Christians - what is your opinion about homosexuality?

[miplank]

Lololololololo

 

[ceo]

It does concern me that Afeedz was so vocal on this thread, considering Timothy 2:12 -- I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.

If I'm going to the trouble of explaining all this to her, the least she can do is listen.
And yes, I'm kidding. If you immediately clicked "Quote" and were mad, then I win!!!!

 

[cindylou]

no one but you does. Except Annie. Or someone else. certainly not a non-believer.

I was being obnoxious with javaguru. That wasn't wasn't what I meant to anyone else. I know him. lol There are rules to understanding though. What is the context? Also, the bible wasn't written to all the same people. It's obvious. You can complain about that all day long but that is just the way it is. That's why you think you're being clever when you pull up a verse from Matthew and compare it to something Paul said or commpare it to the OT. You're comparing apples to pineapples and it appears that it is conflicting but it's not.

 

[javaguru]

Christianity is actually government-neutral, which contributed to it's early success in Rome and surrounding governments (after they stopped persecuting Christians, of course).

Judaism evolved as an anti-government effort, which is why it was perpetually beaten-up by other governments.

Islam started similarly to Judaism, with a struggle. But the catch there is that Mohammad actually won. So while they all started similarly (similar lore, similar timeframe, monotheistic), all three had distinctly different postures toward the government.

Without going into detail about how you are wrong historically ...all religions have played a role in governance of their respective societies...you need to send a memo to the RNC.


Just sayin...

We can disagree about abortion but exactly how does allowing two adults of the same sex to marry harm anyone? It's purely a judeo christian argument that opposes same sex marriage.

Southern slave owners used the curse of ham to justify slavery and the 3/5 rule was included in the constitution.

Claiming Christianity is governance neutral is being disingenuous.

 

[ceo]

I was being obnoxious with javaguru. That wasn't wasn't what I meant to anyone else. I know him. lol There are rules to understanding though. What is the context? Also, the bible wasn't written to all the same people. It's obvious. You can complain about that all day long but that is just the way it is. That's why you think you're being clever when you pull up a verse from Matthew and compare it to something Paul said or commpare it to the OT. You're comparing apples to pineapples and it appears that it is conflicting but it's not.

I don't know anything anyway.

 

[DJLegacy2k1]

Im white

 

[mrplunkey]

Without going into detail about how you are wrong historically ...all religions have played a role in governance of their respective societies...you need to send a memo to the RNC.

Nice use of "played a role"... If that's the case, so did tobacco, shipbuilding, telecommunications and every other influence that "played a role".

Luke 20:25 -- He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

 

[EarthRider]

java, you bring up such great points that, I think I just don't care about

I will be praying for your ass in church today, lol

 

[AFeedz]

lol...it's not a contradiction Feedz. The 2nd chapter is simply a more in depth explanation of the creation events. Thats all. They were not created at the same moment. The 2nd chapter states that clearly!

lol @ Genesis 2 just being an in depth version of Genesis 1. That's funny, because the order in which things were created in 2, is different than the order in which they were created in 1. Just sayin...sounds contradictory to me.

 

[AFeedz]

Matthew 19:9-12

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Yet someone who does not qualify as an elder under the New Testament church because he has only had one wife ever can still qualify as a deacon, as long as he is committed to his current wife. And deacons are considered a higher station than an ordinary member in good standing of the New Testament church.

But if divorced/remarried people are adulterers, then the church obviously sanctions adultery. I guess all those Christian married men can commit adultery as they please. Matthew 19:9 is obviously Jesus' way of telling us that adultery is acceptable now.

It sounds to me like that's an argument for divorce/remarrying to be acceptable, not adultery in the form of sex outside marriage. This is that thing you do again, where the Bible says something about one form of an act, and you transfer it to all other types of that action. That's not what it says.