Christianity and Homosexuality

If you are not going to answer any questions I pose we can simply end this conversation.

I was explaining to you why I called it child rape, not that the Bible called it child rape. Women & girls were viewed as less than so it would have been impossible to rape them in your religion.

 

Totally unsupported.

 

• Ephesians 5:22-24 ...wives should submit to their husbands etc.
• 1 Timothy 2:11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent etc.
• 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 ...women should remain silent in the churches (and following).
• 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man (and following).
• Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
• Peter 3:1-6 Wives in the same way be submissive to your husbands (and following).
• Titus 2: 4-5 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands so that no one will malign the word of God.

Maybe these were just mistranslated and be corrected on future versions when men edit the words to “update” them like they did with boys to men. What do you think?

 

Okay, so nothing to do with permitting rape. Got it.

 

As long as she “resisted” it was a punishment by stoning, if she didn’t resist enough though... Deuteronomy...

I will take that as your white flag seeing that you are skipping posts and deleting parts of others I will take it as the white flag.

If this was you destroying me I would hate to see what a normal discussion is...

 

What part of Deuteronomy?

Which posts have I 'skipped' exactly?

 

And once again, I'm the last man standing!

 

You have totally failed to make ANY point and have refused to answer even the most direct of questions.

And, it looks to me like you are rolling on the ground.

 

Below are three replies from me, to posts of yours whichever contained precisely ZERO questions. Clearly you were simply just OVERWHELMED by my triple reply, and were simply unable to respond:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-homosexuality.551905/page-13#post-1072608390

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-homosexuality.551905/page-13#post-1072608391

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-homosexuality.551905/page-13#post-1072608393

 

The point was that you don't answer any serious question that anyone EVER askes you.

You just keep on spamming as if nothing happened.

I'm not inclined to answer that kind of nonsense over and over again.

 

This is between you and I. It has nothing to do with other people. Pretending that it does, is quite convenient for you, because it gives you an excuse to pull out of debate! Anyway, good to see that you clearly admit that Matthew 25 is TOTALLY irrelevant to this discussion on homosexuality, given that you haven't brought it up again! I don't expect that you'll be able to reply to this, but I guess I'll see you around.

 

IF..... there is any truth to my theory that near death experience accounts are a major part of the fulfillment of the promise in John chapter sixteen verse twenty five........

.... "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father."

.... Then.... the following simple message to a near death experiencer gives us something to discuss further.

The Christians that I know generally live by this basic idea of trying their best to not look down on anybody even if their philosophies and standards are very different from their own. Generally.... Christians do tend to try to not judge because they have a pretty good idea that they could fall into the same thought and behaviour patterns as anybody that they know..... far more easily than they might tend to imagine.

 

They are Christians within their organization. But, according to Romans Chapter 1, they are committing vile sins if they are acting upon their carnal appetites. And, mocking God along with it. Just because a person believes they are homosexuals doesn't mean they have sinned. Unless they are day dreaming about intimate sexual relations with another of either sex, they aren't committing any sin. I know of many homosexuals that keep their baptismal covenants to not engage in vile sins. They have not sinned.

 

Sorry dude, I'll stick to the scriptures and the Prophet of God. That explanation has no resemblance of true doctrine. God the Father is not both male and female. He's male. And, his wife is female. The two lights? Sounds more like a bunch of Taoism philosophy mumble jumbo. Why in the world would an angel show two personages going at it in bed? :-/~ I reject this so-called vision and place it in the same as Satan showing Christ his glory and that he could give all glory to Christ. The same nonsense Emmanuel David was shown by Satan in the Temple because David took an evil heart into the Temple with him.
To address how we as Christians should be have, you first must define "Love" that Jesus was stating. When he saved the prostitute from the crowd that wanted to stone her, he said to her, "go, AND SIN NO MORE." The key here is to know what is sin and NOT DO IT. That's how the Lord showed his love to the woman. Saved her from the hypocrite sinners but then taught her to stop her acts of sin as well. The act of love therefore is two-fold. Show kindness and come to the aid of someone who needs help. But, then also teach the Gospel and challenge the sinner to stop sinning. Not stand around and let them keep sinning.
Does this mean we have to go to every gay bar and preach? No. But, we cannot support those who sin and who teach contrary to the laws and commandments of Jesus Christ.
So, I reject this so-called prophet you follow. His visions were not from God.

 

Are you making a distinction between sin, and VILE sin?

 

God's WIFE?

 

What kind of "unnatural acts?"

So do you consider non-procreative sex immoral?

Can't heterosexuals go from "moral behaviour" to "instinctual behaviour?" And presumably you mean specifically immoral instinctual behaviour.

 

Yes...Romans Chapter 1, "26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And 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...31 Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:"

 

Yes...I've a mother in Heaven. To have physical or spiritual children requires a man and a woman.

 

Cougarbear: Human beings are not insects or animals that are guided by instinctual behavior. We have a moral compass called "The Light of Christ." This guides all humans to know good or evil. The light can be smothered out and extinguished by gross vile sins and continuous evil. Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden and knew not each other. Only until they were given knowledge of good and evil were the taught how to procreate. They were given the correct way and commanded to keep the commandments. We learn the same way through knowledge passed down from parents to children and also by our environment.

 

It's all SIN at the end of the day though isn't it?

 

WTF? Where is God's wife mentioned in the Bible?

 

There are different levels of Church. There is a difference between being a bit lazy in your prayers and murder. There is a difference between getting cross with your spouse and physically abusing your spouse. There is a difference between being impatient and taking part in vile homosexual sins. All must be repented of which includes paying restitution. Tough to do with vile affections upon another whether they allow it or not.

 

Do you think the Bible is complete? There are missing writings and whole books. Christ said that all his words could not be contained in all the books ever written. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. totally illogical. As I've said, not even in latter-day scripture is it mentioned. But, truth is reason, truth is eternal, I've a mother in heaven. Anything else makes reason stare. Most of all, since the Father is male, where did females come from? A mother. Logically and reasonable.