Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Madeline]

How do those who do believe in the concept of sin measure their own sins against others ?

My sins are 'as' grave or 'worse' than any you have committed. The Lord feels each sin, it does not matter the order. Each 'sin' is a sin.

I am not asking anyone, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN THE LORD, to declare that my 'sin' is not a sin (give me their blessing to continue sinning).

That is the problem Christians have with LGBT activists: they have no authority to forgive sins, they have no authority to declare something different from the Lord, yet they do on a regular basis. They want the entire Christian population to "support" their sin (which would make those that did, equally, accountable to the Lord).

Rather than accept that they are "choosing" to sin, they work on silencing those that see their actions with clear eyes. They use the educational and judicial systems to 'corrupt' society without looking into the future to see the results.

So what awaits those who treat GLBT people with dignity? (Before death...I'm sure you think we're all going to Hell.)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Extrapolating modern assessments onto ancient texts absent contemporary norms is one of the most common mistakes. It was quite normal for girls to begin pro-creating soon after they were biologically able which explains why they raped Lot after Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed.

Hearing someone who projects modern, homoerotic interpretations onto Biblical passages railing about "extrapolating modern assessments onto ancient texts" just makes me giggle. Pot, meet kettle.

You giggle because that is what kids do.

It's also what people do when listening to a pompous, bloviating hypocrite.

 

[del]

Hearing someone who projects modern, homoerotic interpretations onto Biblical passages railing about "extrapolating modern assessments onto ancient texts" just makes me giggle. Pot, meet kettle.

You giggle because that is what kids do.

It's also what people do when listening to a pompous, bloviating hypocrite.

that would explain why you both make me giggle.

thanks for clearing that up.

 

[CurveLight]

I (that is me) said it was about sin. You said that homosexuality had nothing to do with it. I pointed out your error. Explain to me how men of Sodom coming to someone's door and demanding the "male" visitors for sexual purposes has nothing to do with "homosexuality".

Back to the commodity thing; virgins were wanted for:
childbearing
sexual purity (she was not pregnant with another's child)
alliances

If the husband did not "consumate" the marriage, it was over. The dowry was a big part, but the father did not offer a dowry to what he considered "losers", he offered the dowry to a man that he thought would provide for his daughter (and by extension, himself), and would be a good provider/protector (depending on the times).

So your statement about virgin daughters not being "used" for childbearing is ludicrous. That was the main purpose of marriage: to have children to build one family and at the same time, unite two other families.

No wonder you think five years is a monumental period for LGBTs to be married, you simply pretend history isn't as it is printed.

Do you think they used "ships" for land travel, too?

You really really seriously need to learn how to read. I never said virgins are not used for childbearing you dumbass. I also never said or implied five years is a "monumental period" for gays to be married. I have little patience for dumbfucks like you who cannot read. What I said is since gay marriage has existed for..........fuck it. I'm not re-writing what you ignored the first time.

I'm also sick of repeating the fact it was not only "men" that showed up at Lot's door. Read the text you dumbfuck. It says men and women, young and old, descended on Lot's home. That means everyone. This is such a waste of time with dishonest idiots like you.

No, you never said that. You implied that there was no value to the sex with virgins.
You did give 5 years as a great example of homosexual marriage not destroying society (after I asked you to provide one).
Every version I have read of Lot's story says "men". Can you provide me the version, chapter and verse of where it says "men and women"?
If it 'meant' everyone, why didn't the visitors just leave after blinding the 'whole town' (since they were at Lot's house)?

You are calling me dishonest, but offer no proof of dishonesty, just nasty names (I guess to show off that great intellect).

All I have asked you to do, is back up your statements.......

You tried to use "virgin" to make sex the focus point so I explained for that culture the importance of virginity was seen as a commodity. You're trying to read the narrative through modern American eyes instead of studying the text in an appropriate socio-historical context. Hell, even if sex had a role then homosexuality would not have been it. What would it have been? Rape.

Now on to the other part......

English Standard Version (©2001)
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of
Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the
people from every quarter;

King James Bible
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

American King James Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

American Standard Version
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

There are five translations saying "all the people." Want another five more?

 

[CurveLight]

Hearing someone who projects modern, homoerotic interpretations onto Biblical passages railing about "extrapolating modern assessments onto ancient texts" just makes me giggle. Pot, meet kettle.

You giggle because that is what kids do.

It's also what people do when listening to a pompous, bloviating hypocrite.

At least you know when you are so far out of your league all you do is whine and repeat oreilly terms.

 

[CurveLight]

Hearing someone who projects modern, homoerotic interpretations onto Biblical passages railing about "extrapolating modern assessments onto ancient texts" just makes me giggle. Pot, meet kettle.

You giggle because that is what kids do.

It's also what people do when listening to a pompous, bloviating hypocrite.

You giggle because that is what kids do.

It's also what people do when listening to a pompous, bloviating hypocrite.

that would explain why you both make me giggle.

thanks for clearing that up.

Maybe you could explain why you are such a whiny troll.

 

[del]

You giggle because that is what kids do.

It's also what people do when listening to a pompous, bloviating hypocrite.

It's also what people do when listening to a pompous, bloviating hypocrite.

that would explain why you both make me giggle.

thanks for clearing that up.

Maybe you could explain why you are such a whiny troll.

there you go again, making me giggle

 

[bodecea]

How do those who do believe in the concept of sin measure their own sins against others ?

My sins are 'as' grave or 'worse' than any you have committed. The Lord feels each sin, it does not matter the order. Each 'sin' is a sin.

I am not asking anyone, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN THE LORD, to declare that my 'sin' is not a sin (give me their blessing to continue sinning).

That is the problem Christians have with LGBT activists: they have no authority to forgive sins, they have no authority to declare something different from the Lord, yet they do on a regular basis. They want the entire Christian population to "support" their sin (which would make those that did, equally, accountable to the Lord).

Rather than accept that they are "choosing" to sin, they work on silencing those that see their actions with clear eyes. They use the educational and judicial systems to 'corrupt' society without looking into the future to see the results.

How do you define us wanting you to "support" our "sin"?

By letting us live? By letting us walk around free? By letting us have equal rights?

 

[bodecea]

Listened to a guy on KFI today going on and on about how having sperm donations was a worse threat to morality and the family than any gay marriage. I loved it...nothing like bringing infertile families onto our side against those who would legislate their own version of morality onto the rest of us.

Yes, with the new health care legislation, I, along with others will be paying the bill for fertilization clinics, the aborting of the 'extra children', and all the hospitalization required for that 'choice'. Way to "legislate their own version of morality " on the taxpayer.

Were you aware that fertilization clinics are first and foremost created for infertile heterosexual couples? And that the vast majority who use such clinics are heterosexuals?

Are you in favor of making such clinics illegal?

 

[CurveLight]

It's also what people do when listening to a pompous, bloviating hypocrite.

that would explain why you both make me giggle.

thanks for clearing that up.

Maybe you could explain why you are such a whiny troll.

there you go again, making me giggle

You're correct. It was stoopid of me to think a whiny troll would be honest.

 

[DiveCon]

the "middle-east" didn't exist until about the 8th century ce

really???

 

[DiveCon]

Maybe you could explain why you are such a whiny troll.

there you go again, making me giggle

You're correct. It was stoopid of me to think a whiny troll would be honest.

exactly, you are NEVER honest

 

[logical4u]

The "middle-east" didn't exist until about the 8th century CE so how did "ME customs" exist so many hundreds of years prior? You give a typical dance and ignore the scripture to write your own. The dudes got naked, made a covenant with each other and kissed all alone in a field. You may also ignore Ruth and Naomi's relationship at your leisure.

Have you figured out yet why S+G had nothing to do with homosexuality?

Where does it say they were naked, at the same time, in the same place? Where does it say they had homosexual sex? Where does the Lord praise homosexual acts?

In the instances where two people had sex, there is clear reference: he knew his wife, or he had relations with her, etc. You, again, are being deceitful. You make strong statements, I ask you to back it up, and you go totally limp?????
Where is your evidence? Your three phases are from three different chapters and are out of context. If the Lord was sooo pleased with Johnathan, why did he die a short while after his betrayal to the king? Doesn't the Lord promise his favorites to have descendents as numerous as the stars in the sky or the sand on the beach?

Third time: give the written examples (chapter and verse) of where the Lord praises homosexual acts.

The issue of homosexuality is not nearly as cut and dry as you want people to believe. You accuse me of being "deceitful" while you try to claim homosexuality was a central issue in the destruction of S+G. As for John and David, you have to be kidding. You cannot seriously read the relevent texts and conclude they were simply good buddies. You tried to dismiss their kissing as a "middle eastern custom" until I pointed out the ME did not exist until several centuries after they made their own historic brokeback mountain.

Let me get this straight:
when I say that "lewd, perverse, or immoral behavior" includes homosexual acts, you tell me that it didn't say "homosexual", so that doesn't count (even though the apostles went into greater detail on this, and called it sinful)
when I say the destruction of "S+G" was about "sin", you tell me I said it was about homosexuality, and go on to say it had nothing to do with homosexuality

when you say there is nothing about homosexuals in "S+G" and I ask you how men demanding male visitors from Lot to 'know' (engage in sex) can be anything, but, homosexual, you tell me that there were women there too.

when I ask you where it says that (after receiving so tongue lashing from you), you want me to "interpret" the Bible

when I ask you to show 'specifically' where it demonstrates David and Jonathan had homosexual sex, again you tell me that I must 'interpret' the Bible

So, where my examples are very clear to the point that only one 'coveting homosexuality' (like a marijaunna smoker defends the drug) would not agree they demonstrated the Bible refers to homosexuality as 'sin', your examples are words that are chapters apart and re-arranged to twist the meaning of the story.

As for the middle east: it was there in Biblical times, the traditions, the methods of survival were very similar as they are today, throughout most of the middle east (with the exception of cities). Because the names were different, doesn't mean it didn't exist. This is another example of your siezing the most insignificant points to try and give yourself some credibility.

If you want to be credible, back up your statements:
give the chapter and verse of where the Lord praises homosexual acts
give the chapter and verse that says David and Johnathan had 'relations, knew each other, begat, used each, etc'.
I would even be impressed if you could:
give the chapter and verse where the Lord declares homosexual acts not sinful

If you want to tell me it is hidden again, then give me the secret code that lets homosexual activists "know" that is what the story is about, and what is hidden and what isn't.

Otherwise, it appears you are twisting facts and making your own version of history.

 

[logical4u]

How do those who do believe in the concept of sin measure their own sins against others ?

My sins are 'as' grave or 'worse' than any you have committed. The Lord feels each sin, it does not matter the order. Each 'sin' is a sin.

I am not asking anyone, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN THE LORD, to declare that my 'sin' is not a sin (give me their blessing to continue sinning).

That is the problem Christians have with LGBT activists: they have no authority to forgive sins, they have no authority to declare something different from the Lord, yet they do on a regular basis. They want the entire Christian population to "support" their sin (which would make those that did, equally, accountable to the Lord).

Rather than accept that they are "choosing" to sin, they work on silencing those that see their actions with clear eyes. They use the educational and judicial systems to 'corrupt' society without looking into the future to see the results.

So what awaits those who treat GLBT people with dignity? (Before death...I'm sure you think we're all going to Hell.)

Do you consider dignity honesty or appeasement?

 

[logical4u]

How do those who do believe in the concept of sin measure their own sins against others ?

My sins are 'as' grave or 'worse' than any you have committed. The Lord feels each sin, it does not matter the order. Each 'sin' is a sin.

I am not asking anyone, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN THE LORD, to declare that my 'sin' is not a sin (give me their blessing to continue sinning).

That is the problem Christians have with LGBT activists: they have no authority to forgive sins, they have no authority to declare something different from the Lord, yet they do on a regular basis. They want the entire Christian population to "support" their sin (which would make those that did, equally, accountable to the Lord).

Rather than accept that they are "choosing" to sin, they work on silencing those that see their actions with clear eyes. They use the educational and judicial systems to 'corrupt' society without looking into the future to see the results.

How do you define us wanting you to "support" our "sin"?

By letting us live? By letting us walk around free? By letting us have equal rights?

Do you have a different set of laws than I do?
There is no movement afoot to kill homosexuals in this country (Christians would want you to live long enough to find the Lord's grace and be forgiven so you could help the rest of us get to heaven thru your prayers).
There is no movement to stop homosexuals from going anywhere the public goes. The military is a different story (and if the Wiiki link guy is an example, it will be even harder for homosexuals to 'prove' their 'military integrity')
Your 'Bill of Rights' is my 'Bill of Rights'. You can marry a person of the opposite sex if you meet the qualifications: you are not currently married, the other person agrees to marry you, etc.

Homosexual activists have decided 'the same' isn't good enough. They want a special status (like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum). IF, the homosexual activists are appeased, what wacko group will be appeased next: beastiality groups, polygamous groups, people that want to marry their sibings, etc?

It will set a precedent that if you whine, you will get your way, no matter what it costs.

If I tell you that your sin is not a sin, or 'let you' use a radical minority to corrupt children into thinking that homosexuality is not a sin and breaks none of the Commandments, then I am supporting your lifestyle. If my tax dollars are used to pay for one patient that knowingly participated in homosexual acts and got aids, then I am supporting your lifestyle. If my tax dollars go to give homosexuals a special status, then I am supporting their sin.
Our president and the mayor are declaring the mosque in NYC about 'practicing' their religion (BTW those people believe in killing homosexuals). If they are supporting that, why are they so against Christians 'practicing' theirs?

 

[logical4u]

Listened to a guy on KFI today going on and on about how having sperm donations was a worse threat to morality and the family than any gay marriage. I loved it...nothing like bringing infertile families onto our side against those who would legislate their own version of morality onto the rest of us.

Yes, with the new health care legislation, I, along with others will be paying the bill for fertilization clinics, the aborting of the 'extra children', and all the hospitalization required for that 'choice'. Way to "legislate their own version of morality " on the taxpayer.

Were you aware that fertilization clinics are first and foremost created for infertile heterosexual couples? And that the vast majority who use such clinics are heterosexuals?

Are you in favor of making such clinics illegal?

I don't beieve in making ANYTHING illegal that cannot be enforced.
Yes, I was aware the clinics were used by heterosexual couples. I still feel that I should not be required to pay for their 'fertility treatments'. I also feel that if the doctor is implanting so many eggs that the children 'have to' be aborted for the health of the unmurdered, I should not be required to pay for that, either.

 

[bodecea]

My sins are 'as' grave or 'worse' than any you have committed. The Lord feels each sin, it does not matter the order. Each 'sin' is a sin.

I am not asking anyone, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN THE LORD, to declare that my 'sin' is not a sin (give me their blessing to continue sinning).

That is the problem Christians have with LGBT activists: they have no authority to forgive sins, they have no authority to declare something different from the Lord, yet they do on a regular basis. They want the entire Christian population to "support" their sin (which would make those that did, equally, accountable to the Lord).

Rather than accept that they are "choosing" to sin, they work on silencing those that see their actions with clear eyes. They use the educational and judicial systems to 'corrupt' society without looking into the future to see the results.

How do you define us wanting you to "support" our "sin"?

By letting us live? By letting us walk around free? By letting us have equal rights?

Do you have a different set of laws than I do?
There is no movement afoot to kill homosexuals in this country (Christians would want you to live long enough to find the Lord's grace and be forgiven so you could help the rest of us get to heaven thru your prayers).

At this time...thanks to secular law.

There is no movement to stop homosexuals from going anywhere the public goes. The military is a different story (and if the Wiiki link guy is an example, it will be even harder for homosexuals to 'prove' their 'military integrity')

At this time...thanks to secular law.

Your 'Bill of Rights' is my 'Bill of Rights'. You can marry a person of the opposite sex if you meet the qualifications: you are not currently married, the other person agrees to marry you, etc.

So, you think so little of marriage that you encourage me to marry some man I have NO desire for? How successful are those kinds of marriages?

Homosexual activists have decided 'the same' isn't good enough. They want a special status (like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum). IF, the homosexual activists are appeased, what wacko group will be appeased next: beastiality groups, polygamous groups, people that want to marry their sibings, etc?

Why do you lie like that? Can't you see how obvious that lie is? We want equal rights...nothing more nor less than hetero couples have.

It will set a precedent that if you whine, you will get your way, no matter what it costs.

And....you realize that NO discriminated group in the history of civilization has gotten their freedom or their equal rights without their so-called "whining", right?

If I tell you that your sin is not a sin, or 'let you' use a radical minority to corrupt children into thinking that homosexuality is not a sin and breaks none of the Commandments, then I am supporting your lifestyle.

You can call it sin all you want...just like some of you call divorce sin...but how come you actively try to keep us from our equal rights while you are NOT doing the same for divorced people.....? Seems to me, you are rather selective in which sins you want to do more than "call" sins.

If my tax dollars are used to pay for one patient that knowingly participated in homosexual acts and got aids, then I am supporting your lifestyle.

And our tax dollars are always paying for people whose lifestyles we disapprove of...that is called the General Welfare. Are you sure you want to go there? IF you do...you open the door for others to start picking and chosing where their tax dollars go...such as war, or roads in far away towns that no one cares about...or the rights of weirdo Christian sects.

If my tax dollars go to give homosexuals a special status, then I am supporting their sin.

That's no more a "special status" than my tax dollars going to pay for someone who smokes themselves to ill health or eats themselves to ill health or drinks themselves to ill health.....how come you aren't complaining about THEIR sinfulness and how you don't want to be "supporting" their sins? I know why.

Our president and the mayor are declaring the mosque in NYC about 'practicing' their religion (BTW those people believe in killing homosexuals). If they are supporting that, why are they so against Christians 'practicing' theirs?

"Those people" can no more kill homosexuals in this country than you Christians can....they only can get away with it in countries where their religion has taken over the secular government...like Iran....and Uganda.

And will you kindly show me where our President and the Mayor of NYC are against Christians 'practicing' their religion???? I really want to see evidence of that being true instead of another lie.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, with the new health care legislation, I, along with others will be paying the bill for fertilization clinics, the aborting of the 'extra children', and all the hospitalization required for that 'choice'. Way to "legislate their own version of morality " on the taxpayer.

Were you aware that fertilization clinics are first and foremost created for infertile heterosexual couples? And that the vast majority who use such clinics are heterosexuals?

Are you in favor of making such clinics illegal?

I don't beieve in making ANYTHING illegal that cannot be enforced.
Yes, I was aware the clinics were used by heterosexual couples. I still feel that I should not be required to pay for their 'fertility treatments'. I also feel that if the doctor is implanting so many eggs that the children 'have to' be aborted for the health of the unmurdered, I should not be required to pay for that, either.

Actually, I don't believe you...making fertility clinics illegal could be easily enforced.

What you mean to say, IMO, is that you don't believe in holding heteros to the same standards you want to hold homos to.

 

[logical4u]

Were you aware that fertilization clinics are first and foremost created for infertile heterosexual couples? And that the vast majority who use such clinics are heterosexuals?

Are you in favor of making such clinics illegal?

I don't beieve in making ANYTHING illegal that cannot be enforced.
Yes, I was aware the clinics were used by heterosexual couples. I still feel that I should not be required to pay for their 'fertility treatments'. I also feel that if the doctor is implanting so many eggs that the children 'have to' be aborted for the health of the unmurdered, I should not be required to pay for that, either.

Actually, I don't believe you...making fertility clinics illegal could be easily enforced.

What you mean to say, IMO, is that you don't believe in holding heteros to the same standards you want to hold homos to.

Funny, I didn't recall saying tax monies to the fertility clinic monies should be given to any 'group'. I said, that I don't believe that I should have to pay for someone else's fertility treatments. I don't care if they are red, white, or blue, or black, brown, yellow, or ten. I don't care if they are Buddhist, muslim, Christian, Jewish or Wiccan. I don't care if they are married in the tradditional manner or signed locktight contract that they will support each other for all eternity. I do not care if they are not married. I should not have to pay for their fertility treatment.

I don't get to control the upbringing of the child, my dollars should not be used to make the child or support them. My dollars should go to my children, FIRST, not after someone else's.

 

[logical4u]

How do you define us wanting you to "support" our "sin"?

By letting us live? By letting us walk around free? By letting us have equal rights?

Do you have a different set of laws than I do?
There is no movement afoot to kill homosexuals in this country (Christians would want you to live long enough to find the Lord's grace and be forgiven so you could help the rest of us get to heaven thru your prayers).

At this time...thanks to secular law.



At this time...thanks to secular law.



So, you think so little of marriage that you encourage me to marry some man I have NO desire for? How successful are those kinds of marriages?




Why do you lie like that? Can't you see how obvious that lie is? We want equal rights...nothing more nor less than hetero couples have.



And....you realize that NO discriminated group in the history of civilization has gotten their freedom or their equal rights without their so-called "whining", right?



You can call it sin all you want...just like some of you call divorce sin...but how come you actively try to keep us from our equal rights while you are NOT doing the same for divorced people.....? Seems to me, you are rather selective in which sins you want to do more than "call" sins.



And our tax dollars are always paying for people whose lifestyles we disapprove of...that is called the General Welfare. Are you sure you want to go there? IF you do...you open the door for others to start picking and chosing where their tax dollars go...such as war, or roads in far away towns that no one cares about...or the rights of weirdo Christian sects.

If my tax dollars go to give homosexuals a special status, then I am supporting their sin.

That's no more a "special status" than my tax dollars going to pay for someone who smokes themselves to ill health or eats themselves to ill health or drinks themselves to ill health.....how come you aren't complaining about THEIR sinfulness and how you don't want to be "supporting" their sins? I know why.

Our president and the mayor are declaring the mosque in NYC about 'practicing' their religion (BTW those people believe in killing homosexuals). If they are supporting that, why are they so against Christians 'practicing' theirs?

"Those people" can no more kill homosexuals in this country than you Christians can....they only can get away with it in countries where their religion has taken over the secular government...like Iran....and Uganda.

And will you kindly show me where our President and the Mayor of NYC are against Christians 'practicing' their religion???? I really want to see evidence of that being true instead of another lie.

Please list these laws that are so different for you.

BTW, where do you think "secular" laws originate?

I did not say that you "had" to marry. That is not a right. I said if you met the qualifications you "could" marry. You are the pessimist, telling me you won't be happy.....

Are divorced people running around trying to force people not to say what they did was wrong? Most divorced people I know are emotionally crushed, and very much ashamed their marriage did not work. Most recognize they could have done better, worked harder, made a better selection in the first place. They are not telling people they are not sinning.

So you are telling me the welfare roles are not large enough? We have to include people that claim to be perfectly willing to be up-standing tax-paying citizens (the homosexual activists), and yet you want to throw them on the welfare roles?

If our taxes support the killing of unborn CHILDREN, it is against our religion. It is forcing our resources to be used against our beliefs. If Christians are being denied the right to speak under the 'hate crimes laws' (not because they are being hateful, but because homosexual activists are trying to silence all oposition), that is against our religion; it is prohibiting our freedom.

Teachers tell our children every day that the Biblical story of creation is WRONG; they have no proof, the story they use is truthful. They use man made processes to prove what man said they would be. That is against our religion.