Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Tooktheredpill · 04-12-2011, 11:16 AM

for some reason my last post isn't showing...

Smith · 04-12-2011, 11:31 AM

(04-12-2011 09:48 AM)Tooktheredpill Wrote:
(04-12-2011 06:49 AM)Smith Wrote: I've never insinuated that homosexuality is the only abomination mentioned. On the other hand, heterosexual sex isn't listed as an abomination. I understand what you are trying to say that "sin is sin", but it's not all equal. The fact that man should not lay with other males as with a female and compare that with your ox goring someone...the penalties are not the same...thats what makes the sins different. What I'm NOT saying is that you should treat people differently; that said, how God treats them is according to His Sovereign will.

Why do I have this personal prejudice? Easy, the "in your face" tactic used by oh, so many of the homosexual groups...it gets old real quick. Personally, if they stayed in the closet it would suit me just fine.

I don't know that something being listed as an abomination necessarily makes it a "worse" sin. The bible really doesn't offer a sin comparison chart. The fact that eating shellfish is listed as an abomination should at least cause you to question whether the abomination category is really worse than other sins.

Regarding the personal prejudice, don't you feel that prejudice may be something that Jesus would want you to address? I think the bible is very clear that we need to love even those that really bug us. Not saying that I'm at that point yet. Also, I think your perspective would change if you actually had some close gay friends. I do. And none of them are "in your face." They're just people who happened to be attracted to the same sex and struggle with all the things straight people do. I don't mean to be offensive, but you seem to be rather "in your face" about your heterosexuality. Imagine if a gay person said "I wish straight people would keep their heterosexuality to themselves." A little "in your face," don't ya think?

"I don't mean to be offensive, but you seem to be rather "in your face" about your heterosexuality."

How so? I've not talked about my heterosexuality. Honestly, this was a response I expected. "Imagine if ...."

I don't live my life by "Imagine if..."
"Regarding the personal prejudice, don't you feel that prejudice may be something that Jesus would want you to address?"

No...."Creatian's are slow bellies (lazy)"...Paul had a prejudicial problem too.Just curious, do you think the God of the OT and Jesus are different people?

"I don't know that something being listed as an abomination necessarily makes it a "worse" sin. The bible really doesn't offer a sin comparison chart. The fact that eating shellfish is listed as an abomination should at least cause you to question whether the abomination category is really worse than other sins."

"I don't know..." - personal opinion.

" The bible really doesn't offer a sin comparison chart."
Cute, but wrong.

"The fact that eating shellfish is listed as an abomination should at least cause you to question whether the abomination category is really worse than other sins."

Certainly, God had a reason for adding this as an abomination.

JLL · 04-12-2011, 02:16 PM

Sorry for the rant, but...

How wonderful it must feel to believe that you have all the answers to this, or any topic. I’ve always found it highly amusing that the people with the strongest opinions and who state the most so-called “facts” about homosexuality are straight people—usually vehemently straight people who insist that they’ve never had a homosexual thought or impulse in their lives, and usually haven’t had any encounters with gay people at all except for the ones they have tried to “lovingly” tell them about what God thinks of their sin. How nice it must be to know exactly what God thinks. One can say that “scripture is clear,” yet in my readings, I have not found that to be the case. The more I read the Bible, the more contradictory and confusing I find it. From what I’ve heard in churches, on Christian television, and out of the mouths of professing Christians, pro-homosexual Christian lobbies do not seem to have a monopoly on twisting scripture beyond recognition.

I suggest “lovingly” telling a group of overweight men and women in your church that gluttony is a sin. Ten minutes after that, when you catch them in the coat room, would probably present an excellent opportunity to “lovingly” tell them what God thinks of gossip. There ought to be a wonderful time of fellowship after that. I’m not sure gluttony and gossiping are true abominations, but there seem to be lots of dietary ones, the love of money, dishonest trading practices, and women wearing pants. The first time I saw my mother wearing pants in church, I told her this was an abomination, and she was not amused. Proverbs 6:16-19 also lists things which are “abominations” but that word is used in the KJV. Is something still an abomination in another translation? If eating shellfish is an abomination, why are we not down at Red Lobster giving loving correction? Oh, I forgot—personal prejudice. SO biblical…

I am also amused to constantly hear about the “in your face” tactics used by oh, so many of the homosexual groups. I’d love to hear examples—please. For years, Christians have used “in your face” tactics to spread what they believe is right and true. Radio stations, television networks, publishing companies—doesn’t get any more “in your face” than that. There are billboards strewn down the highways in my home county declaring “Divorce and remarriage is an abomination” and other things. I can’t recall seeing any for gay rights. I’m sure they wouldn’t last long, because it seems that many Christians can’t even tolerate the display of ideas that are contradictory to their own, even if they are not being forced upon them. I don’t recall gay rights advocates insisting that churches perform gay marriages or the like, but I never received my copy of the notorious “gay agenda” that is always discussed. Mine must have been lost in the mail.

By the way, the phrase “homo behavior” is kind of offensive. I will resist the temptation to use the phrase “imaginary sky friend” when speaking about God because I realize it would probably offend believers. I’ll request the same consideration for the phrase “homo.”

Smith · (This post was last modified: 04-12-2011 03:02 PM by Smith.)

(04-12-2011 02:16 PM)JLL Wrote: Sorry for the rant, but...

How wonderful it must feel to believe that you have all the answers to this, or any topic. I’ve always found it highly amusing that the people with the strongest opinions and who state the most so-called “facts” about homosexuality are straight people—usually vehemently straight people who insist that they’ve never had a homosexual thought or impulse in their lives, and usually haven’t had any encounters with gay people at all except for the ones they have tried to “lovingly” tell them about what God thinks of their sin. How nice it must be to know exactly what God thinks. One can say that “scripture is clear,” yet in my readings, I have not found that to be the case. The more I read the Bible, the more contradictory and confusing I find it. From what I’ve heard in churches, on Christian television, and out of the mouths of professing Christians, pro-homosexual Christian lobbies do not seem to have a monopoly on twisting scripture beyond recognition.

I suggest “lovingly” telling a group of overweight men and women in your church that gluttony is a sin. Ten minutes after that, when you catch them in the coat room, would probably present an excellent opportunity to “lovingly” tell them what God thinks of gossip. There ought to be a wonderful time of fellowship after that. I’m not sure gluttony and gossiping are true abominations, but there seem to be lots of dietary ones, the love of money, dishonest trading practices, and women wearing pants. The first time I saw my mother wearing pants in church, I told her this was an abomination, and she was not amused. Proverbs 6:16-19 also lists things which are “abominations” but that word is used in the KJV. Is something still an abomination in another translation? If eating shellfish is an abomination, why are we not down at Red Lobster giving loving correction? Oh, I forgot—personal prejudice. SO biblical…

I am also amused to constantly hear about the “in your face” tactics used by oh, so many of the homosexual groups. I’d love to hear examples—please. For years, Christians have used “in your face” tactics to spread what they believe is right and true. Radio stations, television networks, publishing companies—doesn’t get any more “in your face” than that. There are billboards strewn down the highways in my home county declaring “Divorce and remarriage is an abomination” and other things. I can’t recall seeing any for gay rights. I’m sure they wouldn’t last long, because it seems that many Christians can’t even tolerate the display of ideas that are contradictory to their own, even if they are not being forced upon them. I don’t recall gay rights advocates insisting that churches perform gay marriages or the like, but I never received my copy of the notorious “gay agenda” that is always discussed. Mine must have been lost in the mail.

By the way, the phrase “homo behavior” is kind of offensive. I will resist the temptation to use the phrase “imaginary sky friend” when speaking about God because I realize it would probably offend believers. I’ll request the same consideration for the phrase “homo.”

(Yawn)

Riposte: ("imaginary sky friend"...makes no difference to me what you choose to call God...it's your "one-on-one", not mine.) ---Judging by the length of the post, you must live for this kinda stuff. ('a chacun ses gouts!)
Riposte II: Sticks and stones.
Nota Bene: I didn't use the phrase "homo behavior"

greg · 04-12-2011, 03:50 PM

I have already awarded you a Pulitzer for your post on the "young earther" thread, but I don't know how I missed your post from 4/10, also excellent and devastating if someone is trying to support their belief in homosexuality from a christian perspective. But for the sentence of the day, even if it was a few days ago.

"Why sexual orientatiion is thought to be a valid reason to question God's view of things I will never know."

Excellent!

JLL · 04-12-2011, 05:19 PM

Smith, my rant was not directed to just you; that is why I did not quote your posts in mine. I believe it was Joseph who used the phrase "homo behavior." As for the length of my post, it does not seem to be much longer than Joseph's or any of the others on here. My apologies if I bored you. The "yawn" comment reinforces my impression that those vehemently opposed to homosexuality completely discount the feelings and thoughts of those directly impacted by the hostility many Christians impart to the gay community. As for "living for this stuff," the frequency of your posts on the subject and the prompt response to mine would indicate that you have a vested interest in the topic as well. I have no illusions that my thoughts will change your opinion of my orientation, nor do I expect to miraculously be "delivered" of my sodomite tendencies by reading the comments of others here. I just don't believe that any sin I may or may not commit would be worse in God's eyes than any that you may "struggle" with. But unlike others in mainstream Christianity, I do not presume to know the mind of God. I hope to see us both in the Kingdom. God bless.

Smith · 04-12-2011, 05:51 PM

(04-12-2011 05:19 PM)JLL Wrote: Smith, my rant was not directed to just you; that is why I did not quote your posts in mine. I believe it was Joseph who used the phrase "homo behavior." As for the length of my post, it does not seem to be much longer than Joseph's or any of the others on here. My apologies if I bored you. The "yawn" comment reinforces my impression that those vehemently opposed to homosexuality completely discount the feelings and thoughts of those directly impacted by the hostility many Christians impart to the gay community. As for "living for this stuff," the frequency of your posts on the subject and the prompt response to mine would indicate that you have a vested interest in the topic as well. I have no illusions that my thoughts will change your opinion of my orientation, nor do I expect to miraculously be "delivered" of my sodomite tendencies by reading the comments of others here. I just don't believe that any sin I may or may not commit would be worse in God's eyes than any that you may "struggle" with. But unlike others in mainstream Christianity, I do not presume to know the mind of God. I hope to see us both in the Kingdom. God bless.

No, I don't have a vested interest, per se, but I do have a problem with ignoring Scripture in favor of feelings.

I apologize for the tone of my post due to the fact you didn't indicate whom it was directed towards. That said, I find it interesting you had the prompting to to refer to God as the "imaginary friend in the sky" (or some such blasphemy) and on a turn of the dime, you care about what God thinks of your sin or other's sin.

Secondly, you indicate that "sins you commit" may or may not be worse in God's eyes than ones I would struggle with. The suprise I have is the verbaige you used would infer that these "sins" would be unknown to God. "Worse" is something God deals with of course, but what is and isn't sin is plainly revealed in the Written word. That said, it becomes either willful or ignorant sins; it is either one or the other...if it is willful, then you either agree to suffer judgment or hope that God somehow "understands" and like an over indulging Uncle, He just waives his hand and tells you not to "worry about it". If it isn't willful, then God is giving you the grace to repent. You decide I suppose.

JLL · 04-12-2011, 06:25 PM

I didn't actually MEAN the "imaginary sky friend" comment (I would probably view that as blasphemy too), but I meant that as an illustration as to what people of different beliefs may find offensive.

Perhaps my post was worded incorrectly--I did not mean to suggest that my or anyone's sins are unknown to God. I was raised to believe that God knows all. I suppose I was attempting to question the whole "sin hierarchy" dilemma. I was raised to believe that a sin is a sin is a sin--murder, lust in your heart, gossip, thievery--all the same in the eyes of God. I become frustrated when religious bodies focus on homosexuality as a sin, to the exclusion of others. For example--from what I've read, the Bible says much more against divorce than it does against homosexuality, yet I don't see a lot of Christians forming task groups and such attempting to restrict the rights of divorced people. I have divorced and remarried relatives still active and accepted in their church, but I have serious doubts as to whether I would be. My sister married a divorced man, and our Assemblies of God pastor was unable to marry them (to his credit, he came to the wedding--such a lovely man!). Drunkenness seems to be frowned upon by the Bible, yet I see no push for another prohibition of alcohol. It appears that the same people that take a very hard line with homosexuality very very often overlook the drunkard, the divorced, the heterosexual immorality, etc.

I kind of feel bad about "hijacking" this thread, but I think we all gravitate toward topics which affect us personally.

GraceThruFaith · 04-13-2011, 12:09 AM

JLL,

You're right in that Christians in general focus more on homosexuality simply because it's....well, homosexuality. But Scriptures discuss much more about drunkenness, divorce, and heterosexual immorality and we're not taking just as hard a line on those things. If Christians want to legally restrict the rights of homosexuals, well then consistency calls for the rest of these other sins to be treated similarly.

greg · 04-13-2011, 12:53 PM

(04-13-2011 12:09 AM)GraceThruFaith Wrote: JLL,

You're right in that Christians in general focus more on homosexuality simply because it's....well, homosexuality. But Scriptures discuss much more about drunkenness, divorce, and heterosexual immorality and we're not taking just as hard a line on those things. If Christians want to legally restrict the rights of homosexuals, well then consistency calls for the rest of these other sins to be treated similarly.

Who in the world is trying is trying to restrict the rights of homosexuals? They not only have the same rights as everyone else, but in addition to that they have "special" rights, over and above yours and mine, and are seeking to have even more added.