If someone doesn't engage in sexual activity they are not sexual at all.
and you actually believe this?
why not?
now, are you sure you want to exchange those vouchers down at the Church school?
Vouchers have nothing to do with church or state, crabs we have been over this before. The voucher is given to the parents to spend as they see fit. There is no interaction between church and state.
If someone doesn't engage in sexual activity they are not sexual at all.
I beg to differ. Just last night I had a lustful thought about a man.
Mt 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. \09 THX,
So Susan, are you saying we're not supposed to judge anything?
When is it ok to judge and not judge?
It's easy for meaning to get lost in language, THX. The English word "judge" is very broad in its uses. When Jesus talked about judging (he used an Aramaic word), he illustrated it with examples of moraljudgments on others, the kind of judgment that places the judger above his neighbor in righteousness. He didn't say we can't guide our decisions via practical judgments or judge if a course of behaviour is wise or foolish, etc. He was speaking of a particular type of judging: moral judgments on others.
That we're to allow anarchy?
Anarchy means "no government," "no ruler." It has nothing to do with how we make moral judgments in our hearts. Jesus was here to bring us to God, not to establish a theocracy on earth. How we order our government is a different matter. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; render unto God what is God's."
That doesn't mean not to judge or have standards. I am sure you want it that way but that is not what is meant.
Are you sure that's how I want it?
Did he tell the harlot after the incident to go back and commit more sin?
He didn't judge her and he told the others not to judge her. Hard message to "get," is it, Jethro?
What is there to forgive if there isn't some action to judge?
We forgive those who have harmed us. But we can't "forgive" their sins. We don't have that kind of power, Jethro. We're not God.
Read the Bible and you can be assured that homosexuality is not condoned by God.
Read the Gospels and you can be assured that homosexuality is not what Jesus came here to talk about.
I asked: Would God deny you the right to a full life because you routinely engage in immoral behavior? You replied,
I believe God would deny eternal lifer to those that do so.
If that were the case, then none of us will have eternal life, Jethro.
I asked, "Where did he give you the right to deny homosexuals a normal life?" You replied,
They have a right to live. No one is talking execution here, although your ilk accuse conservatives of promoting that. But that does not mean that their behavior must be accepted.
Ah, but you regard allowing them to live normal lives as "accepting their behavior."
I said, "We're all sinners. We're all immoral. Homosexuals are no more immoral than anyone else." You replied,
Yes they are. They promote an immoral lifestyle. If they see the error of their ways and repent they can be saved.
I beg to differ: they are no more immoral than you or me. And they no more promote an immoral lifestyle than does our rampantly materialistic society. In fact, far less, from what I have seen.
Maybe you should humble yourself. Anyone can see that you believe you are superior. Let me tell you dear, you are not.
Jethro, I knowI'm a sinner. I know that if I'm saved, it is solely by the grace of God. I know I'm no better than anyone else, and that is why I do not purport to judge, exclude, and persecute others for the ways in which their sins happen to be different from my own.
I mean if you accept them you are accepting their behavior.
If I accept you does that mean I accept your behavior? I don't know anyone who's perfect, Jethro, but I accept most people.
Not everyone leads a life of sin and the promotion of sin.
Eh, I think we all lead lives of sin, Jethro. That's what Jesus meant by "let he who has never sinned cast the first stone." Every Sunday I confess that I sinned against God in thought, word, and deed, by what I have done and by what I have left undone. I have not loved my neighbor as myself. I have not loved God with my whole heart. And every Sunday, I realize all over again that yep, it's true.
If someone doesn't engage in sexual activity they are not sexual at all.
I beg to differ. Just last night I had a lustful thought about a man.
Are you a whore simply because you had a lustful dream?
The English word "judge" is very broad in its uses. When Jesus talked about judging (he used an Aramaic word), he illustrated it with examples of moral judgments on others, the kind of judgment that places the judger above his neighbor in righteousness. He didn't say we can't guide our decisions via practical judgments or judge if a course of behaviour is wise or foolish, etc. He was speaking of a particular type of judging: moral judgments on others.
I think it means that you'll be judged by the same standards you judge others.
Anarchy means "no government," "no ruler." It has nothing to do with how we make moral judgments in our hearts. Society cannot function without moral jusdgments. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
He didn't judge her and he told the others not to judge her. Hard message to "get," is it, Jethro?
Did he tell her to go and still be a harlot? Yes or no. If he didn't tell her to continue her ways she was judged.
We forgive those who have harmed us. But we can't "forgive" their sins. We don't have that kind of power, Jethro. We're not God.
But you have judged the action.
Read the Gospels and you can be assured that homosexuality is not what Jesus came here to talk about. He talked about sin and homosexuality was seen as a sin.
I believe God would deny eternal life to those that do so. If that were the case, then none of us will have eternal life, Jethro. You don't make a distinction for those that try to lead a moral life and those that pursue and promote an immoral life. As a good little liberal you see people at the mercy of the world with no will of their own.
Ah, but you regard allowing them to live normal lives as "accepting their behavior." What is a normal life? They can marry a person of the opposite sex and have a normal life. That would be just great.
I beg to differ: they are no more immoral than you or me. And they no more promote an immoral lifestyle than does our rampantly materialistic society. In fact, far less, from what I have seen. Homosexuals do promote an immoral lifestyle. And they want the entire society to accept their immoral behavior as normal.
If I accept you does that mean I accept your behavior? I don't know anyone who's perfect, Jethro, but I accept most people. If you accept someone then you accept their behavior and you are showing the rest of the world that you agree that that behavior is valid.
so, unless they are in the actual act of having sex, there are no men or women, just humans? That's an even more radically liberal way of thinking than even I am capable of.
Are you a whore simply because you had a lustful dream?
You didn't get the point. I said nothing about "whores." I was responding to your statement that those who do not engage in sexual activity are not sexual. I was trying to point out to you that "sexual" covers a lot more than physical activities. It permeates thoughts, dreams, feelings, etc. It's part of the whole person. You could force a gay man to have sex with a woman, but it would not make him any less homosexual. Rather, it would be as cruel and unnatural as forcing a straight man to have sex with another man. Homosexuals find the opposite sex sexually repugnant. Furthermore, they fall in love with members of their own sex. They have long term, loving, loyal, committed relationships. I've seen it, and believe it or not, it is as beautiful as deep, committed love between people of the opposite sex.
That you interpret sex to mean only a person's outward behavior has other implications as well, because it ignores intentionality, it overlooks the soul. You need to think about the difference between the outer and the inner person. Because it is the inner person to which (and about which) Jesus speaks.
I think it means that you'll be judged by the same standards you judge others.
I think he means what he says: don't judge them, period. Just as the outer/inner distinction is subtle, so is this. Jesus brought something new into the world; he was trying to show us how to change ourselves from within.
Part of that change is a humility and a fellow-feeling for others that does not make distinctions of good and bad or higher and lower. So rather than drawing up barriers, letting some people in and keeping others out, you drop the barriers and let everyone in. It's quite leveling, and for that reason, it is strange and frightening. But if you let it happen, it is also very peaceful and freeing for your spirit. It isn't easy to do, but it's worth trying -- maybe for just 10 minutes at a time.
He talked about sin and homosexuality was seen as a sin.
No, he hung out with sinners, he didn't judge them, and he told others not to either.
You don't make a distinction for those that try to lead a moral life and those that pursue and promote an immoral life. As a good little liberal you see people at the mercy of the world with no will of their own.
Again, the gays I know lead very moral lives, and not just passively moral but actively moral lives, giving to the poor, helping those who are less fortunate, taking care of the sick.
What is a normal life? They can marry a person of the opposite sex and have a normal life. That would be just great.
It wouldn't be a normal life for them. It would be a lie. This is a free country and they harm no one if they don't want to be with the opposite sex. They have as much right to sexual expression as you do. God cares more about whether they love him and love their neighbor than what they do with their sex organs. Believe it or not, God cares much more about what's in our hearts than what's in our underpants. It's humans who are hung up on sex.
Homosexuals do promote an immoral lifestyle. And they want the entire society to accept their immoral behavior as normal.
No, they want to be free from persecution. Believe me, Jethro, persecuting them is MAJOR sinning.
If you accept someone then you accept their behavior and you are showing the rest of the world that you agree that that behavior is valid.
Nonsense. When Jesus said to love your neighbor, he didn't say to judge them to be worthy of your love before doing so. He said: love them. Just do it.
67 posts and not once did crabs answer a question straight up. He did however answer a question with a question 9 times. Take it and him for what it's worth.
Oh I get the point. Your point is that since everyone sins it is okay to sin. You misinterpret the Bible to assuage your guilt and others. But the the truth is that people should judge others by their actions.
Matthew 18:
[15] "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
[16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
I was responding to your statement that those who do not engage in sexual activity are not sexual. I satnd by my statement. If one does not engage is sex one is not sexual. Of course, they may have desires but if no action is taken there is no sex.I was trying to point out to you that "sexual" covers a lot more than physical activities. That is you definition.You could force a gay man to have sex with a woman, but it would not make him any less homosexual. If he does not engage in homosexual acts he is not homosexual. The act itself is definitive.Rather, it would be as cruel and unnatural as forcing a straight man to have sex with another man. It would be much more cruel. The person that would do so may be condemned by God.
Matthew 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Homosexuals find the opposite sex sexually repugnant. Furthermore, they fall in love with members of their own sex. They have long term, loving, loyal, committed relationships. I've seen it, and believe it or not, it is as beautiful as deep, committed love between people of the opposite sex.
You have accepted the sin. That is your choice.
That you interpret sex to mean only a person's outward behavior has other implications as well, because it ignores intentionality, it overlooks the soul. You need to think about the difference between the outer and the inner person. Because it is the inner person to which (and about which) Jesus speaks.
God knows that people think sinful thoughts. But if one commits the sin and does not repent they are lost.
my comment: I think it means that you'll be judged by the same standards you judge others.
your response: I think he means what he says: don't judge them, period.
Well then you are wrong. Again see Matthew 18:
[15] "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
[16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Part of that change is a humility and a fellow-feeling for others that does not make distinctions of good and bad or higher and lower.
Again you are wrong. Sin must be recognized for what it is and an attempt must be made to overcome it. See Luke 17:
[1] And he said to his disciples, "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!
[2] It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
[3] Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him;
[4] and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, `I repent,' you must forgive him."
So rather than drawing up barriers, letting some people in and keeping others out, you drop the barriers and let everyone in. That, my dear, is not Christianity. They must be willing to repent their sins not revel in them.It's quite leveling, and for that reason, it is strange and frightening. No it is absurd.
He talked about sin and homosexuality was seen as a sin.
No, he hung out with sinners, he didn't judge them, and he told others not to either.
Again you are totally wrong. See Luke 17:
[3] Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him;
So Christ expected judgment. He expected it because you are your brothers keeper and he expects you to help your brother find his way. Christ did not want you to accept the sin in yourself or others.
Again, the gays I know lead very moral lives, and not just passively moral but actively moral lives, giving to the poor, helping those who are less fortunate, taking care of the sick.
By being gay and not repenting they are living in sin. But, moreover, the are promoting it.
This is a free country and they harm no one if they don't want to be with the opposite sex. No one is saying that they must marry.They have as much right to sexual expression as you do. Homosexuality is sinful. Now they can choose to commit that sin but do not be part of the group foisting sin on others or you will be lost.God cares more about whether they love him and love their neighbor than what they do with their sex organs. I know you want to ignore the sin. I know it can be hard to follow the Christian teaching, but you are not even trying. You have capitulated to the evil. But, of course, there is still time.
my comment: Homosexuals do promote an immoral lifestyle. And they want the entire society to accept their immoral behavior as normal.
your response: No, they want to be free from persecution. Believe me, Jethro, persecuting them is MAJOR sinning.
It is not persecution to point out their sin. And yes they do want their sinful behavior to be accepted as proper behavior.
my comment: If you accept someone then you accept their behavior and you are showing the rest of the world that you agree that that behavior is valid.
your response: Nonsense. When Jesus said to love your neighbor, he didn't say to judge them to be worthy of your love before doing so. He said: love them. Just do it.
He said in Luke 17:3 "Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him;" So it is clear the sin must be condemned.
Christians need to be in government and need to lead by example. It is need because of people like you, crabs.
You need to make laws based on Religion because of people like me? You want to outlaw me, don't you bodine?
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg. - Thom Jefferson
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.... - Thom Jefferson
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. - Thom Jefferson
"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abe Lincoln
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear" - Thom Jefferson
"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abe Lincoln
Well what do you expect from a guy that waged war on a nation that was seeking independence!
Parents have sued a school district in suburban Dayton, Ohio after a kindergarten teacher stopped their daughter from distributing bags of jellybeans with an attached prayer to her classmates, reports the Dayton Daily News.
Allen and Sheila Wuebben of Kettering say the school would not allow their daughter to hand out Easter treats to her classmates at Orchard Park Elementary School because of the attached religious message.
School Superintendent Robert Mengerink defended the decision, saying the kids are too impressionable. "My concern is, Can a kindergarten child discern the difference between a friend's opinion about religion and that it wasn't coming from the school or the teacher?" he said.
Can a kindergartnen child discern between a school superintendent and a moron?
you have heard of freeom of speech, haven't you? Now I have always argued that the first amendment doesn't apply to the states or school boards. But, of course, the US Supreme Court says otherwise. That being the case, is it to much to expect that it should be applied to all equally? I guess it is.
so, you would be okay with it if a kid hands out the Satanic Verse in school...I see
No. But if you are going to apply the first amendment to the states and the schools well you oughta be fair.
Freedom of speech is fine, but does that mean a kid can talk in class while the teacher is teaching?
The two are not comparble and you know it. One is time and place restricition the other is content based. But I know you have trouble making distintions. Think about it.
I'm pretty sure bodine's had uncharitable thoughts towards me.
so, then you aren't a hetrosexual, you just behave as one? If someone doesn't engage in sexual activity they are not sexual at all.
if you were to behave in a homosexual manner, it would make you a homosexual? If you stick it in a man, crabs, I would say you are homosexual.
So Susan, are you saying we're not supposed to judge anything?
That we're to allow anarchy?
When is it ok to judge and not judge?
...what does this say to bodine, someone who lives in a capitalistic society?
Jesus was upset because they were doing it in the Temple, not just because they were money changers.
and you actually believe this?
so, that's your definition of a homosexual?
so, even Jesus was for the separation of Church and State.
now, are you sure you want to exchange those vouchers down at the Church school?
Before there can be forgiveness there must be judgment.
In fact he did pass judgment on the money changers.
and besides...what does this say to bodine, someone who lives in a capitalistic society?
You are one sorry dumb shit. You lump every thing together and make no distinctions about anything.
If someone doesn't engage in sexual activity they are not sexual at all.
and you actually believe this?
why not?
now, are you sure you want to exchange those vouchers down at the Church school?
Vouchers have nothing to do with church or state, crabs we have been over this before. The voucher is given to the parents to spend as they see fit. There is no interaction between church and state.
Jethro,
I beg to differ. Just last night I had a lustful thought about a man.
Mt 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. \09 THX,
It's easy for meaning to get lost in language, THX. The English word "judge" is very broad in its uses. When Jesus talked about judging (he used an Aramaic word), he illustrated it with examples of moraljudgments on others, the kind of judgment that places the judger above his neighbor in righteousness. He didn't say we can't guide our decisions via practical judgments or judge if a course of behaviour is wise or foolish, etc. He was speaking of a particular type of judging: moral judgments on others.
Anarchy means "no government," "no ruler." It has nothing to do with how we make moral judgments in our hearts. Jesus was here to bring us to God, not to establish a theocracy on earth. How we order our government is a different matter. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; render unto God what is God's."
humans are sexual creatures, regardless of their behavior.
it's part of what we are, not of what we do.
Are you sure that's how I want it?
He didn't judge her and he told the others not to judge her. Hard message to "get," is it, Jethro?
We forgive those who have harmed us. But we can't "forgive" their sins. We don't have that kind of power, Jethro. We're not God.
Read the Gospels and you can be assured that homosexuality is not what Jesus came here to talk about.
I asked: Would God deny you the right to a full life because you routinely engage in immoral behavior? You replied,
If that were the case, then none of us will have eternal life, Jethro.
I asked, "Where did he give you the right to deny homosexuals a normal life?" You replied,
Ah, but you regard allowing them to live normal lives as "accepting their behavior."
I beg to differ: they are no more immoral than you or me. And they no more promote an immoral lifestyle than does our rampantly materialistic society. In fact, far less, from what I have seen.
Jethro, I knowI'm a sinner. I know that if I'm saved, it is solely by the grace of God. I know I'm no better than anyone else, and that is why I do not purport to judge, exclude, and persecute others for the ways in which their sins happen to be different from my own.
If I accept you does that mean I accept your behavior? I don't know anyone who's perfect, Jethro, but I accept most people.
Eh, I think we all lead lives of sin, Jethro. That's what Jesus meant by "let he who has never sinned cast the first stone." Every Sunday I confess that I sinned against God in thought, word, and deed, by what I have done and by what I have left undone. I have not loved my neighbor as myself. I have not loved God with my whole heart. And every Sunday, I realize all over again that yep, it's true.
If someone doesn't engage in sexual activity they are not sexual at all.
I beg to differ. Just last night I had a lustful thought about a man.
Are you a whore simply because you had a lustful dream?
The English word "judge" is very broad in its uses. When Jesus talked about judging (he used an Aramaic word), he illustrated it with examples of moral judgments on others, the kind of judgment that places the judger above his neighbor in righteousness. He didn't say we can't guide our decisions via practical judgments or judge if a course of behaviour is wise or foolish, etc. He was speaking of a particular type of judging: moral judgments on others.
I think it means that you'll be judged by the same standards you judge others.
Anarchy means "no government," "no ruler." It has nothing to do with how we make moral judgments in our hearts. Society cannot function without moral jusdgments. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
humans are sexual creatures, regardless of their behavior.
it's part of what we are, not of what we do.
If you do not engage in sex you are not sexual.
He didn't judge her and he told the others not to judge her. Hard message to "get," is it, Jethro?
Did he tell her to go and still be a harlot? Yes or no. If he didn't tell her to continue her ways she was judged.
We forgive those who have harmed us. But we can't "forgive" their sins. We don't have that kind of power, Jethro. We're not God.
But you have judged the action.
Read the Gospels and you can be assured that homosexuality is not what Jesus came here to talk about. He talked about sin and homosexuality was seen as a sin.
I believe God would deny eternal life to those that do so. If that were the case, then none of us will have eternal life, Jethro. You don't make a distinction for those that try to lead a moral life and those that pursue and promote an immoral life. As a good little liberal you see people at the mercy of the world with no will of their own.
Ah, but you regard allowing them to live normal lives as "accepting their behavior." What is a normal life? They can marry a person of the opposite sex and have a normal life. That would be just great.
I beg to differ: they are no more immoral than you or me. And they no more promote an immoral lifestyle than does our rampantly materialistic society. In fact, far less, from what I have seen. Homosexuals do promote an immoral lifestyle. And they want the entire society to accept their immoral behavior as normal.
If I accept you does that mean I accept your behavior? I don't know anyone who's perfect, Jethro, but I accept most people. If you accept someone then you accept their behavior and you are showing the rest of the world that you agree that that behavior is valid.
well, perhaps you aren't, but the fact is, human beings are by their very nature sexual beings.
that you deny this simple fact explains a lot
so, unless they are in the actual act of having sex, there are no men or women, just humans? That's an even more radically liberal way of thinking than even I am capable of.
You didn't get the point. I said nothing about "whores." I was responding to your statement that those who do not engage in sexual activity are not sexual. I was trying to point out to you that "sexual" covers a lot more than physical activities. It permeates thoughts, dreams, feelings, etc. It's part of the whole person. You could force a gay man to have sex with a woman, but it would not make him any less homosexual. Rather, it would be as cruel and unnatural as forcing a straight man to have sex with another man. Homosexuals find the opposite sex sexually repugnant. Furthermore, they fall in love with members of their own sex. They have long term, loving, loyal, committed relationships. I've seen it, and believe it or not, it is as beautiful as deep, committed love between people of the opposite sex.
That you interpret sex to mean only a person's outward behavior has other implications as well, because it ignores intentionality, it overlooks the soul. You need to think about the difference between the outer and the inner person. Because it is the inner person to which (and about which) Jesus speaks.
I think he means what he says: don't judge them, period. Just as the outer/inner distinction is subtle, so is this. Jesus brought something new into the world; he was trying to show us how to change ourselves from within.
Part of that change is a humility and a fellow-feeling for others that does not make distinctions of good and bad or higher and lower. So rather than drawing up barriers, letting some people in and keeping others out, you drop the barriers and let everyone in. It's quite leveling, and for that reason, it is strange and frightening. But if you let it happen, it is also very peaceful and freeing for your spirit. It isn't easy to do, but it's worth trying -- maybe for just 10 minutes at a time.
No, he hung out with sinners, he didn't judge them, and he told others not to either.
Again, the gays I know lead very moral lives, and not just passively moral but actively moral lives, giving to the poor, helping those who are less fortunate, taking care of the sick.
It wouldn't be a normal life for them. It would be a lie. This is a free country and they harm no one if they don't want to be with the opposite sex. They have as much right to sexual expression as you do. God cares more about whether they love him and love their neighbor than what they do with their sex organs. Believe it or not, God cares much more about what's in our hearts than what's in our underpants. It's humans who are hung up on sex.
No, they want to be free from persecution. Believe me, Jethro, persecuting them is MAJOR sinning.
Nonsense. When Jesus said to love your neighbor, he didn't say to judge them to be worthy of your love before doing so. He said: love them. Just do it.
it's Religion that is hung up on sex.
I've always found this odd...they follow a creed that we are here to reproduce, but sex is a sin.
It's weird.
67 posts and not once did crabs answer a question straight up. He did however answer a question with a question 9 times. Take it and him for what it's worth.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" Torpedo-8
You didn't get the point.
Oh I get the point. Your point is that since everyone sins it is okay to sin. You misinterpret the Bible to assuage your guilt and others. But the the truth is that people should judge others by their actions.
I was responding to your statement that those who do not engage in sexual activity are not sexual. I satnd by my statement. If one does not engage is sex one is not sexual. Of course, they may have desires but if no action is taken there is no sex.I was trying to point out to you that "sexual" covers a lot more than physical activities. That is you definition.You could force a gay man to have sex with a woman, but it would not make him any less homosexual. If he does not engage in homosexual acts he is not homosexual. The act itself is definitive.Rather, it would be as cruel and unnatural as forcing a straight man to have sex with another man. It would be much more cruel. The person that would do so may be condemned by God.
Homosexuals find the opposite sex sexually repugnant. Furthermore, they fall in love with members of their own sex. They have long term, loving, loyal, committed relationships. I've seen it, and believe it or not, it is as beautiful as deep, committed love between people of the opposite sex.
You have accepted the sin. That is your choice.
That you interpret sex to mean only a person's outward behavior has other implications as well, because it ignores intentionality, it overlooks the soul. You need to think about the difference between the outer and the inner person. Because it is the inner person to which (and about which) Jesus speaks.
God knows that people think sinful thoughts. But if one commits the sin and does not repent they are lost.
my comment: I think it means that you'll be judged by the same standards you judge others.
your response: I think he means what he says: don't judge them, period.
Well then you are wrong. Again see Matthew 18:
Jesus brought something new into the world; he was trying to show us how to change ourselves from within.
But you don't want to change. From your statements you want to accept the sin.
Part of that change is a humility and a fellow-feeling for others that does not make distinctions of good and bad or higher and lower.
Again you are wrong. Sin must be recognized for what it is and an attempt must be made to overcome it. See Luke 17:
that is just about the stupidest thing I have ever read.
uh...she wasn't talking about the act. She was only talking about love and a commited relationship.
is a deep love and commited relationship between two people of the same sex a sin? Or can you only see "the act"?
of course all of this is based on the Bible.
please keep your Religion out of our government.
do it for Thom Jefferson
So rather than drawing up barriers, letting some people in and keeping others out, you drop the barriers and let everyone in. That, my dear, is not Christianity. They must be willing to repent their sins not revel in them.It's quite leveling, and for that reason, it is strange and frightening. No it is absurd.
He talked about sin and homosexuality was seen as a sin.
No, he hung out with sinners, he didn't judge them, and he told others not to either.
Again you are totally wrong. See Luke 17:
So Christ expected judgment. He expected it because you are your brothers keeper and he expects you to help your brother find his way. Christ did not want you to accept the sin in yourself or others.
Again, the gays I know lead very moral lives, and not just passively moral but actively moral lives, giving to the poor, helping those who are less fortunate, taking care of the sick.
By being gay and not repenting they are living in sin. But, moreover, the are promoting it.
This is a free country and they harm no one if they don't want to be with the opposite sex. No one is saying that they must marry.They have as much right to sexual expression as you do. Homosexuality is sinful. Now they can choose to commit that sin but do not be part of the group foisting sin on others or you will be lost.God cares more about whether they love him and love their neighbor than what they do with their sex organs. I know you want to ignore the sin. I know it can be hard to follow the Christian teaching, but you are not even trying. You have capitulated to the evil. But, of course, there is still time.
my comment: Homosexuals do promote an immoral lifestyle. And they want the entire society to accept their immoral behavior as normal.
your response: No, they want to be free from persecution. Believe me, Jethro, persecuting them is MAJOR sinning.
It is not persecution to point out their sin. And yes they do want their sinful behavior to be accepted as proper behavior.
my comment: If you accept someone then you accept their behavior and you are showing the rest of the world that you agree that that behavior is valid.
your response: Nonsense. When Jesus said to love your neighbor, he didn't say to judge them to be worthy of your love before doing so. He said: love them. Just do it.
He said in Luke 17:3 "Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him;" So it is clear the sin must be condemned.
susan: It's humans who are hung up on sex.
crabs: it's Religion that is hung up on sex.
No it is adolescents or those that are immature that are "hung up" on sex.
crabs: I've always found this odd...they follow a creed that we are here to reproduce, but sex is a sin. It's weird.
That is because you misunderstand. Sex is not a sin.
is a deep love and commited relationship between two people of the same sex a sin? Or can you only see "the act"?
homosexual behavior is a sin.
please keep your Religion out of our government.
do it for Thom Jefferson
Christians need to be in government and need to lead by example. It is need because of people like you, crabs.
You need to make laws based on Religion because of people like me? You want to outlaw me, don't you bodine?
now tell me bodine, how am I injuring you?
You need to make laws based on Religion because of people like me? That isn't what I said. What you need is good role models to follow.
You want to outlaw me, don't you bodine? Well I think you are doing a pretty good job of that, at least when it comes to the Kingdom of Heaven!
From those quotes, I can see that Thom didn't quite get Christianity, either.
and America can thank God for that!
you know who else didn't quite get Christianity?
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense." - Robert A. Heinlein
And Heinlein didn't get it.
"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abe Lincoln
Well what do you expect from a guy that waged war on a nation that was seeking independence!
invented nonsense
"There's a sucker born every minute." - David Hannum (often misattributed to P.T. Barnum)
a nation?
Parents have sued a school district in suburban Dayton, Ohio after a kindergarten teacher stopped their daughter from distributing bags of jellybeans with an attached prayer to her classmates, reports the Dayton Daily News.
Allen and Sheila Wuebben of Kettering say the school would not allow their daughter to hand out Easter treats to her classmates at Orchard Park Elementary School because of the attached religious message.
School Superintendent Robert Mengerink defended the decision, saying the kids are too impressionable. "My concern is, Can a kindergarten child discern the difference between a friend's opinion about religion and that it wasn't coming from the school or the teacher?" he said.
Can a kindergartnen child discern between a school superintendent and a moron?
so, you would be okay if a kid hands out the Satanic Verse to your kid in school?
you have heard of freeom of speech, haven't you? Now I have always argued that the first amendment doesn't apply to the states or school boards. But, of course, the US Supreme Court says otherwise. That being the case, is it to much to expect that it should be applied to all equally? I guess it is.
so, you would be okay with it if a kid hands out the Satanic Verse in school...I see
Freedom of speech is fine, but does that mean a kid can talk in class while the teacher is teaching?
let the kid exercise her free speech on her own time.
so, you would be okay with it if a kid hands out the Satanic Verse in school...I see
No. But if you are going to apply the first amendment to the states and the schools well you oughta be fair.
Freedom of speech is fine, but does that mean a kid can talk in class while the teacher is teaching?
The two are not comparble and you know it. One is time and place restricition the other is content based. But I know you have trouble making distintions. Think about it.
I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows. - Susan B. Anthony
Distrust those that actually read the Bible? A tinge of bigotry, crabs?
no...they are both time and place issues.
I don't want kids to be passing out any literature to anyone in school.
so, you think it's okay to pass out God pamphlets but you don't want Satan pamphlets but you want to be fair?