SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A majority of California voters oppose a ballot initiative to ban gay "marriage," though they are evenly split on the practice itself, according to a poll released Wednesday.
The ballot question essentially will ask voters to prohibit the practice of same-sex "marriage," which was approved this year by the California Supreme Court.
The discrepancy between voters' general attitudes against gay "marriage" and their position on banning it could be explained by a hesitancy to remove a constitutional right, said Mark Baldassare, president and chief executive of the Public Policy Institute of California, which conducted the poll.
A majority of likely voters, 54 percent, oppose ending gay "marriage," compared with 40 percent who support it, the poll said. The result is similar to the findings of a Field Poll in July, which found that 51 percent of likely California voters opposed ending gay "marriage," while 42 percent said they supported it.
But when it comes to general attitudes about gay "marriage," voters in the Public Policy Institute poll are evenly split, at 47 percent for and against — as they have been for the past three years.
"It's early in the campaign season, and in the end the vote on this measure ... could be hard to predict," Baldassare said. "Overall views on gay marriage have not budged."
The Public Policy Institute began asking voters how they feel about gay "marriage" in 2000, the year voters approved an initiative to ban same-sex "marriage" but did not enshrine it in the Constitution. That year, the poll found 55 percent opposed to gay "marriage" and 38 percent in favor.
In May, the state Supreme Court ruled the 2000 initiative unconstitutional, opening the door to same-sex weddings throughout the state.
The new poll indicates that those opposed to gay "marriage" will have to mobilize voters if they are to be successful in November, Baldassare said.
"The burden is always on the yes side to convince people there is good reason to vote for the measure," he said.
The institute surveyed 2,001 California residents, including 1,047 likely voters, in English and Spanish from Aug. 12 to 19. The poll has a margin of sampling of error of 2 percentage points for all residents and 3 percentage points for likely voters.
Associated Press writer Lisa Leff in San Francisco contributed to this report.
RSS
Nope...can't say i do.
mike2685, no Jonah not Noah was the prophet who was swallowed by a great fish and lived to tell the story, but I suppose you don't believe that either?
I do, but both served a purpose which was people witnessed it and saw the power of God. Noah living to 1,000 years old does not serve a point other than to tell a "fish this big" story.
mike2685, Jesus was dead and placed in the grave and they had no ability to bring Him back to life, His friend Lazarus was in the grave for 4 days and Christ brought him back to life. Both Christ and Lazarus without the help of medical science or technology rose from the dead. Do you personally believe that these really took place?
Jesus was the Son of God! He died at a normal age, and we bring people back to life all the time (through de-fibs, of course.) At what point, regardless of what you blame on sin, do your bones simply begin to become brittle and your skin sags too much for you to move anymore? I'd say around 100, your body is just about toast.
mike2685, what do you believe are true happenings in the Bible, since you seem to believe a majority of the accounts in the Book of Genesis are simply stories, do you believe that not only did Christ died on the cross for us but that He physically rose from the dead? If so, tell me which is more hard to believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead or people lived to be hundreds of years old as recorded in the Old Testament?
...and yet you continue? Again, if you want to believe that, fine, but to me it sounds like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
mike2685, I would encourage to read Genesis 5 where it gives some of the ages of humans prior to Noah's Flood. Plus, after the flood the life expectancy started to decrease dramatically because prior to the flood there was a vapor canopy that gave all the earth a very tropical climate but as a result of the Flood that canopy was lifted and we began the various climates we have now which many believe has had a negative effect on our life expectancy.
Are you for real? It was possible to live to be almost 1,000 years old?!? Regardless of how pure you eat, how much you exercise, your body still ages. If you believe in that, fine, but to me you have just lost your credibility.
mike2685, sin has consequences and some of the consequences of sin have had an enormous impact on all of creation. Noah lived at a time where those consequences were still relatively minimal, so it was very feasible for people to live that long. But for the past several thousand years not only have those consequences become more traumatic, but add to that the greed and selfishness of all mankind and it increases the consequences of sin even more. But for a moment imagine a perfect world with no sin and all creation living not only in harmony with one another but wholeheartedly loving and obeying God. No pollution, no war, no greed, no exploitation, no disease, and most importantly no physical death. That is how God created the world originally, but thanks to sin that world no longer exists and we in our day and age reap few if any of the positive consequences of God's original creation as opposed to Noah's generation who apparently still benefitted from those consequences. Granted with the help of medical science our health is improving, but chances are will never be as good as it was in Noah's day.
OK, you officially just lost me. God did not create our bodies (or we didn't evolve) to live that old, regardless of how well we eat or if we had the world's best medicine. Those are both STORIES and you are choosing those to be taken literally. I really don't get why you can't take them figuratively and look at the messages behind them (i.e. total faith in God, God's role in our lives)
mike2685, 100 years ago very few if any people would believe that one day we would land on the moon, but we did and were mere human beings in comparison to God, so why do we think that God can't create the world as we know it in six literal 24 hour days, but yes there are many things recorded in God's Word that are hard to believe and that is where faith comes in and believing God at His word. By the way Noah was 950 years old when he died.
OK believer, so I don't understand how you're going to take that God made this entire world into existence in 6 days or that Noah lived for 120 years then survived a flood and boat ride with all those animals? That to me seems harder to believe than that God has always existed and always will
mike2685, yes you can, but with regards to Noah building the Ark remember it took him 120 years to build it, so he could indeed built it just as God instructed him to and as the Bible records he did. Plus, please don't think I am saying that everything in the Bible should be taken literally because there are definitely some parts that should not, but I believe with all my heart that the Bible is literally the Word of God.
If you read it to be factual, yes. If you read it as a story in which God's role is placed in creation, that's fine. I believe his role in creation was in evolution and making that kick into play. Noah's Ark is a whole different story...could you imagine a ship with 2 of every animal built by 1 man in enough time to withstand a great flood? Must have been some carpenter! I think you can believe the Bible without taking everything literally.
mike2685, I should have noted that there were some major geographic changes as a result of the worldwide flood that occurred in Noah's time.
mike2685, no because God's Word is clear that He created the world as we know it in literally six 24 hour days.
Right, but the same could be said for evolution as well!
mike2685, by human logic, yes, but by God's logic it makes perfect sense.
But on the flip side, the creation story leaves many holes for logic.
mike2685, it was never my intention to convince you to believe the creation account as recorded in God's Word since only God's Holy Spirit can do that. But to believe in evolution leaves many unanswered questions with regards to God's plan and relationship for and with mankind.
Sorry, you just haven't sold me that the creation story was real. There are too many holes in the logic to make it real, whereas Darwin was way closer and I think there is a clear place of God's work in evolution.
mike2685, yes God can and as recorded in the Bible has changed His mind, but we can never assume that unless we have solid biblical substantiation to support that. But also realize that some of these so-called changes of God's mind were driven by the impact of and the consequences of sin.
So God can change his mind on issues...allowing them at one point, banning them at another?
mike2685, not since God told Moses to forbid the practice of close relatives marrying each other through the Levitical Laws.
So then the Bible condones incest?
mike2685, but I do Abraham married his half sister, Genesis 20:12. Sarai was his sister by his father but not by his mother. And we read no where that Isaac was born with any birth defects.
You have NO scriptural basis to back up any of that, so you're making yourself sound even more rediculous.
mike2685, genetically Adam and Eve were perfect and likely would have produced genetically perfect children who could indeed marry each other without fear of birth defects in their children. Because of sin the genetic make-up of mankind began to degenerate which meant close relatives could no longer marry for fear they would produce children with birth defects. That is why Cain could marry his sister and why God told Moses to outlaw it and that is where and when the term and practice of incest is acknowledged as a forbidden practice.
...from the beginning of this discussion you said God allowed incest to happen for the case of Adam and Eve's children so they could replicate. If they were truly human, they would have produced children with birth defects, or God would have created multiple people at once so they wouldn't have incestuous relationships. The creation story simply has too many holes to be anything more than it was meant to be: An attempt to introduce the idea that God has been around for all time and that he created us. Again, I do believe he created us, but I believe he willed evolution and it happened over millions of years.
mike2685, I was talking to what you stated was the reason for forbidding incest was due to the high probability of giving birth to deformed babies. Because from the beginning of our discussion that is why God told Moses to forbid this practice.
Say that last part again? You "shared" that incest was only if the siblings are married, and attempted to make it that Cain and Abel were temporarily allowed to knock up their sisters without any repercussions. Your argument is quite lacking.
mike2685, and from the beginning of this discussion your view of why incest is forbidden was what I shared all along.
mike2685, close but no cigar, yes God can change His mind, but without biblical support as you have for the issue of incest you are in essence playing God to declare He's changed His mind about an issue that has no biblical teaching to support that change.
Nope, not at all actually...you do not need to be married to have an incestuous relationship...incest became illegal because it was shown to cause birth defects, not because someone arbitrarily decided brothers shouldn't marry their sisters. Therefore, if you truly believe God made it OK for Cain to have sex with a sister then decided it would no longer be OK, then you prove God changes his mind, and perhaps he thought it was wrong to have gay sex but has since changed his mind. You really can't have it both ways and say "Well that's just the Bible saying it!" because that makes no sense!
mike2685, I believe you may have shortened the definition a wee bit, let's hear the whole definition. Because you either left out words like "to marry legally" or it was referring to sex with a child/adolescent and a closely related adult.
Funny, my websters also defines it as "intercourse between closely related persons." I'd say mother-son or brother-sister would be closely related!
mike2685, please cite what you use as a source document to define incest, I used Webster's Dictionary?
Incest is incest whether you're married or not. I don't know why you're making excuses, it makes the story sound even less believable.
mike2685, incest, sexual intercourse between persons to closely related to marry legally. When Cain and Abraham married it was not illegal for them to marry, so it was not incest.
...its still incest, now you're making this story even more unbelievable just so you won't have to question your faith.
mike2685, but you fail to keep in mind that many things that God declares sin are not so much a sin because of the act as much as because of the consequences. Once again with regards to close relatives marrying and have sexual intimacy with one another is a good example. Abraham married his half sister and not until about 400 years later did God give Moses the law forbiding this practice. In the case of Cain and Abel they could have married their sisters with God's approval and without producing deformed offspring.
So they slept with their sisters instead of their mother? Thats still incest.
mike2685, how about they married their sisters as opposed to having sex with their mother since the Bible does not necessarily record the names of all Adam and Eve's children. And the primary reason we aren't to marry siblings or close relatives is due to the birth defect problems that occur in their children.
If Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, at some point, Cain or Abel would have had to have sex with Eve (their mother) in order to reproduce.
mike2685, incestuous?
Who knows, but just because we don't have the answers to those questions doesn't mean we should discount science for a story about God snapping his fingers, making things, then saying "hey, that was cool!" I really think that story makes everything simplistic, not to mention incestuous.
mike2685, that's possible but at what point does man become created in the image of God which is referred to in both the Old and New Testament? And with evolution when does man become man? I mean which link between ape and man as we are today would be considered man in the image of God?
God couldn't have just chosen to give people free will as their minds evolved?
mike2685, here's what I see as the problem I have with not taking the creation story as presented in the Bible literally. If death and destruction are the result of sin as the Bible teaches they are then where does sin enter the equation if evolution is true? If Adam and Eve are fictional characters then are Cain and Abel as well and who else or what other stories in the Bible are either fictional characters or myths? And when do we get to the place in the Bible when God finally starts telling the truth? Plus, when God looks out on His creation and saw that it was ALL very good, is that just a story and if not then God lied since death and destruction were already a part of our world. And let's face it neither those who support evolution or theistic evolution or those who support creationism can at this point in time prove beyond the shadow of a doubt how life originated. So for me personally believing in creationism as presented in the Bible not only has serious scientific implications, but serious spiritual implications as well. Needless to say I'm not expecting you to answer all my concerns, but I just wanted to share part of the reason I choose to accept creationism and not evolution or theistic evolution.
No, I'm trying to point out the holes in your logic. You believe that God blinked his eyes and the Earth just appeared. I believe that God certainly willed creation, but that the Big Bang occured and over millions of years the world revolved into what we know it now. I think human beings are far too complex to just be a coincidental evolution, but I think through God's will we did evolve into our current state. I don't think you can pick and choose what to take literally in the Bible. There are some things that obviously are literal, such as Christ's life, but I think the creation story was written as a way to try and understand how we came to be at a time when evolution or the big bang wasn't discovered.
mike2685, so I'm understanding you what is it that you think Jesus said that I should be interpreting literally that I'm not?
mike2685, creation did not just poof, God spoke and creation happened and while no human being was present God was. Jesus also said that if your right eye causes you to sin your to pluck it out and so on, do you believe He meant for us to literally do that? Because if He did there would be a whole lot of people walking around with eyes plucked out and hands missing. He also says if we don't hate our parents and spouses we can't be His disciples, do you think He literally wants us to hate others?
So you believe in Adam and Eve, and that the entire world just *poof* came into existence in 7 days, despite the fact that there was no one there to write it down, yet you do not interpret literally what Jesus said and 4 gospel writers confirm? I TRULY do not understand.
mike2685, I do not interpret the Bible literally all the time, but only those times when it is meant to be interpreted literally such as the creation. What I do believe is that the Bible in its original autographs is the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God, in other words it is literally the Word of God. Plus, you can't get any closer to Christ than by having Him in the presence of the Holy Spirit indwelling you and by allowing Him to be the Lord of your life.
Believer, I don't know what Masses you went to, but any and all Masses most certainly do have the Eucharist, that is the center piece of the celebration. The way Catholic dogma teaches it is that receiving the Eucharist is the closest you will ever be to Christ because you are imbibing his spirit (once the priest has blessed the host and the wine.)
mike2685, plus how many times does a person need to observe the Eucharist to have life in them? The Bible teaches that the moment I accepted Christ as Savior the Holy Spirit indwelt my life and will keep me for all the rest of eternity. Are you saying that if I take the Eucharist 5 times in one day that I have 5 Christs come into my body?
mike2685, as a former catholic and altar boy I can tell you the Eucharist is not observed at every mass and especially week day masses.
But they are not breaking the bread and sharing the cup at every service, which Catholics do, so they shall not have life within them. I'm just interpretting the Bible literally Believer, whats wrong with that? Its what you do all the time! I'll be praying that you see the errors of your ways!
mike2685, every Southern Baptist church I have ever attended or been a member of observes the Lord's Supper on a regular basis and God's Word only teaches us how to properly observe the Lord's Supper and does not speak at all as to how often we should observe the Lord's Supper. And I almost positive that God is not keeping score in how often a person has partaken of the Lord's Supper.
Right, but Catholics have the Holy Eucharist every Sunday, if not more often, to "Do this in memory of me." When Jesus was at the Last Supper, he didn't open his veins into the cup, but he did say it was the cup of his blood, and that the bread was his body. He initiated the Eucharist, you choose not to do it because you choose a different interpretation of the Bible. Its funny that if I choose a different interpretation, I am wrong. I guess I'm just not lucky enough to have absolute knowledge like you do when it comes to these things!
mike2685, because Christ was not advocating cannabalism and He was physically present when He said those words. And no other person in the New Testament speaks to the observance of the Lord's Supper in anything other than a symbolic expression of the rememberance of the death of Christ as opposed to transubstantiation. He was speaking figuratively and not literally.
But I haven't wrongly interpretted it. I interpretted it literally, kind of like you do with Adam and Eve. Please, tell me, what is the difference?
mike2685, no, you're wrong if you wrongly interpret the Bible.
OOOO, I understand now, so if I interpret the Bible I'm wrong, but you can pick and choose what to take literally and what to interpret?
The Bible also says "unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you." That means, the BIble says you must be Catholic, since they are the only faith that believes in the Eucharist fully. Am I right on that?
Well, here's what the Bible says about church and "organized religion"
"46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts 2
"23Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins..." Hebrews 10
Sounds to me like God is into church and organized religion.
Yes and no. I have come to believe that organized religion is foolish, because each and every group believes they have the truth and it creates nothing more than arguments. What is important isn't what church I go to, it is my relationship with Christ. We all have a conscience and a moral compass which is formed regardless of whether you ever read the Bible or not. I do my best each and every day to love everyone and not to pass judgments on issues I have no business passing my judgments on. Yes, I have read the Bible, but I have also studied science and history and I believe the three can all be meshed together without harming your relationship with Christ. Jesus gave us amazingly powerful brains, and I don't think he would tempt us by letting us use our brains, then saying "Oh wait, don't use that discovery because it goes against the book I have inspired!" It makes no sense. My love for my partner is harmful to no one.
Hmmm. How do you follow Christ? He wrote down in a Book how to do that, but yet you don't want to do that. That's interesting.
Are you one of those "freelancers" who don't believe in "organized religion", or that we need to Bible in order to be good? That as long as we call ourselves Christians and live a good life according to our own standards (not His) that we'll be okay?
I am a Christian, although many on this board attempt to dispute that in vain. As far as I am concerned, if you do your best to follow Christ, you are a Christian, regardless of what churches or others may think, because Christianity is all about a personal relationship with Christ, not strictly with a book or a church.
But I do apologize. I went back and read my post from 12:23pm, and I didn't mean for it to sound antagonistic. I just couldn't remember from our history of conversations whether you considered yourself a Christian, and I didn't want to assume one way or another. So that's why I worded it the way I did. I didn't mean to come across as rude, and I apologize if I did.
A. I do know the answer.
B. You are very defensive. Please quote where I said you weren't a Christian.
C. I never pretended not to know what you heard.
Please try and keep our conversation above a 5th grade level. It makes things a little easier.
Nice cop out! You don't know the answer, hence, you attempt to say I am not a Christian. I do pray often, and I have had many, many times alone with God about the issue. You have no idea what I have heard, and please don't pretend to.
Mike,
If you call yourself a Christian, then pray and ask God why He views it as a sin. Why does he view jealousy and envy as sin? It hurts no one. I know the answer, but it's up to you, if you are a Christian, to find that answer through His Spirit.
If you're not a Christian, then it does not matter to you.
no, I do not think lust is a good thing and it can lead to harm, unlike my relationship with my partner. Tell me, why would God arbitrarily call it a sin? It hurts no one, its not like we're bringing about the end of society by not procreating. Any ideas?
You also said "The passage you posted spoke of lust specifically in terms of an adulterous relationship." In my last post I wasn't refering to that scripture. I was refering to the other scriptures that condemn lust. Porn is lust. Lust is a sin.
But you didn't answer my question. Is lust ok in your opinion?
I haven't twisted anything. Let me repost my earlier comment. Romans 1 is talking about even having a desire for another man is a sin.
Jesus said in Matthew 5:28
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
The word He used is "epithumeo". Which, if I am correct is the type of lust you are referring to in Romans. "Epithumeo" is used 5 times in the New Testament. It's cousin "epithumia" is used more frequently (like 31 times), and is a more fitting definition of what we determine lust to be. It is taken from epithumeo (which is a root word) and means "a longing, especially for what is forbidden"
The word "lust" that is used in Romans 1 (orexis), curiously enough, is used only that once in the entire Bible. It is in no way associated with epithumeo or epithumia. So it is not talking about lust as you claim it does. Orexis is simply excitement of the mind, or longing after. It comes from the root word "oregomai" which means "reach out after", "long for", "desire". All of which correlate that the desire of a man for another man is a sin.
The passage you posted spoke of lust specifically in terms of an adulterous relationship. I understand the point you are trying to make, but you did not succeed at it. Homosexuality is not sin, although if you want to read the Bible and try to stretch things out of their historical context, its quite clear you are able to do so.
Yes it did. The Bible talks about lust being a sin. Porn is lust. Porn is sin. Simple really. Just like homosexuality. The Bible talks of homosexuality being a sin, sin is sin. Simple.
That's not at all what I said, I said your first post did not say anything about porn usage.
So lust is ok? That's what you're doing when you look at porn....lusting. So, yes, the Bible does confront porn.
Nice stretch, but that comment very clearly talks about adultery, not porn. Adultery is when you are married, and Jesus says in that passage that even lusting after another woman is adultery. I guess if that passage is used about porn, its perfectly fine for single guys?
Mike,
He did.
""But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Likewise, God would have instructed the writers of the Bible to speak out about internet porn usage since he knew it would be coming down the road, even though they didn't understand it.
Mike,
You wrote "The Bible will not "support" homosexuality as it wasn't really conceptualized when the Bible was written."
God knows everything. He knew about homosexuality before man did. The Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. God had men write about things they had no idea what they were writing about...Daniel and Revelations are good examples. So, if God had ordained homosexuality as an appropriate relationship, He would have inspired the writers of the Bible to say so, even if they didn't "understand the concept". But even from before the sin of homosexuality became apparent in Genesis to after it had been recognized (way before the first century A.D.), God continued to inspire men to promote marriage as a man and a woman.
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man --1Co 11:8, 9
That sounds pretty cut and dry there...
Let me repost my earlier comment. Romans 1 is talking about even having a desire for another man is a sin.
Jesus said in Matthew 5:28
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
The word He used is "epithumeo". Which, if I am correct is the type of lust you are referring to in Romans. "Epithumeo" is used 5 times in the New Testament. It's cousin "epithumia" is used more frequently (like 31 times), and is a more fitting definition of what we determine lust to be. It is taken from epithumeo (which is a root word) and means "a longing, especially for what is forbidden"
The word "lust" that is used in Romans 1 (orexis), curiously enough, is used only that once in the entire Bible. It is in no way associated with epithumeo or epithumia. So it is not talking about lust as you claim it does. Orexis is simply excitement of the mind, or longing after. It comes from the root word "oregomai" which means "reach out after", "long for", "desire". All of which correlate that the desire of a man for another man is a sin.
mike2685, Jesus didn't have to because the nation of Israel already understood that God condemned the sexual practices of homosexuality. And before you say we'd have to stretch the scriptures to make them say that, that's the exact thing your doing to show God condemns pedophilia and in fact your stretch is a whole lot longer than ours.
Sodom was about non-hospitality, not homosexuality, not to mention the men wanted rape, not sex with a committed partner. NOWHERE in the Bible is homosexuality mentioned in terms of having a committed partner, therefore, your arguments DO NOT apply.
Mike,
You said "Gay couples weren't really something experienced in the times of the Bible because they would have been stoned to death (because societies were tribal and needed procreation, we have plenty of straights doing that for us now.)"
What are your sources for that last part of your comment? None. It is conjecture.
You also said "The Bible will not "support" homosexuality as it wasn't really conceptualized when the Bible was written."
Yes it was. From at least Sodom to Paul speaking in Romans and Corinthians, homosexuality has been a part of society.
If I may conjecture on why homosexuality wasn't "promoted' in the Bible, and why people "would have stoned them", is because they knew that it was an abomination before God.
Exactly believer! Why if it was such a huge issue and offense to God did Jesus not speak a single thing to homosexuality? He talked about hurting a child (one of the many forms of which is pedophilia) but he never once mentioned homosexuality. If you want to say he did because he talked about the institution of marriage, then you're stretching truths.
mike2685, by the way that question was for feet and not you and yes we have discussed it before, believer
mike2685, why is it okay for us to assume that Jesus would have included pedophilia in His statement with regards to the hurting of a little child, but when others infer that the Bible was speaking to the wrong of the sexual practices of homosexuality those in the homosexual community cry foul. Plus, there is no doubt that there were practicing homosexuals in Bible days and more specifically Christ's days when He walked this earth. If the homosexual lifestyle was condoned by God, considering that the Bible offers numerous passages on heterosexual marriage, both the good and bad, the roles of husbands, wives, and children in the family both good and bad, singleness both good and bad, and even widowhood both good and bad and yet not a peep according to those in the homosexual community about homosexual practices either good or bad. Ancient history has many tales about those who were thought to have been in homosexual affairs and yet not a peep about it in the Word of God, once again according to many in the homosexual community. Considering the fact that practicing homosexuals could be stoned why in the world would the Bible remain silent on such a divisive issue?
Actually believer, I've responded to this question several times on this board, sometimes from you, so perhaps you're reading selectively? Gay couples weren't really something experienced in the times of the Bible because they would have been stoned to death (because societies were tribal and needed procreation, we have plenty of straights doing that for us now.) The Bible spoke against pagan orgies, not just in terms of homosexuality, but rather in terms of sexual immorality. It would have been impossible for the Bible to speak for or against homosexuality, as it wasn't a "known" term. Pedophilia also was not, but Jesus spoke very specifically about the sins of hurting a child, which pedophilia most certainly does, in every case. Homosexuality does not hurt either partner, in fact, in my personal experience, my partner has made me a much better person because he holds me accountable in all things I do, and I think everyone needs that intimate relationship in their life (intimate in terms of knowing you inside out and backwards, not in terms of sexuality.)
To make it clear: The Bible will not "support" homosexuality as it wasn't really conceptualized when the Bible was written. It is outspoken about sexual immorality, which would include any kind of promiscuous or non-consensual sex. If you want to call sex other than for the purpose of procreation sinful, OK, but you must follow through (i.e.: Is it sinful for a married couple to engage in oral sex or mutual hand stimulation?)
feet,
Jesus said in Matthew 5:28
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
The word He used is "epithumeo". Which, if I am correct is the type of lust you are referring to in Romans. "Epithumeo" is used 5 times in the New Testament. It's cousin "epithumia" is used more frequently (like 31 times), and is a more fitting definition of what we determine lust to be. It is taken from epithumeo (which is a root word) and means "a longing, especially for what is forbidden"
The word "lust" that is used in Romans 1 (orexis), curiously enough, is used only that once in the entire Bible. It is in no way associated with epithumeo or epithumia. So it is not talking about lust as you claim it does. Orexis is simply excitement of the mind, or longing after. It comes from the root word "oregomai" which means "reach out after", "long for", "desire". All of which correlate that the desire of a man for another man is a sin.
feet, why do you and others continue to dodge the all important question of showing us biblical support for the homosexual lifestyle. The Bible does not specifically speak against the acts of a pedophile and yet some who support homosexuality use the verse where Christ says it is better for a person to tie and millstone around their neck and throw themselves in a body of water than to harm a child to show God would be opposed to the acts of a pedophile and yet when others do the same to show that God is opposed to the sexual practices of homosexuality many in the homosexual community cry foul. And yet neither you nor anyone else can produce any biblical support for the sexual practices of homosexuality or even the homosexual lifestyle. Instead you continue to dodge the question. But before you answer please don't try to equate the relationships of David and Jonathan or Naomi and Ruth as being homosexual in nature because neither of them were and there is no way using sound biblical interpretation that anyone can show they were.
prophet, grasshopper, you learn well!!!
is not the new covenant about spirit and directives that point to the spirit.
romans 1 they were given over to shame based lust, and abandoned what was of the spirit, affirming and of love to that which was not nor was it motivated by it.
how does the spirit of homosexual marriage compare with the spirit of romans 1?
surely you are not saying that heterosexual sexual relationships cant be motivated by shame based lust.
and what meaning does"you will recognize them by their fruit" have for you?
But let me tell you what the Bible does say about homosexuality....
"24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
I'm still waiting for a scripture that says that homosexuality is an acceptable love before God.
show me where the word "only" is in matthew 19.
homosexual marriage is acceptable because of the fruit thru which it is consummated and by the fruit it produces.
by what means do you know that........."Homosexuality is a perverted form of love, just as is incestous "love". It is not the love that God created. It is filthy, and unclean."? I
Why is it that when Jesus talks of marriage, He speaks of it as being between a man and a woman?
Why is it that when Paul speaks of marriage, he speaks of it as being between a man and a woman?
So far, no believable argument has been brought against this fact.
I'm still waiting for a scripture that says that homosexuality is an acceptable love before God. So far, every instance of romantic love spoken of speaks of a man and a woman. Where's the scriptures that talk of love between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?
feet,
"what fruit do you accuse them of producing?"
Uncleanliness and lasciviousness.
Uncleanliness: Uncleanliness, impurity
Lasciviousness: filthy, wantoness
Homosexuality is a perverted form of love, just as is incestous "love". It is not the love that God created. It is filthy, and unclean. It is a sin. And love does not rejoice in sin.
2 Corinthians 7:8-10 (New International Version)
8Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret itâ€â€I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little whileâ۠9yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but BECAUSE YOUR SORROW LED YOU TO REPENTENCE. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. 10Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
Romans 8:13-15 (New International Version)
13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14BECAUSE LED BY THE SPIRIT ARE SONS OF GOD. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.[a] And by him we cry, "Abba,[b] Father
Galatians 5:17-19 (New International Version)
17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18BUT IF YOU ARE LED BY THE SPIRIT YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
are acts of shame based lust led by mutual love, respect, devotion, affection, trust. to another for a shared commited life together..................................no
in cor 2 they were led by sorrow.................godly sorrow.
"feet,
"what fruit do you accuse them of producing?"
Uncleanliness and lasciviousness"
lasciviousness(definition)..............characterized by lust
jesus says we are unclean by what we speak. you are using an old covenant understanding for uncleanliness.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
this is a theory from your understanding of the law. you have not witnessed any spirit or any fruit.
and in so doing you are chosing to be led by the law, rather than the spirit. possibly you are led by your disgust and contempt of homosexuality thinking they are supported by the lev comment of abomination.
but that is an old covenant understanding and of an old relationship to the law, where god told them to obey my regulations or else.
that old relationship to the law we no longer have under the new covenant. because under the old covenant we are told to test everything, recognize the things of christ by their fruits, receive all truth from the holy spirit, and to love our neighbor as ourselves(there is none greater)............................all these being the leading of the spirit (or a spirit that is of god).
before 9/11 it was theorized that islam was of satan. after 9/11 we were forced to seek alliance with islamics to fight a common enemy and in so doing learned that islam is of god, not by studying the koran but by witnessing the fruits of the spirit of believers.
that is why in hebrews, paul refers to the old covenant as being wrong.
7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
being led by the spirit requires witness............. to walk in the light in our witness requires fellowship.
again, in this witness what are the fruits of gay believers being married?
Love rejoices in truth, but does not rejoice in sin (I Corinthians 13).
Homosexuality is a sin. Love does not rejoice in sin.
feet,
"what fruit do you accuse them of producing?"
Uncleanliness and lasciviousness.
"I know pastors who appeared to be displaying the fruits of the Holy Spirit even while they were willfully living in sin"
i have never seen a person who having been given over to sin, didnt produce a specific fruit that came against the fruit of the spirit, the spirit of christ and the 2nd commandment.
would you say that heterosexual marriage was about sexual appetite or about devotion.
why would you characterize homosexual marriage any differently? what would be their fruit that would be different among gay believers.
jesus did not say you recognize them by their fruit.
what fruit do you accuse them of producing?
so, are you saying those given over to the sin nature produce the same fruit as those given over to the spirit of christ?
AGAIN.............but the fruit of believers who are gay and those gay couples that marry, these relationships bear the fruit of the spirit (gal5) so what fruit are you accusing them of producing?
1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
You must follow Christ's teachings:
2John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
and again:
3John 1:11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
and again:
John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
One of the fruits is self-control. A very interesting word in the greek meaning self-control of one's appetites. Now Paul also discribes homosexual behavior as passions burning towards one another. This is not self-control.
Therefore, homosexual love does not meet the fruit inspection.
"24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires."
Homosexuality is a sinful nature. Has it been crucified in you, or any Christian homosexual? If the answer is no, then you have no part of Christ.
feet, you amaze me at how when someone who does not agree with your homosexual view on issues such as sin make a valid point you go totally philosophical rather than sticking to the point. As for the fruit thing, their are many non-believers who display many of the fruits of the Holy Spirit, but that in no way means they are indwelt or that their behaviors are approved by God. What Paul taught was that if were to show the world the love of Christ we must display the fruits of the Holy Spirit in our daily living. I know pastors who appeared to be displaying the fruits of the Holy Spirit even while they were willfully living in sin and that's why it was such a shock to their churches when their sin was found out. And finally you assume that the fruits they display are genuinely of the Holy Spirit but only God knows that for certain, but if they are willfully living in sin it's a pretty good bet that they are counterfeit.
AGAIN.............but the fruit of believers who are gay and those gay couples that marry, these relationships bear the fruit of the spirit (gal5) so what fruit are you accusing them of producing?
your understanding of what is a sin is not fruit. what is the fruit of gay believers who are married or otherwise?
the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, kindness............................
feet,
Don't forget Galatians 5:24.
"24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires."
Homosexuality is a sinful nature. Has it been crucified in you, or any Christian homosexual? If the answer is no, then you have no part of Christ.
my understanding is that fellowship and love are both proactive. felowship.......... addressing the christ within..........all of us having it either thru creation or faith or both.
feet, it appears you don't really read other peoples posts entirely, as I said, yes it would help to have a fellowship relationship with the other person, but there are times when concern for the spiritual well being of the other person outweigh the fellowship issue. Christ spoke to the woman at the well about her sin and she was a total stranger to Him and He was a total stranger to her, but it did not interfere with Him effectively ministering to her needs.
feet, just the opposite if one is to truly observe the second commandment then out of love for their brothers and sisters in Christ they will go to them in love and lovingly confront them about the sin in their life that is keeping them from have the close intimate relationship with God that He desires to have with them and could in some cases indicate they have never had a genuine conversion experience.
and you are saying that you do this in the spirit 2nd commandment with or without fellowship.
but the fruit of believers who are gay and those gay couples that marry, these relationships bear the fruit of the spirit (gal5) so what fruit are you accusing them of producing?
First Corinthians 13...
Love does not rejoice in sin, but rejoices in truth. Homosexuality is a sin. Love does not rejoice in it.
feet, just the opposite if one is to truly observe the second commandment then out of love for their brothers and sisters in Christ they will go to them in love and lovingly confront them about the sin in their life that is keeping them from have the close intimate relationship with God that He desires to have with them and could in some cases indicate they have never had a genuine conversion experience.
how are you able to trump the second commandment, when it says there are none greater.
are you saying that obedence to your interpretation of scripture is love? how does that conform to 1cor13? along with love is patient.......does it also say love is obedience.
and one receives no righteousness for being obedient to ones interpretation of the law.
not clear on what you are saying ...................please annotate/
feet, what part of going to a fellow believer in love and lovingly confront them do you not understand. Discipline without love is not true discipline but nothing more than punishment at best.
i find it interesting how little you associate love with the things of christ and the father.
but those who chose to be led by their interpretation of the law would have little use for things relating to spirit.....the spirit of love or those things of the holy spirit.
"feet, I should have said I'm in full agreement with you on 1, 4, & 5. 2 & 3 would be beneficial but not necessary."
you asked me if it was loving to tell someone about their sin. i said it was loving if.............
why is it, you put so little credence in 1cor13 that anything without love is nothing and gains nothing.
mother teresa said if you cant do something in love dont do it at all.
do you think you do something of the spirit, if you step out of the spirit to do it. do you think that by sinning in omission you have done anything other than massaged your own ego?
mike2685, I agree with you and hope you can see what happens when we paint our views of other groups of people with too wide a brush.
I love it! One gay person goes on a killing spree, supposedly so they can get married, then immediately the entire gay community is going to be seen as capable of being serial murderers. Hello, my name is Mike, and I'm a worldwide scapegoat.
Let's think about the cold hard facts in this case. If the guy was a serial murderer, I doubt his motivation was to earn money. People who murder repeatedly are usually out for infamy, and are always not right in the head. If he wanted to gain some money as a crook, bank robberies or a chain of muggings would have been the route he'd go down. I love that such garbage reporting is viewed as first class, first hand knowledge of situations and becomes applicable to discussions on Christianpost.
Recently there is a serial murderer case which attracts many viewers and harsh comments across Indonesia especially towards gays and gay marriages.
Henyansyah who is a gay Islamic Quran teacher, was caught by the police in a mutilation murder investigation of his partner Hairi in Jakarta about 2 months ago.
It turns out that he is a gay serial killer because police keep finding dead bodies in his backyard in his parents house in Eastern Java. He has then state that he is the killer of these individuals in order to acquire a large amount of money.
Police suspects that he and his new boyfriend Novel was planning to gather enough money to go to the Netherlands to have their "official" gay marriage. For sure, Muslim majority Indonesia do not support gay marriage - thus large sum of money is required for them to have this gay marriage halfway around the world.
Henyansyah backyard is still a large open trenches from 10 carcasses found there, it is more like a public cemetery than a backyard if you can see for your self.
Lots of people here asks, is it true that gays would pursue any means necessary to have their homosexual marriage official?
National Islamic Ulema Majlees of Indonesia even ban Miss Igun Gorilla, a gay comedian from National Ramadan shows in a related incident.
feet,
LOL.
#3 is pretty ingenious. In other words, it's none of your business, even though the Bible doesn't state that you need their permission to confron them. #1 doesn't jive with the scriptures either. The Bibles simply states that if you see your brother sinning, to confront them. But I do believe that # 4 and 5 are benificial. That is, if #5 is possible. Paul, many times, admonishes whole churches for their sins, and yet he is not there physically to help them, but he does pray for them.
feet, I should have said I'm in full agreement with you on 1, 4, & 5. 2 & 3 would be beneficial but not necessary.
feet, if all those who oppose homosexuality could own what?
feet, the Bible teaches that if we see a fellow Christian involved in sin were to go to them in love and lovingly confront them about their sin. It's not a matter of them asking us to come over and speak to them on this matter. Chances are people who are living in sin are not going to want anyone to come a discuss their sin problem if their even willing to acknowledge they have a sin problem.
ive been asked is it a loving thing to tell others about their sins.
ONLY if....................
(1) one feels clearly led by the spirit to do so.
(2) one is in fellowship with that person.
(3) one has been given permission by that person to comment about your witness of sin>
(4) one is committed to staying in fellowship with this person during his walk of dealing with it.
(5) one is committed to prayer before, during, and after this entire incident.
their desire is have the same rights as heterosexuals across the board and the freedom from being deluged by religous beliefs they have no interest in and that attempt to cast aspersions on them.
being treated equally in spite of what beliefs some person might have.......................you know..........seperation between church and state.
i have never had a problem with......."i believe that homosexuality is a sin. im totally ignorant of what it means to be gay. but that is my belief.
but........it has never stopped there.
can you imagine what the difference would be, if all those who believed homosexuality to be a sin could own this. particularly the ones who believe their freedom of speech has been or is being violated. and the ones who feel compelled to proselitize their beliefs at the expense of others.
feet, you have put the cart before the horse in that the sins of homosexuality are mainly being pointed out as a result of some in the homosexual community trying to force people to accept the sinful practices of homosexuality as both normal and worthy of legal recognition with regards to allowing same-sex marriages and/or unions.
feet, no one is denying she did wrong, no one is trying to be deceitful by trying to hide it, and no one is being delusional by making excuses for what she did.
feet, 2 Samuel 1:1, "The Lord sent Nathan to David.....". Sounds like Nathan really did not have a choice but to obey God or disobey God.
as far as the gloating goes isnt that what the proscelitizers, the ones who feel their rights are violated for not being to publically express their beliefs, are doing to those who are trying to live
descreet lives, who may happen to be gay.
"we know you are gay, and you need to know what we know about it being a sin whether you chose to want to listen or not..........................."
you keep obsessing about gloating. what about denial, deceit, and delusion?
so nathan really did overstep david's descretion. where was his gloating?
feet, not pointed out, if national media attention talking about her pregnancy isn't pointing out her sin what is?
feet, your original post was that why aren't Christians treating her the same way they do those who are wanting to justify the sexual practices of homosexuality. She sinned by having premarital sex, neither she nor her parents are condoning what she did and at the same time she is doing the right thing in having the baby and not aborting the baby. Trust me if either her or her parents would have come out with a cocky or in your face response to the matter the response to this would have been very different. And no I do not believe a homosexual cannot become a Christian and how you got that idea from my posts amazes me. What I said is if a person claims to be a Christian and willfully lives in sin or a sinful lifestyle and shows no desire to repent of that sin or sinful lifestyle and even brags and gloats about their sin or sinful lifestyle then that is a good indicator that they have not had a genuine conversion experience. In these cases the type of sin is not near as important as the response to the known sin in their life.
Well feet, that would mean they'd be undermining her mother, who is their new golden girl. Republicans are free of sin, its the democrats who enjoy killing fetuses then eating them in a bolognese sauce, sponsoring homosexual orgy fests, researching theories on creation, and, worst of all (gulp) trying to stop global warming!
it appears from your words that it is not the actual act that is a sin unless someone gloats about it.
or the sin should not be pointed out until someone starts gloating about it.
nathan overstepped david's descretion.
the point is that unwed pregnancy is evidence of sin according to those of this website. and nobody, nobody has breathed one word about it.
so what you are saying is that you cant be born again and be gay.
feet, as I said tap dancing does not suit you in any way. I said what I said, sin is sin no matter who commits it, what is more important is how a believer responds to the sin they commit, do they acknowledge it for what it is and confess and repent of it or do they try to justify and rationalize the sin and as I've shared even brag or gloat about it. The former is God's desire for how we should deal with sin and the latter is how many who profess to be Christians to include some in the homosexual community deal with their sin.
It is an old story. Becuase men burn in their lusts to obtain legitimacy within society, they blindly twist, cut, and reject large portions of the Holy Scriptures in an effort to justify their desires. When a Christian merely relates the truth of the Scriptures to such a one, the Christian is automatically branded as a "hater", intolerant, etc. Yet, it is acceptable in the eyes of the sinner to be intolerant of those who proclaims that their behavior is contrary to the Word of God. He who is not born of the water and the spirit is spiritually blind. he does not discern the truth of God, for he is carnal and dead in his sins. My Lord Jesus came to give men life, but if you desire eternal life, you must walk holy before God. To defile ones self in such a deviant lifestyle, regardless of what you profess with your lips, but with an unrepentant heart, will bring Gods perfect judgement upon the wicked and disobedient. Thats why sinful men are often referred to as "rams", for they are stiff necked, unrepentant, and in open rebellion against Gods Laws.
so what you are saying that if one sins with discretion it is really not a sin or a sin that needs to be pointed out.
feet, tap dancing does not suit you and your not very good at it either. There is a huge difference between committing sin as opposed to flaunting it as you and many others in the homosexual community do. All of us whether saved or not are sinners and we do continue to fall short and unfortunately we will continue to fall short until the day we go home to be with the Lord if we are truly saved and a child of God. But to brag or gloat about our sin as some do to include many in the homosexual community is totally different and for those in that group who claim to be Christians it is a good reason for them to really consider if they have had a genuine conversion experience since one of the true marks of a genuine believer is the hatred for sin and all that is associated with it. So if you don't want people getting in your face about your sinful lifestyle then don't get in our faces and gloat about your sinful lifestyle.
i hear mistake..................i hear no mention of sin.
do you suppose that palin was not sexually intimate with her husband prior to marriage and having done do considers herself to have sinned.
my understanding is that they started going together as seniors in high school but did not marry until she graduated from college.
another subject that demands coveted ignorance for the sake of politics.
feet, there's no need to since unlike many in the homosexual community she nor anyone else is condoning her behavior that led to the pregnancy. If she were to announce she had not sinned in having premarital sex, I am sure many beginning with her own parents would let her know her behavior was indeed wrong in the sight of God and if fact she sinned when she had premarital sex.
i find it so interesting that homosexual marriage is tearing down the fabric, of u.s. society and not a mother whose parenting skills have assisted in her teen having an unwanted pregnacy.
and are we to assume that there is no love for palin's daughter because no one has pointed out her sexual sin.
you keep attempting hypotheticals. this is totally meaningless. consider using a real life situation. perhaps like the one i just mentioned.
i can't imagine how this over-the-top embracing of palin and her daughter will do to the embracing of your sex outside of marriage is a sin understanding, and that the growing number of unwed mothers in the u.s. are tearing apart the fabric of your country.
this, particularly in the minds of your teen population.
feet, with regards to judgement you said the more concerned someone is about it the more the absence of love in them. So if I know a bridge is out down the road, it would be more loving of me to simply let vehicles go down that road without warning them that the bridge is out than to do all I can to warn them of the impending danger ahead. But isn't very interesting that Christ's first message was a one word message, "REPENT". How dare Him be so judgemental!
If I see a brother in sin, I am compelled by love to confront that brother and try to sway him from continuing in sin. That's love.
msnchris, its the highest form of perversion, really? Tell me, if a couple is married, is it then OK for them to get all kinky during sex and put on diapers and whips? If a couple is married and the husband forces his wife to have sex with him even if she does not want to (which is legally rape) is that sin since they are married? I have to say, your statement assumes a lot about how I have sex with my partner, which is quite honestly none of your business. I can tell you though, I have some married friends who have gotten much freakier in the bedroom than my partner and I would ever venture to. Does it make it OK since they're married?
i've heard the words of the accusers. there is not a scintilla of love in their words. they honor no ones life experiences. they walk in no one's shoes, they carry no ones burdens. they are totally, totally, ignorant of the life experience of being gay. they stand at a distance and point fingers, postulating accusations of sin. and then pride themselves in their ignorance.
why do they refuse to put any credence in the words of 1cor13 that anything without love is nothing and gains nothing?
why dont they desire to walkin the light and therefore invest themselves in fellowship?
and yes obsession with sin is about fear of punishment.
its as if the words of 1john 1 never existed.
Feetxxx,
Love the sinner, HATE THE SIN!
We are called as fellow believers to admonish and keep our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ accountable to the morals of God's holy Word.
Active homosexuals go directly against God's Word, and must be admonished. We are called to do it, so that they might be also saved in the end.
It is not about personal judgement of their actions, it is the judgement of God that we fear for them if they don't repent from their discordered actions.
Homosexual activity is disordered. God created love making to be fruitful, and homosexual activity can never be fruitful. It is the highest form of selfish and sinful activity towards another human. It perverts what we humans are suppose to be and how we are suppose to love one another.
all men are of christ because they were created thru his spirit and are deemed by god as very good.
the difference between believers and non believers is his living within us.
but here again among believers there are many who know his spirit but not his name. and because they have faith in that spirit he lives within them.
there are many who profess to know the spirit but dont and have no faith in it. neither do they do as commanded which is love.
there are many who think obsession with sin is about love.
it is not. its about punishment. rather than acknowledging the love in the lives of others they ridicule it because of the little that is in their own.
scitsonga said:
"no not sad, its called life, accept it for what it is, make the most out of it. i dont worry about so-called judgement day, i have no reason to beleive it exists, not too worried about it. dont think im goin to get the eternal torture treatment for "not believing" "
the degree that other believers are obsessed with the judgement day of themselves and others is directly proportional to the absence of love within.
" But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."
there are many who dont know his name but know his spirit, just as there are many who know his name but dont know his spirit.
hey believer, I did make some comments related to your post. Its too bad igh appointed him/herself information nazi and deleted the post. Anyway, I appreciate the time and thought you put into your post. However, as an agnostic, I really dont relate to what you posted. I just have no feelings towards religion or spiritual matters. I am a person of the here and now. If I cant see it, hear it, smell it or mesure it, either directly or indirectly, I dont relate to it. I appreciate your prayers, but honestly, you are wasting your time with me. I hope you have a good week.
i dont know what to say scitsonga and mike2685. You have been told more than is in your average encyclopedia. All i can do is pray now. Goodbye.
1Jn 1:5 Now the message that we have heard from his Son and announce is this: God is light, and there is no darkness at all in him.
1Jn 1:6 If, then, we say that we have fellowship with him, yet at the same time live in the darkness, we are lying both in our words and in our actions.
1Jn 1:7 But if we live in the light---just as he is in the light---then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from every sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us.
1Jn 1:9 But if we confess our sins to God, he will keep his promise and do what is right: he will forgive us our sins and purify us from all our wrongdoing.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make a liar out of God, and his word is not in us.
igh, just because I am gay does not mean I hate Jesus. Just the other day, I was praying for dear life that he'd help my plane arrive safely, and I will be doing it again tonight going back. When we landed, I thanked him for keeping me calm and getting me to my destination safely. Hmm, no hatred there!
scitasonga, I didn't get a chance to read your flagged post and wondered if you had responded to my post earlier at 1:51, Sun.?
igh ".............make sense?"
ANSWER, NO
i flagged ya because i wanted to make a point. If i make a mistake then should i be helped? Should i just be thrown out and start all over again with a 'new me' kinda thing? Should i be hated and scorned or should compassion fill yer heart?
You see God wanted all his Children to come home, thats why Jesus came to earth.
Now all who hate Jesus also hate the one who sent him. They have made there decisions to continue the Rebellion, with Satan, and hate God and try to pull him off his Throne.
With your logic then God should have made a new Adam and Eve and forgot all about Satan bringing them in REBELLION AGAINST HIM. Well God is a Just Judge and cannot do that, and must punish sin. So, God also made away for his Children to Say they are Sorry and be Born Again! That way is Faith in his Christ! Those who dont say they are sorry or repent are still in rebellion. make sense?
James 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
igh, thats OK you flagged me, I understand many people cant handle a counter view point. Thats why we do not live in a theocracy- keep religion out of government, the courts and the public schools. Its interesting though that how you christians are always pointing out how all of us are sinners (which I think means imperfect and flawed), so what I was more or less stating was what you christians say about the naure of man and "sin", you flag me. Seems illogical to me. But then agian, religion is not about logic.
FYI, as much as I dont not agree with you, I also oppose censorship, so I will never flag you or anyone else no matter how distasteful the posts might be.
Thanks for your comments believer, but it makes little sense to me. If there is a creator, I seriously doubt the creator is all caught up in the affairs of a little speck of life in a tiny solar systen contained in galaxy of billions of other suns in a universe containing billions of other galaxies. If the creator is as disatisfied with the creation on earth as christians claim, then as any designer would do, move on with an imporved version rather than encouraging man "to be fruitfull and multiply.."
I develop materials in the laboratory, when things dont go correctly, I redesign and improve the process/product rather than attemting to fix a bad design. I would think a creator (designer) would do the same thing. If we are all bad and "sinners", then this would suggest a serious design flaw. If the creator wanted something "perfect", then should have perhaps made robots.
danpaul
LOL........and you know the "eternal truths" of the universe and the "mind" of the creator.....I dont think so....
scitsonga, if it was simply about keeping or breaking rules then the Law would have been sufficient to save a person, but like the rich young ruler who kept the Law from his youth it's about attitude and relationship. He had allowed something to get between him and his relationship with God and he was so caught up in his wealth at that point and time in his life he was more willing to turn his back on God rather than give up his wealth. When you grew up didn't your parents have rules they expected you to follow and weren't there consequences for not following those rules? But, hopefully as a result of breaking those rules they never stopped being your parents and even more importantly they never stopped loving you. Two things to remember is that even though we might have had lousy parents who could care less about us, but God is the perfect Father, He knows exactly what we need and when we need it to include His discipline and a special dose of His loving presence. But because of sin we are separated from Him and out of His love for us and His desire to be our heavenly Father He sent His Son, Jesus to die on the Cross. And God says I have done all I can and will do so that you can become a child of Mine, now what you need to do is acknowledge that you are a sinner, be sorry for your sins, turn from your sins, and turn to Me by asking My Son Jesus to come into your life by putting your complete faith and trust in both Him and the work He accomplished on your behalf on the Cross at Calvary.
"what if you're wrong?"
The problem is when it comes to God you've got one chance to be right and 'all the bets are down' when you die. Everything is on the line. How you 'bet' on the right thing....
To believer, igh, Prophet.
I reposted hlerwin's comments. His post is describes some of my thoughts quite well. A big problem I have with Christians is this business of reward and punishment. Follow the rules and "believe" you get rewarded with eternal bliss. Break the rules and you get the eternal torture treatment. There is little logic is this, it seems to me its based more on fear rather than love. Perhaps not much different than living under a ictatorship. Is this really what Christianity is about- eternal bliss OR eternal punishment.
hlerwin:
"igh, can't you get your mind around the idea that scitsonga may really NOT be worried about it? Personally, I think some people are born with religious natures; some are not. You point of view is the same as the 20th century Soviets declaring, "If the West really understood Communism, they would all want to be Communists." This was not true about the West, and it is not true of everyone who does not accept every part of the Bible that you do.
And believer said, "scitsonga, but and here comes the age old question, what if you're wrong? You see if we're wrong you have nothing to lose."
This is not true, either. I consider my self a Christian, but if I joined the "real Christians," as so many on this site claim to be, I would become another judgemental worrier. I would become smug (because my group was "right"), and I would feel sorry for (and worry) about all those others who are going to hell. I would be living in a fallen world, careful not to be tainted by it. No thanks! I'll live in the happy, well-adjusted world I already inhabit. I'll leave the hand wringing up to those who, deep down, really enjoy doing that. "
hlerwin, when God sent His Son Jesus to die for the sins of the world so that we would not have to be eternally separated from Him in hell for all eternity, was He worried or concerned about the spiritual well being of every human being. I don't believe He was worried, but I definitely believe He was concerned and if He was and is concerned then how can we as His children do any less when it comes to other people to include scitsonga?
igh, can't you get your mind around the idea that scitsonga may really NOT be worried about it? Personally, I think some people are born with religious natures; some are not. You point of view is the same as the 20th century Soviets declaring, "If the West really understood Communism, they would all want to be Communists." This was not true about the West, and it is not true of everyone who does not accept every part of the Bible that you do.
And believer said, "scitsonga, but and here comes the age old question, what if you're wrong? You see if we're wrong you have nothing to lose."
This is not true, either. I consider my self a Christian, but if I joined the "real Christians," as so many on this site claim to be, I would become another judgemental worrier. I would become smug (because my group was "right"), and I would feel sorry for (and worry) about all those others who are going to hell. I would be living in a fallen world, careful not to be tainted by it. No thanks! I'll live in the happy, well-adjusted world I already inhabit. I'll leave the hand wringing up to those who, deep down, really enjoy doing that.
scitsonga said:
"no not sad, its called life, accept it for what it is, make the most out of it. i dont worry about so-called judgement day, i have no reason to beleive it exists, not too worried about it. dont think im goin to get the eternal torture treatment for "not believing" "
I think you are worried about it, you see the Holy Spirit is talking to you on sin and Repentance.
You know very well that all Creation speaks to you about God, His Sovereignty, His Power, His Throne, His Love. So you have no excuse, so stop fighting God! Please surrender, you will feel so much better when you do. :)
Father in the name of Jesus the Blessed Son, Please move on scitsonga and bring him to you, open there eyes and let them see how good you are, There are many here Lord that defy you openly, show them Truth and Love and Hope of Eternal life with you and Jesus. This will open there hearts , Amen.
scitsonga, but and here comes the age old question, what if you're wrong? You see if we're wrong you have nothing to lose, but if you are wrong you have everything to lose for the rest of eternity. And the neat thing about living the genuine Christian life is that it is a win-win situation. Spending your life wholeheartedly loving and serving both God and others can and should be a reward in itself, so even if were wrong our lives were not wasted or lived in vain, but in reality made a positive difference in the lives of people and the world we lived in.
"ignorance is bliss"
The Bible's version of that statement is "sin is fun for a season". It doesn't say how long that season is over. The bad part is that one day the 'season' will end. Then there will be no ignorance nor bliss for to many!
"every one of you refuse to make the differentiation between what scriptures say and WHAT YOU say scriptures say."
Now, now feetxxl... I have gone to the greek several times to the exact meaning of the words used. The problem is if your belief of what the Bible says is wrong then you're in big trouble! Therefore, it is we who must be wrong.
The Bible doesn't change for anyone. The Bible says God's opinion of homosexual behavior is it disgusts Him. That's just what it says.
To be fair...I have pastors who have a problem with me because I don't accept when they are not harmonutically correct. (I don't think I spelled that right.) Eventually, those who are interested in what the Bible actually has to say have to change what they think in the same way I have had to do.
Many of us have gone to quite a bit of work to find the words for you. I have to reference 4 different sources to make sure I have the right greek word being used. Yet, you say I'm not willing to change my view. You're right! I'm not going to call an apple an orange no matter what you want! Accept the Bible as written now or at judgement. That's just the way it is.
no not sad, its called life, accept it for what it is, make the most out of it. i dont worry about so-called judgement day, i have no reason to beleive it exists, not too worried about it. dont think im goin to get the eternal torture treatment for "not believing"
Wow. That's really sad.
But I used to be that way, too. But then I realized that one day when I stand before God, and face the judgement for the unforgiven sin I freely engaged in under the guise of "ignorance"...how much bliss will I be in then?
I discovered that when I face God and I say "I didn't know..." that God isn't going to say "Oh. Well, gee whiz, why didn't you just say that to begin with? You're okay then."
Because I do know, and pretending to be ignorant will not keep me from the judgement that would be waiting.
prophet, life is gamble, none of us had a choice to be put here, most of us try to make the most of it and find pleasure where we can and try not to hurt others in the process. ignorance is bliss.
I guess it's true what they say...ignorance is bliss.
prophet, "sin" is a state of mind, if you think something is a "sin" then your going to feel guilt for something that you perhaps enjoy and doesnt hurt others when done in moderation such as sex, gambling and drinking all of which I enjoy and engage in guilt free.
citsonga,
Therein lies the problem...
prophet "Homosexuality is a sin"
one persons sin is anothers pleasure such as gambling and cursing. i enjoy both.
Feet, you haven't answered my question yet.
every one of you refuse to make the differentiation between what scriptures say and WHAT YOU say scriptures say.
in your minds its all the same.
Feet,
It's clear that you have no desire to live up to anything resembling biblical standards, so I won't bother too much with you.
But I have this one question, what exactly do you mean by "because there is no testing, it has no witness, and is without reasoning of the scriptures?" Provide me with a clear explanation, for I want to know what exactly you mean by the loophole to God's word you have created for yourself.
Don't provide me with fluffy vague terms (like, 'we just love each other', or some other dumb excuse), give me a concrete, specific, clear outline of what you mean.
"I'm referring to literally wasting your time, energies, and talents on liberals and other Neanderthals who mock and the bible."
While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. It's always amazing to me that Christ would even give us a second look let alone come here, live here for 33 years just so that we could kill him.
Except for the grace of God I would be one of those who was not a believer (yet).
Daniel Paul, you said in reference to me . . ."My suggestion: leave these people to their own devices. God will take care of them! You can definitely count on that!" . . .
"The only problem with that is Christians have a stewardship to our country. Each of us has a vote. We are responsible for using it. If we don't it is like the man who buried his 'talent' in the ground."
I'm referring to literally wasting your time, energies, and talents on liberals and other Neanderthals who mock and the bible. I agree we're to be stewards of the Word. Remember the words of Christ:
"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." -- Matthew 10:14
"I'm very pleased to see that the majority in my state disapprove of homophobia."
They don't disapprove. Until it goes to a vote you don't know. You are making the assumption based on the survey. However, I could do a survey and come up with 90% of CA disapproves of homosexuality. It's all in how the poll is conducted and by who. Who was polled? Was it all Democrats? Was the poll done in San Fran? If I did the same poll in a conservative town in northern CA I would get very different results.
Homosexuality is a sin. In both the Old and New Testament it is such. So I don't know what the argument is about. Sin is sin. And to warn someone of their sin is not not loving their neighbor as themselves. The Bible tells us that if we see our brother sinning that we are to confront them.
Homosexual love is a twisted, perverted love. It is not of God. I care about those people caught in the lie and lifestyle. I love them as I love myself. I would not desire to live a life of sin myself, and I would not desire the same for any others.
you cannot be in Rebellion against God and his Christ and be Saved. Satan wants many to believe his manipulative lies and go out and deceive others. Yes Satan makes 'disciples' that go and preach his false doctrine.
2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
"Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame"
Those who trust believe that what the Bible says is trustworthy. You quote Paul yet disagree with him when he says homosexuality is wrong. Either the Bible is trustworthy or it's not. Either you trust or you don't. Either you obey or you don't trust. If you don't trust you're not saved.
"My suggestion: leave these people to their own devices. God will take care of them! You can definitely count on that!"
The only problem with that is Christians have a stewardship to our country. Each of us has a vote. We are responsible for using it. If we don't it is like the man who burried his 'talent' in the ground.
thank you for your words.
As a gay Californian, I'm very pleased to see that the majority in my state disapprove of homophobia. It's clear that homophobia is a sin and violates Christ's commandment to treat others as we want to be treated. (Even Scripture says revilers will not go to Heaven.) Despite the loud protests from those who refuse to let go of the anti-gay lifestyle, preventing others from marrying the person they love and protecting their family is NOT treating others as one wants to be treated. The Constitution should never be used as a vehicle to remove the civil rights from other law-abiding, taxpaying Americans. Once we vote to take civil rights away from gay Americans, who is next?
Homosexuality is a sin. In both the Old and New Testament it is such. So I don't know what the argument is about. Sin is sin. And to warn someone of their sin is not not loving their neighbor as themselves. The Bible tells us that if we see our brother sinning that we are to confront them.
Pinochos wrote: "Spoken like a true Satanist! Dude, you just validated my point. Thank you sir!"
Well, church lady, isn't that special!
How exactly do my remarks inform you that I am a Satanist? Some of you people are truly nuts.
"THAT IS AN OLD COVENANT RESPONSE TO A NEW COVENANT QUESTION."
Really feet? I didn't know that the Colossians verses that I posted talking about lust were in the OT. Fascinating...
Hierwin, you said:
"Lord, spare us from such Christianists!"
Spoken like a true Satanist! Dude, you just validated my point. Thank you sir!
Yo, feetxxxl! That's your problem 'you thought . . .'!
You need to examine the Scriptures for yourself to learn what's right and wrong. When you do you'll learn for yourself that everything I said was true.
Jesus was very empathic when he said in Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
He's speaking to those pseudo-Christians who cherry-pick their verses like "God is love!" and believes He condones the sinful actions of those who commit sexual immorality, murder unborn babies, teach our little children they evolved from an ape, etc.
When you liberals get the hint that God also doesn't condone your self-righteous behavior, and begin to fear Him more than you do anything else in the world, He might just open your hardened hearts to see the real light.
"Well, let it be known (we true Christians already know) that those who support the homosexual agenda, those who support women's right to abortion, those who support teaching evolution in our schools, those who support taking the name of God out of our congressional hallways, courtrooms, schools, public arenas, and off our money . . . they are not Christians. And for us to try to show them otherwise is a waste of time. God has seen to it that their hearts are hardened to what is true. They're in Satan's domain now.
My suggestion: leave these people to their own devices. God will take care of them! You can definitely count on that!"
Lord, spare us from such Christianists!
"how does homosexuality come against loving ones neighbor as oneself.
that's the question."
Because the Bible says it's lust. It's not love. Therefore, it could never be loving your neighbor to accept or participate in it.
THAT IS AN OLD COVENANT RESPONSE TO A NEW COVENANT QUESTION.
because there is no testing, it has no
witness, and is without reasoning of the scriptures
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said.......
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Well, let it be known (we true Christians already know) that those who support the homosexual agenda, those who support women's right to abortion, those who support teaching evolution in our schools, those who support taking the name of God out of our congressional hallways, courtrooms, schools, public arenas, and off our money . . . they are not Christians. And for us to try to show them otherwise is a waste of time. God has seen to it that their hearts are hardened to what is true. They're in Satan's domain now.
and i thought being a BELIEVER was about
"The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentileâ€â€the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]
Well, let it be known (we true Christians already know) that those who support the homosexual agenda, those who support women's right to abortion, those who support teaching evolution in our schools, those who support taking the name of God out of our congressional hallways, courtrooms, schools, public arenas, and off our money . . . they are not Christians. And for us to try to show them otherwise is a waste of time. God has seen to it that their hearts are hardened to what is true. They're in Satan's domain now.
My suggestion: leave these people to their own devices. God will take care of them! You can definitely count on that!
It will be interesting should the ban pass.... The pro-gay media is just trying to get it removed from the balot and use 'peer-pressure' to make people believe gay is OK.
CA go and vote. Stand up for what you believe.
"how does homosexuality come against loving ones neighbor as oneself.
that's the question."
Because the Bible says it's lust. It's not love. Therefore, it could never be loving your neighbor to accept or participate in it.
david and bathsheba..........either goggle or wikipedia.com
What exactly did David step in? I thought David was one of God's strongest believers. I'm sorry I haven't studied the OT that thoroughly yet and so I don't know every story by heart. Thanx guys. XD
californians now stand ready to reject the politics of hate and self-loathing that are the part and particle of christians today. the only hope of the christianists is that in the silence of the voting booth hate and fear will win. go in the name of god and let us have done with you.
if david had loved his neighbor as himself he would have never stepped in what he did.
paul says the law is for conscious(it is not negated and not dismissed), being conscious of loving ones neighbor as oneself which is the summation of all the law,( there is none greater)...............ergo,if david had loved his neighbor as himself he would have never stepped in what he did.
in living the 2nd commandment we fulfill the law, and in doing so live as christ.
and you able to respond to my comments because.........?
To Hlerwin:
You said: "That will preach, JC, but you can't base policies for a secular nation on these ideas"
Beloved, I'm not so concerned about nations as I am about individuals. Nations won't go to Heaven, individuals will. Which should I focus on then?
Btw...I deleted and reposted for a few error corrections. Sorry bout that.
Heh, feet, feet, feet. When will you learn? You're using the freedom of the laws an excuse to fulfill your evil desires. Let's see what Paul has to say about the law versus our worldly desires. He does not make new laws as you claim. No. He is merely telling us to stay away from desires such as these that keep us further from a relationship with God.
I really wish you would quit trying to confuse growing Christians that may still be struggling with the walk in Christ.
Colossians 2:20-23
You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, "Don't handle! Don't taste! Don't touch!"? Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person's evil desires.
Colossians 3:1-5
Since you have been raised to new life with Christ, set your sights on the realities of heaven, where Christ sits in the place of honor at God's right hand. Think about the things of heaven, not the things of earth. For you died to this life, and your real life is hidden with Christ in God. And when Christ, who is your life, is revealed to the whole world, you will share in all his glory. So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Don't be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world.
To Feetxxxl:
I agree with Shuck. And, by the way, so does God.
Jesus said "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17)
As I've said before, ShuckCreations, if it was still up to voters, my city would have white and colored water fountains.
"Yes it does Hlerwin. It proves that there is a difference between knowing God, and just knowing of God. One either has a personal relationship with Him, and knows His word, His intentions, His motives. Or, one just guesses, sways with the wind, and is easily misled."
That will preach, JC, but you can't base policies for a secular nation on these ideas.
no one knows what malebed means. therefore show me the logic that it means homosexual. explain how paul who said we died to the law, now live under grace, and are led by and serve of the spirit, would then turn around and either create a new law or affirm am old one by reemphasizing the laws of lev. for us to be led by.
how does homosexuality come against loving ones neighbor as oneself.
that's the question.
objective reason: give evidence about malebed that doesnt contradict the epistles,and explain: dying to the law, being led by the spirit and how homosexuality comes against the 2nd commandment.
To further what JC said:
homo - of the same thing
sexual - regarding sexual ACTS
homosexual - someone who has sexual relations with the another of the same sex
When you refer to two in a loving relationship I believe you are talking about agape love which has nothing to do with sex. If that's the case they are not homosexuals. Just thought I'd clear that up for ya. ;)
To Chicago24:
You said: "They all refer to ACTS between men of the same sex, not homosexuals."
Beloved, that argument invalidates itself. It doesn't even make any sense.
Paul was very clear here in this context. He was referring to two individuals of the same sex, participating in any kind of sexual affair. Whether they love each other or not, it is homosexuality.
Spin it anyway you want, it is still against God's word, and considered an abomination.
To Hlerwin:
You said: "Again, that's admirable, JC, but you cannot force everyone to live by the edicts of our religious scripture. Buddhist and Muslim injunctions have no authority over your life or mine. If citizens do not recognize the authority of the Bible, why should they have to follow its rules? To claim "God said it" proves nothing."
Yes it does Hlerwin. It proves that there is a difference between knowing God, and just knowing of God. One either has a personal relationship with Him, and knows His word, His intentions, His motives. Or, one just guesses, sways with the wind, and is easily misled.
JC; You've just proved my point by quoting all those translations. Take a look. They all refer to ACTS between men of the same sex, not homosexuals.
Also, each translation uses different terms to denote same-sex acts, thus indicating that the words Paul used for these specific sexual acts are pretty vague and nebulous; hardly grounds for claiming what God had in mind.
"i disagree. the death of protestantism has been long coming because their differences were merely socialogical and have nothing to do with the spirit and faith in christ. the spirit has made it evident that those differences existed for the sake of differences in human understanding not for anything that to do with the unity of the universal body of the one church. so like an unnecessary skin it is being shed for something new and life giving,
however, the need will always remain to be part of a relatively small body of believers with which to share in fellowship ones intimate relationship with christ and that this be allowed to grow thru years of community and to actively worship with the same, as a group in the unity of the spirit. "
i have no understanding of what you are saying without annotation. consider trying one or two verses at a time.
is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for heterosexuals only?
hlerwin,
First, there are many definitions of fantastic. I assume you're trying to impose the imaginary or radical one on me. There is also, however, the admirable or great definition which is what I'm referring to. Regardless that's not important, what I meant is very easily understood.
Second, I don't believe it's the Judges' job to proect the minority. We are a democracy, a country based on majority rule.
What's really interesting is that most liberals that don't stand on God's Word or believe in Christ, those that believe in humanism and secularism, always want to stand up for the little guy instead of fending for themselves. Affirmative action comes to mind. Would you really like to have a doctor that got hired because the hospital wasn't meeting their minority requirements or the one that was top of his class? For a belief that is rooted in survival of the fittest ways this kind of thinking baffles me...just food for thought.
Again, that's admirable, JC, but you cannot force everyone to live by the edicts of our religious scripture. Buddhist and Muslim injunctions have no authority over your life or mine. If citizens do not recognize the authority of the Bible, why should they have to follow its rules? To claim "God said it" proves nothing.
To Hlerwin:
Jesus said "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
In other words, just because the mass do something, doesn't make it justified before God. Lemmings follow each other to, but always to their death.
ShuckCreations, I don't think logicshouldprevail will take "Fantastically put logicshouldprevail. Couldn't have said it better myself!" as a compliment (though he will understand what you meant to say). Do you know the definition of "fantastic?"
But besides, I don't think the well-written comment was fantastic at all. It made a lot of sense. logicshouldprevail and I disagree on two points: 1) Judges must protect the minority from the majority and 2) homosexuality is already legitimatized (in California, Massachusetts, Canada, several European nations and, soon, everywhere).
To Chicago24:
Really? Let's look at other translations then:
NIV: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Amplified: Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
NLT: Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat peopleâ€â€none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.
ESV: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
CEV: Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom.
Your argument is weak Chicago24. It says what it says. You can choose to change it if you will, but you alone will answer for this. Attempting to justify your position among men has no effect on what God thinks.
feetxxxl:
You asked for evidence as to why the Mass. Court was wrong when they said that "there is no credible evidence as to why gays should not be allowed to marry?" I'll give you one: The Courts have no right to 'make' law unless a fundamental or quasi-fundamental right is at stake. Same-sex marriage does not meet these definitions as defined by the Courts. Therefore, the laws that were validly voted on and enacted by the people which banned same-sex marriage should stand. Also, why should I have to refute the Mass Court's reasoning? I could fire right back and say that there is no credible reason why gays SHOULD be allowed to marry and that you should refute that.
Further, with respect to your quoting of Romans 1, you quoted part of the chapter without continuing to the part where Paul condemns homosexuality. Note Paul does not limit his critique to same-sex marriage, he claims that homosexuality itself is a sin. You haphazard quoting of scripture suggests to me that (1) You really aren't even a Christian and are selectively choosing verses hoping that christians who aren't that versed in scripture will fall for it, and (2) Regardless of whether you are a Christian or not, you just haven't taken the time to read through the bible.
JC: That translation of 1st Corinthians you used is incredibly inaccurate. Paul never used any Greek word for 'homosexuals'. Paul was referring to those who committed a specific same-sex act that was prevalent in Corinth at the time.
Furthermore, this act to which Paul was referring is in no way related to a loving, committed relationship between two people of the same sex.
Apples and oranges. . .
To FeetXXXL:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1st Corinthians - 9 & 10.
There are more examples, would you like them?
We could debate this until the cows come home, but His Word says what it says. You can change it if you desire, but you answer to Him, not us. Not a position I would want to find myself in on that day!
in regards to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin. so far they have been unable or unwilling to engage in objective reason to show how scripture says what they say it says.
Fantastically put logicshouldprevail. Couldn't have said it better myself!
feetxxxl = false teacher
1 Timothy 4:1-2
Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. These people are hypocrites and liars, and their consciences are dead.
there has never been any evidence to show how gay marriage comes against the institution of marriage or would tear it down.
what was enacted was due solely on A BELIEF that it would.
"Thirdly, this whole gay marriage thing isn't about religion. It's about whether a handful of judges should be allowed to dictate the law or not. Obviously, if you want to make an argument that all laws banning gay marriage are religiously motivated, you would have to make a similar argument for laws banning murder, rape, etc. "
i disagree. it was mere logic and overwhelming evidence that enacted the law prohibiting murder. in contrast it is the absence of fact trumped by an unsubstantiated belief that has enacted the law against gay marriage.
where is the evidence that would counter the finding of the mass. supreme court decision?
the words of the mass. supreme court continue to ring louder and louder "there is no credible evidence why gays should no be allowed to marry"
this becomes evident more and more each day thru the spirit of romans1:20. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
that thru fellowship of daily living the 2 orientations are witnessing together what god has made. this is what accounts for the changes in the polls that continue to trend toward full acceptance of homosexuals as total equals to heterosexuals.
those who continue believe it is a sin have only the evidence of their belief which is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.
in absence of evidence they only have to offer their judgement of gays in the championing of their rights, and all those who chose to support them.
i wonder what would be the results, if a poll was taken of all believers, as to whether they would favor this country abandoning its belief in seperation of church and state?
hlerwin: Based on the way the 1st Amendment is interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, you are absolutely right in that a religion itself cannot be forced on people living in this country. However, tenants of a particular faith, irrespective of the religious nature of those tenants can be forced on people, if the people itself end up electing legislative officials who agree with those tenants. For example, while murder is a religious tenant, we can enact laws preventing murder to protect our country from harm.
With respect to gay marriage, the people of California voted to ban gay marriage in 2000. A statute was enacted enshrining this belief. Now, in 2008 a handful of non-elected state Supreme Court justices decided to strike down this validly enacted law because they found some implicit 'fundamental right' in their state constitution which in their opinion makes it a fundamental right for gays to be able to get married.
First, the Constitution (California or federal for that matter) does not mention gay marriage at all. Instead, these liberals judges decided to read into the due process clause and equal protection clause a fundamental right for gay marriage. A fundamental right has been defined by the U.S. Supreme to refer to long-standing and well accepted rights of people. Based on this interpretation, gay marriage doesn't stand a chance.
Secondly, we live in a democracy whereby the people vote in laws that reflect the majority rule. While the Courts may be leeway in striking down laws that discriminate against race, religion, and national origin, sexual orientation has never been recognized as falling into a one of these important classifications, and it shouldn't as it does not meet the definition of a fundamental right.
Thirdly, this whole gay marriage thing isn't about religion. It's about whether a handful of judges should be allowed to dictate the law or not. Obviously, if you want to make an argument that all laws banning gay marriage are religiously motivated, you would have to make a similar argument for laws banning murder, rape, etc. Further, while you may be apt to point out that homosexuality does not cause harm and therefore there is no secular reason for banning it, I would point out that liberalism is a slippery slope and that a line must be drawn in the sand to prevent morals and values from continuously decaying as we progress. If homosexuality is legalized it will become legitimatized. People run by worldly values will want more change. More difference. I assert if homosexuality is legalized that in fifty years, pedophiliacs will begin asserting their rights too.
"It is admirable, FreeInChrist, for you to live by the scripture in the Bible. I do that, too - but not to the point of absurdity...No matter what YOU believe, you cannot force these people to live by YOUR religious principles."
I do not seek to force anyone to live by what you refer to as my religious principles (you seem to overlook the fact that these not princples which I have invented, but rather are Biblical teachings), only to open the eyes of those willing to see the truth that is given to all who are seek honestly. The vote will determine what is considered legal, I only mean to point out that whatever term we apply, such unions will still be a sin in God's view. You will notice in my post that I do not demand a vote in either direction, only state that legalization has no value in determining eternal truths. I hope you will also understand that I do not intend to 'gloat' in any fashion, only to point to the God given truth. As for having my head in the sand, I refer to Chesterton, who said "The purpose of an open mind is the same as that of an open mouth - to close it again on something solid." I seek to have my head firmly planted in, and my mind closed upon, the truth of Christ; if you call that having your head in the sand, then I'll take it as a compliment.
"A majority of California voters oppose a ballot initiative"
Exactly how can that be a true statement unless they have asked all the CA voters. Oh, wait...it's a POLL!
FYI, AP is a liberal news organization.
"How can anyone have a constitutional right to something that that does not exist?"
How big a hole in the sand do you "Christians" have to stick your heads into? Marriage has always evolved, from the beginning of human existance. It is admirable, FreeInChrist, for you to live by the scripture in the Bible. I do that, too - but not to the point of absurdity. Other people (Americans, Californians, etc.) think the Bible is a big collection of irrelevant, old stories. No matter what YOU believe, you cannot force these people to live by YOUR religious principles. You may gloat that "they" will go to Hell, and you will go to Heaven, but our constitution is not based on the Bible, and we cannot create national policies according to one group's religion. I'm with StraightButNotNarrow on this one: The "Christian left" must speak up!
"The Bible tell's us with a doubt that God is opposed to homosexuality..."
I think you had it right the first time, artm, Freudian slip or not.
sorry for the type-o, should have been " without " a doubt.
I am always amazed at how little the Word of God matters in these cases. The Bible tell's us with a doubt that God is opposed to homosexuality, But that absolutely does not matter to many people.
But I must remind the posters here, That Romans 14 says, " We shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ."
"...their position on banning it could be explained by a hesitancy to remove a constitutional right..."
How can anyone have a constitutional right to something that that does not exist? How can anyone say, unions other than those between a man an a woman deserve to be recognized as that which is defined as a union between a man and a woman? The very idea is contradictory & self defeating. Call it what you like, whatever enjoyment is derived from such lunacy will turn to despair when those chasing this illusion find that the behavior they spent their life indulging was not a thing in and of itself, but merely a perversion of a God given gift.
Romans 1:32
"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
For those who read the above article and find themselves rejoicing, please take time to consider whether temporal pleasures are worth exchanging for eternity in the presence of our Heavenly Father. If you are still around to think it over, then it is not too late; please repent and recieve the salvation offered through Jesus Christ alone. Those who do the will of the Father, whatever the earthly cost, will receive their reward in due time.
The religious right is screaming "Let the People Vote", looks like the "people" might be leaning towards fairness and equality. A little time and education goes a long way.
It doesn't matter what the voters want, the government will do what it wants to anyway. Voting is a waste of time, especially in California, where godless liberalism is rampant.