OK.River Jordan said:Such as?
I'll take that as a "I have no idea what I mean either."
Floyd.
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!
OK.River Jordan said:Such as?
I'll take that as a "I have no idea what I mean either."
Yes!!!RANDOR said:And man shall not lay down with man......You have a 5% attack on christians and society today, homosexuality, abortion etc etc. And you are getting a 62% acceptance rate even including many Christians. Now satan has a 67% percent army. If God said it, that settles it...
River said;Quote
Oh please, homosexuality is shoved down our throats in just about every movie, sit-com and commercial that comes down the pike. The "government " is not a friend of Jesus Christ.I don't think anyone is demanding that you "accept" homosexuality. You are free to believe whatever you want about it. The reason schools mention "Johnny has two moms" is because in a lot of cases, kids are going to be in school with a "Johnny" who has two moms or dads, and the school (being a representative of the government) is acknowledging that fact. I'm not sure it's appropriate for schools to pretend gays don't exist, or to go the other route and teach kids negative things about gays. All that would do is cause further strife, bullying, and problems in the schools.
So what do you tell your daughter about gays? If she goes to public school and eventually has a classmate from a same-sex couple, what do you think her reaction will be?
I think you're making the common mistake of confusing my position with that of homosexuality not being a Biblical sin. To be absolutely clear, I believe it is a sin.
Nail on the head with that line Fred.Fred Lamm said:If you truly believe that, how do you not consider it child abuse to give a helpless child to a homosexual couple?
You dodged the question: If it were discovered that gays are "born that way" would it make a difference in how you approach the issue?Fred Lamm said:You seem to be suggesting that God would make a person pre-programmed to sin and then condemn him for it. There is no Gay Gene. Read this: http://www.isthereagaygene.com/scientific-evidence/
??????????? The government makes sitcoms and movies?Oh please, homosexuality is shoved down our throats in just about every movie, sit-com and commercial that comes down the pike. The "government " is not a friend of Jesus Christ.
You dodged the question: What do you tell your daughter about gays? If she goes to public school and eventually has a classmate from a same-sex couple, what do you think her reaction will be?Children are not little adults who can make the right decision if presented with all the information.
First, I have no idea what you think any of that has to do with a school acknowledging the fact that some of its students come from same-sex families. But also, teen pregnancy rates are at the lowest they've been in 30 years. Not only that, but there's a significant correlation between religiosity and higher teen birth rates.Lets take the Doctor Phil approach to sex education for children. Hows that "workin" for you? Are teen pregnacies through the roof? Is the percentage of teen and pre-teen girls with an STD spiraling out of control? Don't try to impose your social experiment on my children.
A "helpless child"? What do you mean by that?If you truly believe that, how do you not consider it child abuse to give a helpless child to a homosexual couple?
The new covenant law is also referred to as the Royal law and I'm afraid that we're not exempt from it, however it is fulfilled by Christ in us, not by anything that we do short of receiving Him (which is not really our doing either, but according to His election.)Floyd said:We don't have an old covenant law to fulfill, Jesus did that for us, but we have a new covenant law to fulfill and it isn't optional. It starts with forsaking our attempts to justify our evil behavior before God with excuses and crying out to Him for mercy and faith to believe in His sacrifice on our behalf. Jesus died for us, but this is more than a fact and must be received by faith to enter into that new covenant. For our part of the covenant, we are called to submit to His will. Modern marriages fall short because men and women exalt their own will over each others' and over God's, but the pattern God established is that which is not to be forsaken and we do so at our own peril.
MVP.
Definitely disagree with you here MVP!
The New Covenant applies to the Israel only;( see Jer. 31:31-33) they have rejected it to date; ( they are "Lo-Ammi" and in abeyance) but will be in its embrace in the future; see Zech.12:10!
As regards us; we are in total Grace from the moment we take Jesus into our hearts as Saviour! We are then at that same moment "sealed in heaven" until the completion.
Floyd.
I am still not sure what you are saying here.Michael V Pardo said:The new covenant law is also referred to as the Royal law and I'm afraid that we're not exempt from it, however it is fulfilled by Christ in us, not by anything that we do short of receiving Him (which is not really our doing either, but according to His election.)
What I mean is that we are called to Love one another and to love God and in this fulfill all the requirements of the law. This is something impossible for us in our fallen nature, but having received Him it is His Spirit who works and wills to do in us (so we really can't take any credit for those works which we do in Him, because He is really the One doing them through us.) I can supply scripture if you like, but we do enter into covenant with God by faith when we receive Him as Lord and Savior (I don't believe that its possible to call Jesus your Savior without calling Him your Lord and to be genuinely believing.)
Being in the new covenant, even with its requirements, is entirely of grace (the covenant is unconditional.) Our works don't save us, but they do reveal us and also glorify God in the person of His Son in the process (which is the "job" of the Holy Spirit.)
I hope that you find this explanation more palatable, but you should understand that there is nothing of lawlessness in Christ and the implication is that He is fulfilling His law in us.
I wouldn't disagree with your statement, but there remains a theology to be understood behind the statement which is less simple and must consider matters of law such as our justification, as well as the process of our sanctification.Floyd said:I am still not sure what you are saying here.
To me it is simple; I am saved in Him (Christ Jesus).
Floyd.
The question implies that I somehow treat gay people differently from other sinners. I do not. I would respond to the theif who wants me to accept their life of crime, or the adulterer who wants me to accept their unfaithfulness in the exact same manner. There is no discrimination in my approach to sin. So the answer to your question is a flat out "no".You dodged the question: If it were discovered that gays are "born that way" would it make a difference in how you approach the issue?
??????????? The government makes sitcoms and movies?
I will not allow you to intrude into the private affairs of my family.You dodged the question: What do you tell your daughter about gays? If she goes to public school and eventually has a classmate from a same-sex couple, what do you think her reaction will be?
Your studies are flawed as they only count live births. Read this; http://www.bmei.org/jbem/volume4/num2/fletcher_sex_education_and_the_biblical_christian.php if you want the truth.First, I have no idea what you think any of that has to do with a school acknowledging the fact that some of its students come from same-sex families. But also, teen pregnancy rates are at the lowest they've been in 30 years. Not only that, but there's a significant correlation between religiosity and higher teen birth rates.
Helpless means unable to help ones self.A "helpless child"? What do you mean by that?
So the question of whether or not gays are "born that way" is irrelevant, correct?Fred Lamm said:The question implies that I somehow treat gay people differently from other sinners. I do not. I would respond to the theif who wants me to accept their life of crime, or the adulterer who wants me to accept their unfaithfulness in the exact same manner. There is no discrimination in my approach to sin. So the answer to your question is a flat out "no".
Again, the schools have gay students and kids from same-sex families. Would you have them ignore this fact?This part of my response is directed at your statement that the "school, being a representative of the government" somehow gives the school authority to impose it's opinions on us.
Then you shouldn't have brought your daughter into the discussion in the first place.I will not allow you to intrude into the private affairs of my family.
Nope. You didn't even read the link did you? If you had, you'd have seen this, "From its peak in 1990—when nearly 117 teens per 1,000 became pregnant—to 2008, the rate decreased by 42% (to 67.8 per 1,000)." Not only that, the report includes numbers of abortions over the same time period, and it found the abortion rate is also at its lowest since abortion became legal.Your studies are flawed as they only count live births.
The question is not irrelevant, although you have ignored the post proving that it's not true, the purpose of the question was to excuse gay behavior but until Jesus comes back and says "about the abomination thing, it was all just a mistake", in the eyes of God the behavior is not excused.So the question of whether or not gays are "born that way" is irrelevant, correct?
Just because the schools have gay students does not require them to comment on their status anymore than they should comment on the status of their Christian students.Again, the schools have gay students and kids from same-sex families. Would you have them ignore this fact?
I did not bring my daughter into the discussion, I asked you not to impose your social experiment on my daughter upon which you immediately tried to pry into my family business.Then you shouldn't have brought your daughter into the discussion in the first place.
I read the link, but I don't agree with it. Now let me inform you of the governments dirty little secret. There is an abortion that is not reported on any medical chart or to any government agency. Planned parenthood alone gives out as many as 1,461,816 "emergency contraception kits" (the morning after pill) in a year, and as they say they only povide 28% of all abortions, then private providers probably give out another 3 million or so. Even if only 25% of these went to teens it would push the rate to 167 per 1000.Nope. You didn't even read the link did you? If you had, you'd have seen this, "From its peak in 1990—when nearly 117 teens per 1,000 became pregnant—to 2008, the rate decreased by 42% (to 67.8 per 1,000)." Not only that, the report includes numbers of abortions over the same time period, and it found the abortion rate is also at its lowest since abortion became legal.
For me, this question is one that is a moot point. Why? Jesus calls us to refrain from plenty of things that we have "natural" desires or inclinations for us to do. For instance, does anyone want to argue that a 15-20 year old remains removed from the temptation for sex outside of marriage? Are we all not tempted to tell that little white lie that might not make life a little bit easier? The very doctrine of original sin states that we all have our problems...our sins...and they can feel quite natural, and are quite natural if you assume the standard of the world. Some sins are much more difficult to wrestle with than others.So the question of whether or not gays are "born that way" is irrelevant, correct?
I'd like to take a stab at that question. It would make no difference to me at all in my beliefs regarding homosexuality or gay marriage. Some of us are born with a genetic predisposition to being addicted to substances. One person may be able to partake in a glass or two of wine with no ill effect whatsoever, while another had better remain completely abstinant because if they are not their life becomes unmanagable and they hurt everyone around them plus themselves. They can complain all they want about how unfair it is that they were born with alcoholic genes that make them unable to control their intake of alcohol, but they still had better abstain. There are many people prohibited from any form of sexual expression by biblical teachings. The unmarried, for example. And some are called to remain unmarried for what ever God's purpose might be.River Jordan said:You dodged the question: If it were discovered that gays are "born that way" would it make a difference in how you approach the issue?