Christian "gay Bashing"

[[email protected]]

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination:
Lev 20:13a

Which part of NO is not understood?

The nut of the debate is how to justify rebellion against the revealed will of God.

- One can say 'God did not say this or God did not really intend this', but it is calling God a liar as Satan did in Gen 3:4.
- One can say 'there is no God, therefore I may do as I will', but that is the position of a fool as in Psa 53:1
- One can declare approval of society for their sin, but they will only be showing themselves to be in the company of all sinners as in Romans 3:23.
- One can simply deny all this and live as one chooses and risk eternal judgment as in Heb 9:27.
- One can 'find one's self' in homosexuality, but it is a trap.
For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s shall save it.
Mar 8:35

Which part of NO is not understood?

And he said unto all, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Luk 9:23

 

[marksman]

In essence, it is your right is to live in accordance with your religious beliefs, just as it is a homosexual's right to live as a homosexual.

'fraid not. There have been enough cases gone through the courts that indicate religious belief is subservient to homosexual demands.

To deny someone a home can endanger his or her life, which is why housing discrimination is not permitted by anyone against anyone.

Oh plueeese!!!! You are not the one that says abortion on demand should be provided because we need to consider those who concieve through rape are you?

If you do not want to rent to a homosexual, you don't have to rent, period.

That is discrimination as it prevents me from renting because I hold specific moral values.

Sure, it's not a matter of life or death in every situation, or even most, but the law is set up to protect your rights (and others') in the situations where it is.

And how tell me, does it protect my rights if I cannot rent the apartment because I hold to certain moral values which the constitution is based on?

 

[aspen]

'fraid not. There have been enough cases gone through the courts that indicate religious belief is subservient to homosexual demands.


Oh plueeese!!!! You are not the one that says abortion on demand should be provided because we need to consider those who concieve through rape are you?


That is discrimination as it prevents me from renting because I hold specific moral values.


And how tell me, does it protect my rights if I cannot rent the apartment because I hold to certain moral values which the constitution is based on?

First, I really cannot believe this thread is still going on - it just shows how threatening homosexuality is to some people.


1. Only religious values that infringe on the rights of homosexuals


2. Abortion is a separate issue


3. You do not have the right to rent your house or apartment without following laws. You can cry all day long, but the government is not going to make an exception for you - sorry. Also, where in the Bible does it tell us that it is a sin to rent to homosexuals? It doesn't - that is your prejudice that you tacked on to the warning against gay prostitutes.


4. Laws protect all of us, especially nondiscrimination laws - you could be discriminated against if you wanted to rent from someone if we did not have laws.

 

[Foreigner]

"First, I really cannot believe this thread is still going on - it just shows how threatening homosexuality is to some people." - aspen

-- If you actually peruse the posts in this thread you will see that those supporting homosexual rights and accusing Christians of bigotry just because they will not condone the homosexual lifestyle (based on God's word) have done at least as much to perpetuate the life of this thread.




Aspen, do you believe an individual who does not repent and turn away from homosexual activity will be admitted into Heaven?

 

[aspen]

"First, I really cannot believe this thread is still going on - it just shows how threatening homosexuality is to some people." - aspen

-- If you actually peruse the posts in this thread you will see that those supporting homosexual rights and accusing Christians of bigotry just because they will not condone the homosexual lifestyle (based on God's word) have done at least as much to perpetuate the life of this thread.




Aspen, do you believe an individual who does not repent and turn away from homosexual activity will be admitted into Heaven?

Foreigner, have I ever indicated that I believe unrepentant sinners will be in Heaven? Do you believe an individual who does not repent and turn away from homosexual activity will be allowed to have equal rights under the constitution? BTW, in a past discussion you asked my if there were any rights that homosexuals are excluded from - I forgot to mention the military, but I guess we do not have to worry about that for much longer.

 

[Foreigner]

Foreigner, have I ever indicated that I believe unrepentant sinners will be in Heaven? Do you believe an individual who does not repent and turn away from homosexual activity will be allowed to have equal rights under the constitution? BTW, in a past discussion you asked my if there were any rights that homosexuals are excluded from - I forgot to mention the military, but I guess we do not have to worry about that for much longer.

-- That is a good non-answer.
Especially if you don't consider homosexuals who continue to live that lifestyle "because God made them that way" to be unrepentant sinners.

And yes DADT, signed into law by a Liberal president has finally been repealed.

 

[aspen]

-- That is a good non-answer.
Especially if you don't consider homosexuals who continue to live that lifestyle "because God made them that way" to be unrepentant sinners.

And yes DADT, signed into law by a Liberal president has finally been repealed.

I have been clear that homosexuality is a sin. I have also been clear that unrepentant sinners are not going to be in Heaven. Not sure how you missed that....

I noticed you didn't bother to answer my question.

DADT was the best Clinton could do, at the time. Nothing less restrictive would have been passed by Congress. It also ended up costing him the House and the Senate.

 

[Foreigner]

I have been clear that homosexuality is a sin. I have also been clear that unrepentant sinners are not going to be in Heaven. Not sure how you missed that....

I noticed you didn't bother to answer my question.

DADT was the best Clinton could do, at the time. Nothing less restrictive would have been passed by Congress. It also ended up costing him the House and the Senate.

You mean the question, "Do you believe an individual who does not repent and turn away from homosexual activity will be allowed to have equal rights under the constitution?"

They do have equal rights under the Constitution. That is why when local or state anti-sodomy laws are put in the court system, they are shot down based on their Constitutionality, or rather lack thereof.

What homosexuals are looking for is actually MORE rights under the Constitution than others.

-- A brother cannot marry his sister.
-- A mother cannot marry her son.
-- An aunt cannot marry her nephew.
-- An adult cannot marry a 13 year old (even with parental permission).
-- An adult cannot marry more than one person at a time.
-- A minor cannot marry a minor
-- An adult cannot marry his or her pet horse 'Ed'

And not only is it a matter of their "marraiges" not being "recognized" in certain states like homosexual marriages. They face actual "persecution" of fines and real jail time for the heartfelt love that nature has given them for each other. How can man be so cruel as to deny them!?
.
How can this POSSIBLY be fair!?

Who are we to argue when true love is involved?

What right does America have to deny what 'nature' tells them to feel?

Don't they have a "Constitutional Right" to freedom in this matter?

How can Americans be so cold? So heartless? Don't they understand this is true love?!

It is because these are considered "unnatural acts?"

Is it because they don't have the ability to procreate, or procreate without some inherent risks?

Is it because sexual contact can easily lead to massive health issues?

Is it because the definition of marraige had been traditionally and historically between a man and a woman of consenting age?

Oh, the humanity! America is such a dark and cruel place.

But homosexuals for some reason feel that somewhere in the Constituion lies a 'right' for them that is being unfairly denied them.

A "marraige" right that should be allowed for them because, hey they are homosexuals.

Eventually gay marraige will come before the S.C. and they will likely vote that it is Constitutional.

And when that happens those other groups are going to say that since marraige is no longer a between just a man and a woman they should be allowed to marry, too.

Should be interseting to watch that pan out.

DADT was the best Clinton could do, at the time. Nothing less restrictive would have been passed by Congress. It also ended up costing him the House and the Senate.

-- I actually laughed outloud when I read this.

Clinton had a Democrat-controlled House and Senate this was "the best he could do?" Wow. How narrow minded must all those liberal Senators have been? LOL

I had to infuse actual critical thought into that claim but someone has to:

You are actually claiming that homosexuals and supporters of homosexual rights were so disappointed at a Democrat-controlled congress that they consciously voted voted out Democrats and voted in Republicans (many staunchly Conserative) to show their displeasure? Knowing that with Republicans in control of Congress that there would be even LESS of a chance of the policy being corrected for years and possibly decades to come?

Really?....................excuse me...........................Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha :lol: ..............................okay, I'm back.

Ahem...history actually shows that the economy, Hillarycare, and a farther left than anticipated agenda, combined with a growing feeling that decades of Democrat control were enough and it was time for a change were the reasons for Americans voting out the Democrats in 1994.

The far left were the ones unhappy with DADT. It was a non-issue at voting time for the rest of America.

 

[mjrhealth]

Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

Still to much of this going on

In His Love

PS read the post about Gossip. I was right was i not

 

[aspen]

You mean the question, "Do you believe an individual who does not repent and turn away from homosexual activity will be allowed to have equal rights under the constitution?"

They do have equal rights under the Constitution. That is why when local or state anti-sodomy laws are put in the court system, they are shot down based on their Constitutionality, or rather lack thereof.

What homosexuals are looking for is actually MORE rights under the Constitution than others.

-- A brother cannot marry his sister.
-- A mother cannot marry her son.
-- An aunt cannot marry her nephew.
-- An adult cannot marry a 13 year old (even with parental permission).
-- An adult cannot marry more than one person at a time.
-- A minor cannot marry a minor
-- An adult cannot marry his or her pet horse 'Ed'

And not only is it a matter of their "marraiges" not being "recognized" in certain states like homosexual marriages. They face actual "persecution" of fines and real jail time for the heartfelt love that nature has given them for each other. How can man be so cruel as to deny them!?
.
How can this POSSIBLY be fair!?

Who are we to argue when true love is involved?

What right does America have to deny what 'nature' tells them to feel?

Don't they have a "Constitutional Right" to freedom in this matter?

How can Americans be so cold? So heartless? Don't they understand this is true love?!

It is because these are considered "unnatural acts?"

Is it because they don't have the ability to procreate, or procreate without some inherent risks?

Is it because sexual contact can easily lead to massive health issues?

Is it because the definition of marraige had been traditionally and historically between a man and a woman of consenting age?

Oh, the humanity! America is such a dark and cruel place.

But homosexuals for some reason feel that somewhere in the Constituion lies a 'right' for them that is being unfairly denied them.

A "marraige" right that should be allowed for them because, hey they are homosexuals.

Eventually gay marraige will come before the S.C. and they will likely vote that it is Constitutional.

And when that happens those other groups are going to say that since marraige is no longer a between just a man and a woman they should be allowed to marry, too.

Should be interseting to watch that pan out.







-- I actually laughed outloud when I read this.

Clinton had a Democrat-controlled House and Senate this was "the best he could do?" Wow. How narrow minded must all those liberal Senators have been? LOL

I had to infuse actual critical thought into that claim but someone has to:

You are actually claiming that homosexuals and supporters of homosexual rights were so disappointed at a Democrat-controlled congress that they consciously voted voted out Democrats and voted in Republicans (many staunchly Conserative) to show their displeasure? Knowing that with Republicans in control of Congress that there would be even LESS of a chance of the policy being corrected for years and possibly decades to come?

Really?....................excuse me...........................Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha :lol: ..............................okay, I'm back.

Ahem...history actually shows that the economy, Hillarycare, and a farther left than anticipated agenda, combined with a growing feeling that decades of Democrat control were enough and it was time for a change were the reasons for Americans voting out the Democrats in 1994.

The far left were the ones unhappy with DADT. It was a non-issue at voting time for the rest of America.

How can you claim that Homosexuals have the exact same right as all American citizens when they could have lost their careers in the military if anyone outed them, until yesterday? And they are still being warned not to tell anyone until the military makes a complete transition? Also, it has been stated many times before that the real problem is that current laws are not strong enough to protect homosexual rights - it is called discrimination.

You must be pretty naive if you think laws are passed without public opinion as a huge factor. No congressman was going to risk re-election (Democrat or Republican) to pass anything less restrictive than DADT. And as history shows us, they lost both chambers anyway - so laugh it up. It is pretty funny that you would mention this when Republicans did nothing to restrict government supported abortions during their 10 year run.

During a recent interview, Clinton was asked if he thought it was a mistake to make DADT one of the first items on his agenda - he responded that it wasn't his decision - the New York Times ran an article about homosexuals being banned from the military and how the Democrats finally had a President that was going to do something about it - Clinton felt the public pressure to respond.

Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

Still to much of this going on

In His Love

PS read the post about Gossip. I was right was i not

Yes, you were right. Nobody wants to talk about sins they are tempted by.

 

[marksman]

Judging by his posts, we have to assume that Mr. Aspen is a supporter of homosexual rights. Unfortunately, he does not have the support of Jesus or Paul.

It was obvious that the merchants thought they had the right to buy and sell in the temple precincts, but Jesus made it very obvious that they did not by turfing them out and telling them it was a house of prayer not a den of thieves.(Matt 21:13).

Paul spoke of the sin of homosexuality and judging by his writing the only right he gave them was not to be invoolved in it. (1 Cor 6:9-11)

There is no indication in scripture that if you are a habitual sinner, you get special consideration.

I guess the main difference is those who believe that we obey God not man and those who believe that secular law supercedes the teaching of scripture. Overall. the scripture shows that when the believers were asked to ignore the teaching of God in favour of man's ideas, obeying God's teaching won the day, even if there was a price to pay.

On judgment day, I will not answer to the American government, Bill Clinton, Act Up a homosexual organisation, the rights movement. I will answer to God and God alone so I will always choose his law over that of man. If the world doesn't like it it can go to hell (and probably will).

 

[aspen]

Judging by his posts, we have to assume that Mr. Aspen is a supporter of homosexual rights. Unfortunately, he does not have the support of Jesus or Paul.

It was obvious that the merchants thought they had the right to buy and sell in the temple precincts, but Jesus made it very obvious that they did not by turfing them out and telling them it was a house of prayer not a den of thieves.(Matt 21:13).

Paul spoke of the sin of homosexuality and judging by his writing the only right he gave them was not to be invoolved in it. (1 Cor 6:9-11)

There is no indication in scripture that if you are a habitual sinner, you get special consideration.

I guess the main difference is those who believe that we obey God not man and those who believe that secular law supercedes the teaching of scripture. Overall. the scripture shows that when the believers were asked to ignore the teaching of God in favour of man's ideas, obeying God's teaching won the day, even if there was a price to pay.

On judgment day, I will not answer to the American government, Bill Clinton, Act Up a homosexual organisation, the rights movement. I will answer to God and God alone so I will always choose his law over that of man. If the world doesn't like it it can go to hell (and probably will).

1 Corinthians 5:12
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?

 

[marksman]

-- That is a good non-answer.

That is his speciality Foreigner.

1 Corinthians 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?

Another good non-answer

Yes, you were right. Nobody wants to talk about sins they are tempted by.

Another typical holier than though response

 

[aspen]

That is his speciality Foreigner.


Another good non-answer


Another typical holier than though response

Since when is a scriptural response a non-answer?

 

[mjrhealth]

Waht ever happened to " judge not, lest ye be judged", or " removing the log out of ones own eye before removing the splinter out of your brothers'. Was it not Jesus who said He came to save the sinners not the rightous, was it not the pharrisees He was speaking too, those who clean the " outside of the cup , but within they are full of extortion and excess. When did Jesus make homsexualtiy worse then gossip, or stealing, or lust or anger or hate or...<He never did, but hey, they are a nice open group, there in the firing line, everybody hates them so why not the christans too, lets just judge them like the rest of the world instead of loving them as Christ does.


Saul too was doing what He in his own flesh thought what was right, running around, arresting and murdering Christians, it pleased the pharrisees, but not Jesus. It took a revelation from Christ to change his mind and his heart. Stop stoning people lest they be returned back to you.

The fruits pf the spirirt are

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Not Judgement


In His LOve

 

[Foreigner]

Since when is a scriptural response a non-answer?

When it has nothing to do with the question put forth.

However, 2 Cor. 6:17 says "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,"

-- You can't do that until you recognize that what they are doing is sin in the first place.

 

[Robbie]

I like what I heard someone say one time, "I would rather error on the side of grace than judgment".

 

[[email protected]]

Waht ever happened to " judge not, lest ye be judged",

That is a worn out phrase that is used to cloak sin and disobediance. It is not a call to deny judgment altogether.
Judging as is used in the Bible referrs to attitudes and behavior with regard to brothers and sisters in the faith. Additionally, we are not told to refuse judgment, but to do so with caution. Further, there are specific guidelines written by Paul in later letters that give step by step instructions as to how to go about judging others.

Beyond judgment, we are called to bear witness of God's righteousness and what he expects of us and of others.
The attitude is one of the ancient WATCHMAN who was to be vigilent and to warn.

See Ezekiel 3 for a short example.

Many are filled with the fire of the watchman and can keep silent only with difficulty when they see wickedness, rebellion and abject sin against the laws of God.
It is not wrong to call sin what it is and to warn against it's fruits (death).

If you are so concerned about those who judge, then go preach to the gay community, for many of them hate and disrespect Christianity (see http://www.thesisters.org/).
Such stereotyping on their part is far worse than any of the words written or spoken by Christians, for there is no mercy, forgiveness or kindness in any of it.

Take the log out of your own eye before you preach to others about righteousness.

 

[Foreigner]

I like what I heard someone say one time, "I would rather error on the side of grace than judgment".

-- But if "erring on the side of grace" means that you end up not pointing out that while you love someone, their sin will lead them to damnation, you are going to have some explaining to do when Jesus give his "Sheep and Goats" speech.

 

[Robbie]

-- But if "erring on the side of grace" means that you end up not pointing out that while you love someone, their sin will lead them to damnation, you are going to have some explaining to do when Jesus give his "Sheep and Goats" speech.

I guess I just have enough sin in my own life that I struggle with so I don't really feel like I have the right to be pointing at others... maybe once I'm without sin I'll feel more comfortable pointing out other peoples sins... until then I'll choose the side of grace because that's what I want...