuality is trivial.And yet I see ten times as many Christian groups that focus on "the family" and "family values" (their convenient euphemism for abject homophobia) as those that are interested in curbing the growing gap between the haves and the have nots. America's wealth distribution now resembles that of a third world nation, and you say homosexuality is the biggest sin that's being pushed as normal? Social inequity is the real sin that needs to stop being considered normal.
"What about materialism? What about self-centeredness?" What about them? They are sinful. However, nobody is out there, vehemently, and pointidly saying, verbatim, "materialism" (a general term), and "self-cernteredness" (also a general term) "IS GOOD AN OKAY!" If they were, and when they are... I guarantee you Christians are standing up against it. Those sins are descriptive but you can't put you finger on them. What is, "materialism" and what is "self-certeredness"? I agree, they are sinful... but if I asked you what homosexuality is, you could define it, *specifically*. It is a physical act. You either do it, or you don't. It is easily detected. Given that and the fact God expressly forbids it, specifically, and society is pushing it as okay... this is why all the fuss.There is no express command against "corporate dogma," because I'm not sure if anyone could define what it is you mean by that. If you define it, then we can talk about it. Jesus certainly spoke against selfishness... and so do we... he spoke against being self centered... and so do we. As soon as those sins, specifically, somehow, go to the house to have a bill passed making them okay... so do we. Until then... so do we not.Just go to church and you'll see. However, there aren't many "pro-self-centeredness" and "pro-materialsim groups" out there preaching what is unsinful about their views. If there were... we would speak against it. At least, they mask by another name... but that's the point... they can. Homosexuality is expressly forbidden, and it is an obvious, distinct sin that is easily detectable and defined.As to why all the focus on homosexuality, the answer is just that it is a speicific sin, and it is specifically being focused on by society. Therefore we focus on it. It is as simple as that. Most everyone can define homosexuality and point to where God says it is wrong in the Bible. I'm not saying there isn't sin all over the place (there is). I'm not even saying there isn't hypocrisy (there is). But, we can all agree, the hypocrite and the non-hypocrite alike, who has a Bible... that homosexuality is obviously wrong in God's Word. For that reason, it gets ganged up on. That doesn't make it any less sinful mind you, but that is to answer your question. It is out there... and it is expressly forbidden. Perhaps that makes it an easy target, but if it wasn't important, God would not have expressly forbid it.
Similar threads
