What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?

[ROS777]

Also, no one can recruit someone into homosexuality, that is ridiculous. You either are homosexual or you are not.
A confused child, coming from an abusive home, befriended by a homosexual teacher, boy/girl scout leader, pastor, neighbor or school teacher can and does lead the child in a homosexual lifestyle.A runaway teenager living on the street gets hit on by homosexual males/females and turns tricks to stay alive and is befriended by homosexuals.School books making the homosexual lifestyle just a choice and a normal way of life leads to confusion and one becomes bisexual.Remember this thread is "the Christian response to homosexuals" .

 

[doubtingthomas]

I'm going to give you an example why I, personally, think that homosexual civil union should be allowed (note: this is not the same as marriage, it has nothing to do with the church). A man is severely injured in an automobile accident and ends up brain dead and on ventilatory support. He has spent the last ten years with his partner with whom he has discussed his wishes regarding this very thing. However, the partner is not allowed to have any say in his care because of legallity reasons. His partner then lingers on ventilatory support for several months; developing ulcers and infections until he finally dies alone. This is a horrible scenario, but is not unrealistic. This can cause true pain to both persons. Everyone who says they are against homosexual unions always bring up tax breaks. Personally, I think that is the worst reason for denying any union and a bad excuse to cover up underlying bigotry.I am not advocating homosexuality, just human rights of private citizens!!!!!!

 

[doubtingthomas]

(ROS777;6248)
1. A confused child, coming from an abusive home, befriended by a homosexual teacher, boy/girl scout leader, pastor, neighbor or school teacher can and does lead the child in a homosexual lifestyle.A runaway teenager living on the street gets hit on by homosexual males/females and turns tricks to stay alive and is befriended by homosexuals.School books making the homosexual lifestyle just a choice and a normal way of life leads to confusion and one becomes bisexual.Remember this thread is "the Christian response to homosexuals" .
1. From what source did you come across this? I know several homosexuals, they all realized it early on without any of this. They just had no interest in women but did in men.2. This is a social problem, we should take care of homeless persons better in the US. These people are forced to do anything to survive but are not homosexuals.3.This book should not be required reading in any school.As I've said, I am not advocating homosexuality in any way. I am advocating that we let others live with the same freedoms that we have and not discriminate based on religion. Religious descrimination in Europe is what led to the founding of the US. What others do in their homes does not effect us.

 

[HammerStone]

We've been a Christian nation for a couple hundred years now and this intolerance that "everyone" fears so much has yet to happen.And actually, I will have to disagree with you. A government was conceived to protect both the rights of the majority and the minority as much as possible where possible. However, these areas as we know them, often come into conflict. The equation is to balance them as much as possible but to make sure that the rights of a few do not trample the rights of many either. A small group of people can rule the nation just as easily as a majority can in the world of government. I'd cite Iraq and the Sunnis as a most recent example.I cannot and will not stone someone, lock them in a concentration camp, or harm them in any way because they are a homosexual. That doesn't make what they do right, but God is the judge and not me. However, I can protect the institutions that have held my country together for hundreds of years where possible and still be able to practice my religious beliefs. Marriage is between a man and a woman, it's not about rights, it's about reality.

 

[doubtingthomas]

Of course it has, although, it has been mainly restricted to southern states. The abolishing of slavery was opposed by many christian groups, so was women's rights, and lastly, so was equal rights for minorities. Again, I've never mentioned marriage. That is a religious institution. I am arguing for civil union has nothing to do with the church. I think it is a right to be able to cohabitate and know that you have some legal rights.It is about rights and religion. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.Lastly, this is a secular democracy. Read the constitution. Read about the History of the US.The Treaty of Tripoli. Drafted by George Washington and signed by Jefferson Adams."As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity , of Muslims; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Muhammedian nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of hte harmony existing between the two countries."Lastly, if you don't respect others beliefs (ie religious or personal beliefs) you cannot expect reciprocity and are doing a disservice to your country and its founding principles.

 

[HammerStone]

The Treaty of Tripoli. Drafted by George Washington and signed by Jefferson Adams."As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity , of Muslims; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Muhammedian nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of hte harmony existing between the two countries."
I hear this one all the time. Are you aware that the clause that you quoted only shows up in a couple of the copies? Are you also aware of who this was written to and such reasons as to why this clause would have been found in the document? Finally, are you aware this treaty was broken roughly 5 years after it was signed and consequently this line was dropped from the renegotiated treaty?You want to debate about the Constitution, we can do it all day long because I have studied this document. It's not the Holy Scriptures, but I am well aware of my history. I am well aware that this same group that supposedly put up this "wall of separation" (and this phrase was coined in the last 100 years itself) also housed church events within government buildings. Separation of church and state means what it says; there's no Church of the United States of America. All are free to worship, but this doesn't change the Christian ideals this nation was founded upon.

 

[doubtingthomas]

I hear this one all the time. Are you aware that the clause that you quoted only shows up in a couple of the copies?It is in the original copy, signed by Adams. This quote demonstrates that our founding fathers wanted a free society for all. "Wall of separation" was actually originally in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists in 1802 "believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole american people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

 

[HammerStone]

It is in the original copy, signed by Adams.
It is not, however, in many of the Islamic copies out there as well as other copies in our own language. If you have any answer to this, by all means share it but even the so-called "experts" can't really explain why. I cannot either; but if there is one thing to take away from it, convictions must not have been too strong because it wasn't in all of the copies and it was dropped the next time around.You proved me wrong on the specific use of "wall" here and there's a reason I never count on the word of man. I had admittedly forgotten about the Danbury letter but let's put it into context, even Jefferson, who was arguably not very religious himself wrote the rest in the same paragraph in the same letter:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,
He wrote what this wall was - it was protecting America from the control of a nation church such as the Catholic and Anglican churches. This whole idea that if anything even symbolizes Christianity it should be removed is not at all in the context of what he said. This is what the modern definition has made it.This same Jefferson guy was known for allowing church services to be held in federal buildings. He must not have been too good at following his own word and certainly not the modern day phobia that many have.

 

[doubtingthomas]

It is not, however, in many of the Islamic copies out there as well as other copies in our own language. If you have any answer to this, by all means share it but even the so-called "experts" can't really explain why. I cannot either; but if there is one thing to take away from it, convictions must not have been too strong because it wasn't in all of the copies and it was dropped the next time around.While it is true that article 11 wasn't in some of the early arabic copies, it was in the signed and ratified copy. He wrote what this wall was - it was protecting America from the control of a nation church such as the Catholic and Anglican churches. This whole idea that if anything even symbolizes Christianity it should be removed is not at all in the context of what he said. This is what the modern definition has made it.You are correct, it was to avoid the development of a national church. You'll notice he mentions "each respective sect," he is not descriminating by pointing out any one religion. Some of the largest supporters of separation were jews, quakers, and catholics, who were minorities and at the greatest risk of discrimination. This is the era of political correctness and no one wants to offend anybody, especially the government. ie a cross might offend jews, the star of david might offend catholics, the wiccan symbol might offend christians. I think much of this is to avoid offense and I, personally, don't think that is a horrible thing.

 

[ROS777]

(doubtingthomas;6247)
Swampfox,You miss my point. By pointing out concentration camps I was responding ros777's statement about the majority. This government was not conceived to protect the rights of the majority, it was concieved to protect the rights of the minority. It is not our job to tell others how to live, just as it is not theirs to tell us. An example of a religious state that protects the rights of the majority is Saudi Arabia. Here rape victims are whipped, theives are punished with amputations, whippings and beatings, and other criminals are beheaded. It is a punishible crime to walk around with a bible or torah. It is also a crime to attend a christian church. I fear that intolerance is leading the US that way (meaning a nation of intolerance and possibly violence).
No, it was conceived to protect the rights of the majority.One of the basic reasons our country was established to protect us from intolerance of religion, and protection from state established religion.Politically correct people are intolerate of Christians. They are insanely hudge hypocrites.If there is any intolerance of Christians or Jews, it will come from the hypocrites; the politically correct.

 

[ROS777]

(doubtingthomas;6250)
1. From what source did you come across this? I know several homosexuals, they all realized it early on without any of this. They just had no interest in women but did in men.2. This is a social problem, we should take care of homeless persons better in the US. These people are forced to do anything to survive but are not homosexuals.3.This book should not be required reading in any school.As I've said, I am not advocating homosexuality in any way. I am advocating that we let others live with the same freedoms that we have and not discriminate based on religion. Religious descrimination in Europe is what led to the founding of the US. What others do in their homes does not effect us.
I know of a few homosexuals and their early life and the abuse from adults did infulence their sexual lives.The fact is that we do have people that must prositute themselves to live.I agree with the last statement; it SHOULDN'T be required reading or even in schools.

 

[jessioverbey]

i can not judge, because i have relatives that are homosexuals. and it would be wrong of me to judge. my father is a minister, and it's only been here recently that i was able to get him away from the judgement he casts on others. i say who are we to judge? ok so those of us like or love someone of the other gender, and we're happy. so, if a male should decide he wants to be liked or loved, but by another male, should he suffer and be unhappy, or should he be able to be happy as we are with the ones we love? should he live in misery, because "we" say it's wrong, therefore he won't date at all, get married at all, because it's wrong to us, that he loves the way he does, but he doesn't like the way we love, so he stays single all his life because he would be miserable both ways? i have someone i care for that is of the opposite gender whom i am really fond of, so i'll be happy and i am happy, so i think that if a male were to have someone that he is fond of, he should be not condemned, but yes prayed for, but he is happy and that's what the world is supposed to be about happiness. GOD doesn't want his world to be that judging. maybe i'm wrong, and so, if i am, that's ok. i'm free to feel the way i do. like i said, i can not judge for two reasons. i have loved ones of the kind and two,it's not mine to judge. so i will leave well enough alone and love them just as GOD loves me. thanks, jessica

 

[ROS777]

SwampFox and Kriss,This debate will go on and on. It will be between the advocates of Political Correctness, (where all discrimination is bad except discrimination against Christians) and those of us that believe in God's law.There is no agreement, as there seems a way good to men but leads to death.Of course we should love the sinner and hate the sin.But they want total acceptance, where never a bad word is said about their lifestyle and they are accepted as normal. Then they are free to recruit others especially the confused, abused, destitute and children.Is this debate really going anywhere for the good?

 

[BernieEOD]

When we get into the topic of any one sin, we come uinder the illusion that this is the only sin in that persons life. Therefore, when entering a debate / discussion on the subject, the first question that needs to be asked of any person is "Do you think that this is the only sin you need to repent of?"Yes, ones sexual behavior will be an item on the list of sins one has committed, but it will only be one item among many others.Salvation is not about comming out of any one sinful bahavior but comming in to Christ.

 

[tomwebster]

(ROS777;6297)
SwampFox and Kriss,This debate will go on and on. It will be between the advocates of Political Correctness, (where all discrimination is bad except discrimination against Christians) and those of us that believe in God's law.There is no agreement, as there seems a way good to men but leads to death.Of course we should love the sinner and hate the sin.But they want total acceptance, where never a bad word is said about their lifestyle and they are accepted as normal. Then they are free to recruit others especially the confused, abused, destitute and children.Is this debate really going anywhere for the good?
I agree Ros, this post is going no where.

 

[doubtingthomas]

I know of a few homosexuals and their early life and the abuse from adults did infulence their sexual lives.This is pedophelia and not homosexuality; it is illegal and immoral in many ways. I was referring to adults. No child should be forced into any sexual relationship with an adult, whether hetero or homosexual, because it will have long lasting implications. My concern is only with adults who practice their homosexuality behind closed doors. We live in a society of many different beliefs and I don't think we should discriminate against anyone.

 

[SilentFlight]

my best friend is homosexual and bisexuality is not rare here. I have read it is condemned, although it is a strange subject. When talking to people about it and knowing several people who feel this way inclined lets you see the other side,desite t being seen wong. If someone is homosexual it can scare them away from God that is understandable. Although i think despite my faith i will not say againt it. In life i view it to be like hetrosexual love except i have nothing to do with it myself. It causes so much conflict people are so cruel when faced with it. Myfriend said its just like being straight. And you have couples that stay togeter like those married. i am not saying it right only that it should be respected when you talk to people there is nothing abnormal about it nothing, grotesque that blares out sinning and lust. I have no right to speak against peoples feelings tell them they are wrong if they re hppy and are living life as they choose to i can only hope it is respected.

 

[ROS777]

(SilentFlight;6677)
my best friend is homosexual and bisexuality is not rare here. I have read it is condemned, although it is a strange subject. When talking to people about it and knowing several people who feel this way inclined lets you see the other side,desite t being seen wong. If someone is homosexual it can scare them away from God that is understandable. Although i think despite my faith i will not say againt it. In life i view it to be like hetrosexual love except i have nothing to do with it myself. It causes so much conflict people are so cruel when faced with it. Myfriend said its just like being straight. And you have couples that stay togeter like those married. i am not saying it right only that it should be respected when you talk to people there is nothing abnormal about it nothing, grotesque that blares out sinning and lust. I have no right to speak against peoples feelings tell them they are wrong if they re hppy and are living life as they choose to i can only hope it is respected.
I understand what you're saying, SilentFlight. There are nice homosexuals that mind their own business, pay their taxes, help those less fortunate and do good deeds.We, as Christians, should do them no evil; in that way I agree. But it would be a great evil if we told them that homosexual sex is not a sin.If you saw someone steal, but when he wasn't stealing was a great person, as a Christian; wouldn't you warn him that stealing is a sin; even if he's really nice in every other area?

 

[tomwebster]

If we have a good friend that likes to cross the street in the middle of traffic we should let them, it's their choice how they live their lives. But if they are really friends, we should also warn them that they might get hit by a car.

 

[Christina]

We are told to hate the sin not the sinner there is no harm caring about and loving a sinner but as Tom and Ros have said we still have to warn them. The fact that it scares them away from God is really an excuse not to have to question their own behavior. Why would you fear someone who created you? and loves you? but tells you your behavior is not acceptable to him. Don't parents,teachers,law makers do this everyday? Tell us they care about us but certain behaviors are not acceptable.