gays

Quote from peilthetraveler:

.... homosexuals try to convince us that its not wrong. ... If there was a large group of people that had incest and tried to convince christians that there was nothing wrong with it, we would be having big fights about it too. ...
More...

It is a spirit of mockery ... parading and glorying in their shame ... enemies of the cross.
Lying against the truth ... Deceived in their own conscience.


Phil 3:18-19

For there are many, ... who live as enemies of the cross of Christ. ...
They are doomed and their fate is eternal misery;
their god is their appetites, their sensuality and
they glory in their shame, siding with earthly things ...


Keeping it real.
 
Bonus truth to help clear things up a bit


Rom 1:26-32

For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions.
For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,

And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--
men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the
inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing,
God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome,

Until they were filled (permeated and saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, iniquity, grasping and
covetous greed, and malice. [They were] full of envy and jealousy, murder, strife, deceit and treachery,
ill will and cruel ways. [They were] secret backbiters and gossipers,

Slanderers, hateful to and hating God, full of insolence, arrogance, [and] boasting; inventors of new
forms of evil, disobedient and undutiful to parents.

[They were] without understanding, conscienceless and faithless, heartless and loveless [and] merciless.

Though they are fully aware of God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve to die,
they not only do them themselves but approve and applaud others who practice them.
 
I wish the Bible Thumpers actually read the bible in full and not just the parts they want.

The Gospel according to
St. Matthew
7

Judging Others
Lk. 6.3738, 4142
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
 
Quote from Mike805:

You are intolerant of what you view as "deadly behavior".
More...

It's amazing how liberals will take the English language and then redefine what words mean just so they can call conservatives harsh names that dont even match the description. Let me define "intolerant" for you by showing you two sentences.

"I hate homosexual behavior" Is just disagreeing with that type of lifestyle.

"I hate homosexual behavior and I'm going to kill them for being like that" THATS intolerant.
 
Quote from KINGOFSHORTS:

I wish the Bible Thumpers actually read the bible in full and not just the parts they want.

The Gospel according to
St. Matthew
7

Judging Others
Lk. 6.3738, 4142
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
More...

Another Liberal that tries to change the meaning of a word. What does a Judge do? He executes a sentence on the one he believes committing the crime. The police tell you that you are doing something wrong and the judge is the one that judges you and gives you your penance.

If i tell someone that homosexuality is wrong,that is not judging.

If i kill or hurt someone because they are a homosexual,that is judging.

Some of you may disagree with this, and try to tell me that judging is forming an opinion only and not actually executing a punishment. For those of you that want judging to mean that, I have an escape clause for that.

If i tell someone that homosexuality is wrong according to the bible, then it is Gods judgement and not my own.

Or lets go one further. The bible says not to judge until you take the beam out of your eye then you can take the mote out of your brothers eye. So since I am not a homosexual and do not commit that sin of practicing homosexual act, am i not qualified to pass judgement on the homosexuals without fear of being judged by God in that manner? As far as the sin of homosexuality goes, am i not innocent? So I cant be judged in the same manner, therefore my judgement is righteous.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

Okay, but that can be construed as a supplementary model to the more gradual model of evolution. Neither you nor I nor anyone here can legitimately determine the relative importance of these not-necessarily-mutually-exclusive theories in relation to one another. But I think most of us here can have a good chuckle at the "science" behind creationism.

The bottom line here is that the earlier reference to the eye is an argument generally made by creationists regarding irreducible complexity. On that matter alone, Ken Miller blows the creationists out of the water:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K_HVrjKcvrU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K_HVrjKcvrU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

And I do think we can agree on Miller's bona fides.
More...

Of course you're right, it was meant to be supplementary. As for
the missing part preventing evolution; it may be that evolution originates on an even more basic level than proteins or peptides; in some realm where quantum physics holds sway.


Existence is absolutely amazing when you leave the
questions out of the realm of the need to fufill ego by forcing the questions to conform to foregone conclusions. I stand in awe in the face of its mysteries.
 
Quote from Mike805:
I view flying in an airplane as "deadly". Therefore, when I fly in an airplane, I am participating in an "improper" behaviour... Do you see the flaw in that logic? right?
More...
Mike, you're to be commended for assuming that these people can process information in the same way you can, and that an appeal to logic will actually register with them. You're mistaken, but the fact that you assume it says you're a decent, right-thinking individual.

They won't even understand what you're saying. They don't process information in that way. They're truth involves believing in things that have no basis in fact. They make a virtue out of ignoring the evidence of their senses. They loll about in the muck of muddled thinking as a matter of course.

Please keep in mind some of the bizarre things that these people believe, and you'll realize that they're just not put together in a normal way.
 
If gay people had any choice in the matter, alot would probably opt to be straight, it would save them from the oppressive society we live in.

But in reality, that's impossible. It's like asking a straight person to be gay, there's no instinct behind it.

A same sex relationship can be just as ethical as a straight one.
Two people come together, with mutual instincts for one another, with love. Completely in line with Christ's teachings.

Maybe the reason why the church is so anti-gay is because it has been filled with gay people for centuries, it's from freudian repression.
 
Quote from peilthetraveler:


As for oral sex, saliva still contains Hiv. Straight men that like to have anal sex with women are the same people that get "flipped" when they meet a tranny in a bar and they dont know its a tranny.
More...

I dont think you can get AIDS from saliva. Tell me if I'm wrong.

You can get some STD's from Oral sex like herpes, but generally, the stomach acid will kill any STD including AIDS. I guess if there is an open wound in the mouth there is a chance....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top