Questions about the Bible - Page 5
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 110

Thread: Questions about the Bible

  1. #41
    wolfhunter Guest
    When the homosexual community found it advantageous to call their problem an illness, they became protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    As that began to wane in influence, they started "discovering a genetic cause" (born that way) and sought minority status for their "genetic disposition".

    And yet every one of the dozens of homosexuals I've spoken to, and every one of them I've heard of being interviewed on TV have mentioned a point where they DECIDED they are gay.

  2.   
  3. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    Homosexuality is something people are born with. It can't be helped, and it can't be prayed away.

    Wrong again.
    Can't be argued with people who won't listen. So don't try, HK4U. They always bring up the Old Testament, as if we are still living under the Law. These people know all about the words in the Bible, but do not know the Bible. It's the old "can't see the forest for the trees" thing.

    The New Testament came about through Jesus Christ. And He definitely told everyone two basic tenets: Love the Lord thy God, and love thy neighbor as thyself. That doesn't mean "anything goes." It can be as simple as the lesson of the prostitute who was going to be stoned. First, Jesus forced everyone in the crowd to look inside of themselves by saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." We are all sinners, so we can't point a guilty finger at anyone else. In the end, He will sort it all out. But the part they do not want to hear is the second part of that story. Jesus asked the prostitute where her accusers were, and she said there was no one left to condemn her. Jesus then said, "Then neither do I condemn you - GO AND SIN NO MORE!"

    He forgave her her sins, but told her not to sin any more. He didn't say, "what you did was okay with me," or "try not to sin again for awhile." Her message was that she was a sinner, and was forgiven, but her sin was not to be repeated.

    Christians love the sinner but hate the sin. The New Testament, more than the Old, condemns homosexuality. And there have been thousands of homosexuals (if not millions) who have been lifted of their sin by accepting Jesus. Those who aren't try to make their lifestyle normal and acceptable. They try to claim that homosexuality was only a sin in the Bible if the homosexual was a prostitute. They claim that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was homosexuality. People like Elton John claim that Jesus Himself was a homosexual. Anything to avoid the truth and consequences. There are gay "Christian" churches, there are gay bishops, there are gay ministers. But they are not living within the Bible.

    The Bible which was written by men - "written" by men's hands and pens, but the Bible is the inspired Word of God. These people can claim anything they want, but in the end, it is by faith that we follow our Christianity. And we do not change what we don't like.

    I won't argue with these people further, because it is futile. Their conviction has to come from within. I don't hate them, I don't want to force them into a church or anything else. They know where we are coming from, and they know what we believe. It is they who must change, not us. Let them believe what they will, but if they really desire to learn, they'll listen to what we have to say and seek the truth themselves.

    That's all we can ask for and hope for. Remember, do not cast pearls before swine.
    -= Piece Corps =-

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    When the homosexual community found it advantageous to call their problem an illness, they became protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    As that began to wane in influence, they started "discovering a genetic cause" (born that way) and sought minority status for their "genetic disposition".

    And yet every one of the dozens of homosexuals I've spoken to, and every one of them I've heard of being interviewed on TV have mentioned a point where they DECIDED they are gay.
    Do you really think what you are saying is true?

    I have seen your postings about firearms. You are not a stupid man.

    I suggest you do some reading.

    Btw, what about the deal with letting openly gay homosexual's and lesbians serve in the armed forces?
    Can't the generals just issue an order for the gay to go away?
    Can you explain that one?

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,429
    One of many.

    Read the entire site.
    http://www.createdgay.com/def.html

    BTW, I am not gay.

  6. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by theicemanmpls View Post
    One of many.

    Read the entire site.
    What is Homosexuality?

    BTW, I am not gay.

    For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2 Timothy 4:3
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  7. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Piece Corps View Post
    Can't be argued with people who won't listen. So don't try, HK4U. They always bring up the Old Testament, as if we are still living under the Law. These people know all about the words in the Bible, but do not know the Bible. It's the old "can't see the forest for the trees" thing.

    The New Testament came about through Jesus Christ. And He definitely told everyone two basic tenets: Love the Lord thy God, and love thy neighbor as thyself. That doesn't mean "anything goes." It can be as simple as the lesson of the prostitute who was going to be stoned. First, Jesus forced everyone in the crowd to look inside of themselves by saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." We are all sinners, so we can't point a guilty finger at anyone else. In the end, He will sort it all out. But the part they do not want to hear is the second part of that story. Jesus asked the prostitute where her accusers were, and she said there was no one left to condemn her. Jesus then said, "Then neither do I condemn you - GO AND SIN NO MORE!"

    He forgave her her sins, but told her not to sin any more. He didn't say, "what you did was okay with me," or "try not to sin again for awhile." Her message was that she was a sinner, and was forgiven, but her sin was not to be repeated.

    Christians love the sinner but hate the sin. The New Testament, more than the Old, condemns homosexuality. And there have been thousands of homosexuals (if not millions) who have been lifted of their sin by accepting Jesus. Those who aren't try to make their lifestyle normal and acceptable. They try to claim that homosexuality was only a sin in the Bible if the homosexual was a prostitute. They claim that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was homosexuality. People like Elton John claim that Jesus Himself was a homosexual. Anything to avoid the truth and consequences. There are gay "Christian" churches, there are gay bishops, there are gay ministers. But they are not living within the Bible.

    The Bible which was written by men - "written" by men's hands and pens, but the Bible is the inspired Word of God. These people can claim anything they want, but in the end, it is by faith that we follow our Christianity. And we do not change what we don't like.

    I won't argue with these people further, because it is futile. Their conviction has to come from within. I don't hate them, I don't want to force them into a church or anything else. They know where we are coming from, and they know what we believe. It is they who must change, not us. Let them believe what they will, but if they really desire to learn, they'll listen to what we have to say and seek the truth themselves.

    That's all we can ask for and hope for. Remember, do not cast pearls before swine.
    You are of course correct. I know it is a waist of time talking to him. It is just infuriating to read someone ramble on about something they know nothing about. I realize he will not listen. He does not want to know the truth but wants to make God in his own image.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  8. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by theicemanmpls View Post
    One of many.

    Read the entire site.
    What is Homosexuality?

    BTW, I am not gay.
    From that site; very first paragraph:
    Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not an action. Sexual activity and sexual orientation are not the same. Just as there are straight virgins, there are gay virgins. Because sexual orientation is not the same as sexual experience, being gay cannot be considered to be a sin, just as being straight cannot be considered to be a sin.
    Absolutely right! I might be tempted to view pornography, but if I keep my desires in check, I am not sinning. Being a homosexual in and of itself is not a sin. BUT - if you decide that there is nothing wrong with being gay and do not remain celibate, you are living in sin.

    So is a man who commits adultery. So is a woman who does so. So are any number of straight people who do not live within the Commandments. You see, no one is saying that Christians are not sinners, or that good Christians do not sin. We're all sinners. But any one of us who tries to justify that sin by saying that "our sin is okay" is living a lie.

    Pornography is a sin, Prostitution is a sin, adultery is a sin, a lot of things are sins. We ignore them at our own risk. But remember, Jesus came to forgive sin. He didn't come to encourage it.
    -= Piece Corps =-

  9. #48
    wolfhunter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by theicemanmpls View Post
    Do you really think what you are saying is true?

    I have seen your postings about firearms. You are not a stupid man.

    I suggest you do some reading.

    Btw, what about the deal with letting openly gay homosexual's and lesbians serve in the armed forces?
    Can't the generals just issue an order for the gay to go away?
    Can you explain that one?
    Yes, I believe what I say, and I've read a lot of literature on the topic.

    Openly gay behavior is a violation of Art. 125 of the UCMJ. No one has broached the question of changing the UCMJ. Until that happens, any gay engaging in his or her sexual preference is guilty of violating the regs. Like we say about NYC, if you don't like the laws, don't live there. If you submit yourself to the UCMJ by enlisting or seeking a commission, don't cry when you violate the rules.

    Since I am completely convinced that homosexuality is caused by either a lack of moral fiber in a search for hedonistic pleasure or a lack of personal discipline caused by a lack of self esteem, I do not think that a general can "just order for the gay to go away". That's why they get a discharge for their behavior.

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,429
    It's time to allow gays to serve openly in the military

    By Josh Gibbs


    Last month, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, compared homosexuality to adultery in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. “We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” he said.

    You can be punished for adultery and stay in the service. For homosexuality, the punishment is cut and dried, and years of honorable service are ended.

    The common perception is that the “don't ask, don't tell” policy is necessary because straight service members will not be able to do their jobs properly if gay men and women are allowed to serve openly alongside them. Some people also say gay service members would not be able to control their homosexual urges. Proponents of this argument make it seem as if gay service members will immediately try to strike up romantic relationships with every man or woman within arm's reach.

    Am I the only one who feels that, of all the arguments, this one is a little too chauvinistic? Or am I wrong to assume that no one, regardless of gender, could ever resist the allure of a man in a foxhole who hasn't showered in three days?

    Why do we still cling to the as-yet unproven notion that if gay men and women are allowed to serve openly, unit cohesion and morale would suffer? This assertion is an insult to the professionalism of the U.S. military and an affront to our Constitution.

    There was a time when allowing blacks to serve in the military was considered prejudicial to good order and discipline. That time has passed, and it is hard to imagine our military without their sacrifice and dedication. There was also a time when the idea of women serving the military in any capacity was unthinkable. Today, women are viewed as equals to men in all but the most physically demanding military specialties. Yet we still drag our heels over the matter of sexual orientation.

    Many military members worry that if the ban on homosexuals is lifted, violence against gay and lesbian service members will increase. These fears seem to show concern for the welfare of gay soldiers, but remain unsupported by evidence.

    It's hard enough being gay in an already intolerant world. Recently, Army recruiter Sgt. Marcia Ramode, with the Brownsville Recruiting Station in Brooklyn, N.Y., contacted and tried to sign up a man by the name of Corey Andrew Powell. He asked if the Army would accept him despite the fact that he is gay.

    Ramode allegedly responded via her military e-mail address that he could not join because “being gay is disgusting and immoral” and added “you must be a total idiot and so stupid to presume that you do not know what gender you are” and that he “should leave the United States.”

    The two allegedly traded barbs for several days. Ramode has been suspended from her recruiting duties pending an Army investigation.

    It is this intolerant attitude that has been allowed to flourish within the military and prevents capable men and women from serving their country. Within the microcosm of the military, many gays and lesbians who are the victims of harassment or assault often dare not report the incidents out of fear of being ejected from the military. This sounds eerily familiar to the equally reprehensible act of rape.

    We should not claim that the banning of homosexuals is designed to keep the military virtuous or pure. If you have been in the military long enough, you know someone who has cheated on his or her spouse and, more than likely, gone unpunished, though adultery is an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution are allowed to be the protector of some, but not all, Americans, then democracy has failed.

    Retired Army general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili recently had his own experience with gay and lesbian service members. He said, “Last year, I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and Marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.”

    The archaic “don't ask, don't tell” policy serves only as a victory for partisan politics and is an affront to our most sacred of institutions.

    The justification for this policy has never had anything to do with the military abilities of gay men and women. The “don't ask, don't tell” policy has always and will always be about punishing gay troops for the prejudice exhibited by their straight peers. And if hard-nosed service members choose to leave the military rather than serve alongside their gay and lesbian counterparts, then I say good riddance. Their overbearing intolerance and misdirected hatred has no place in my military.

    Many other nations, including our most important military allies, have successfully integrated openly gay and lesbian service members. The military forces of Britain, Australia, Israel and Canada seem to be able to do their jobs without discriminating against homosexuals, but Congress still insists that I cannot. I find this notion insulting.

    Throughout history, America has been at the forefront of the war against intolerance. We have become a beacon for other countries to emulate. Why, then, have we not led the charge in this fight?

    Despite our Constitution's claim of liberty for all, as well as the Declaration of Independence's claim that all men are created equal, we have seen fit to exclude those who are more than capable of serving honorably simply based on matters concerning their private lives.

    There comes a time when people must stand up in the face of intolerance and push this country forward for the good of future generations. Now is the time to stand. Now is the time to push.

    ...........

    The writer is a captain with the 8th Marine Corps District in Fort Worth, Texas.

    It's time to allow gays to serve openly in the military - MarineCorpsTimes.com

  11. #50
    wolfhunter Guest
    Well written article. The fact remains that the LAW says this behavior is wrong and precedence dictates discharges for those found guilty. Right or wrong, until the law changes gays don't belong. BTW, my argument against gays applies equally to adulterers in the service.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New To The Site, Had A Few Questions, Open To All Suggestions, 1st Post
    By FieldTester in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-18-2010, 12:33 PM
  2. My introduction, along with a few questions.
    By Aresye in forum Concealed Carry Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 06:42 PM
  3. U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret 'Jesus' Bible Codes
    By matthewaynelson in forum Military & Veterans
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-21-2010, 07:53 PM
  4. Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre
    By BigSlick in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-12-2009, 06:07 PM
  5. San Diego banning bible study in the home
    By festus in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-28-2009, 01:24 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast