Gays Should Understand the Religious,...

Gays Should Understand the Religious, and Vice Versa

There are 452 comments on the www.christianpost.com story from Jul 14, 2008, titled Gays Should Understand the Religious, and Vice Versa. In it, www.christianpost.com reports that:

' The issue of same-sex "marriage" provokes strong emotions and actions on both sides of the debate with little common ground seemingly to be found.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.christianpost.com.

Since: Dec 09

Chicago, IL

#41 Apr 19, 2010
The Virgin Queen wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh...yeah...that part is absolutely right. I've been saying the same for years. It is quite obvious to anyone who listens to the rhetoric coming out of the gay community that the ultimate desire is to chip away at religious freedom unless religious communities cease condemning the homosexual lifestyle.
<quoted text>
Yes, Christians embrace persecution. But we also fight back.
Christians aren't "fighting back"! The people they oppress are fighting back. Religious freedom doesn't give Christians the right to oppress others.
Thinking

Newcastle, UK

#42 Apr 19, 2010
Praise your god for the gift of AIDS.

Praise your god for murdering more heterosexuals with AIDS than homosexuals.

Praise your god for making lesbians almost AIDS free.

What is wrong with your reasoning?
bible teacher wrote:
<quoted text>Ever heard of AIDS? Very harmful. I have seen a my mom's friend die from AIDS because he lived and practiced a homo lifestyle, I was 7 yrs old when I saw him very sick, I'll never forget that sick dying young man, it was truly sad.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#43 Apr 19, 2010
bible teacher wrote:
<quoted text>I never thought of it that way, a sexual deformity? It certainly has nothing to do with homosexuality. Here is a commentary...
c. For there are eunuchs who were born thus: The term eunuch was used figuratively for those who voluntarily abstain for marriage. Jesus doesn't necessarily mean biological eunuchs, though He certainly includes them among those who abstain from marriage.
Another commentary....
which were so born from their mother's womb;
meaning, not such who, through a natural temper and inclination of mind, could easily abstain from marriage, and chose to live single; but such who had such defects in nature that they were impotent, unfit for, and unable to perform the duties of a marriage state; who, as some are born without hands or feet, these were born without proper and perfect organs of generation; and such an one was, by the Jews, frequently called,(hmh oyro), "an eunuch of the sun F14": that is, as their doctors F15 explain it, one that from his mother's womb never saw the sun but as an eunuch; that is, one that is born so; and that such an one is here intended, ought not to be doubted. The signs of such an eunuch, are given by the Jewish F16 writers, which may be consulted by those, that have ability and leisure. This sort is sometimes F17 called (Mymv ydyb oyro) "an eunuch by the hands of heaven", or God, in distinction from those who are so by the hands, or means of men, and are next mentioned:
When in doubt just google bible commentaries. You are right on the born eunuchs.
1st off, a "born eunuch" would not be someone who decided to abstain from sex because you would not be born that way. Why don't you at least post the URL's you're getting your info from?

btw, I found your source it's you're using http://www.biblewiki.be/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_... which is hardly a legit source. The section you quoted does not offer up anything but an opinion and does not give any facts nor verifiable information. It even goes on to suggest a "born eunuch" could not be a homosexual because Romans condemns homosexuality but, in doing so, completely ignores the fact Romans is a letter condemning Pagan idolatry. It's pathetic people seem to think Paul is going to condemn Pagan idolatry and then, instead of condemning the rituals, somehow condemn a concept which wouldn't exist for almost 2,000 years later.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#44 Apr 19, 2010
bible teacher wrote:
<quoted text>Ever heard of AIDS? Very harmful. I have seen a my mom's friend die from AIDS because he lived and practiced a homo lifestyle, I was 7 yrs old when I saw him very sick, I'll never forget that sick dying young man, it was truly sad.
So why aren't you condemning heterosexuality since the majority of AIDS cases in the world happen to heterosexuals?

This argument is the weakest one I've heard since it falls apart since you refuse to apply it to anyone but homosexuals. Besides, if you're having unsafe sex you realize the risk and the only harm you're doing to anyone is yourself.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#45 Apr 19, 2010
Thinking wrote:
Praise your god for the gift of AIDS.
Praise your god for murdering more heterosexuals with AIDS than homosexuals.
Praise your god for making lesbians almost AIDS free.
What is wrong with your reasoning?
<quoted text>
I didn't even catch the lesbian part. I mean, if we go by what we find in the Bible then lesbians have a free-for-all since the Bible really only condemns, according to modern translations, male homosexuality.

“OK, Here's My Shocked Face!!”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#46 Apr 19, 2010
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm, which one would you like me to point out for you? For this case the fact is "pais" was a Greek term used to describe the younger male lover in a homosexual relationship.
Pais appears to have several meanings, and is used in a number of contexts, having nothing to do with sex of any sort. I'm not saying that it can't ever mean what you say, but I think it would depend on where you want to apply it that way, and what the rest of the passage says. What verse are you talking about here??
bible teacher

Rosemead, CA

#47 Apr 19, 2010
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
So why aren't you condemning heterosexuality since the majority of AIDS cases in the world happen to heterosexuals?
This argument is the weakest one I've heard since it falls apart since you refuse to apply it to anyone but homosexuals. Besides, if you're having unsafe sex you realize the risk and the only harm you're doing to anyone is yourself.
Hetero's as well, sin is sin in any form.
bible teacher

Rosemead, CA

#48 Apr 19, 2010
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
1st off, a "born eunuch" would not be someone who decided to abstain from sex because you would not be born that way. Why don't you at least post the URL's you're getting your info from?
btw, I found your source it's you're using http://www.biblewiki.be/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_... which is hardly a legit source. The section you quoted does not offer up anything but an opinion and does not give any facts nor verifiable information. It even goes on to suggest a "born eunuch" could not be a homosexual because Romans condemns homosexuality but, in doing so, completely ignores the fact Romans is a letter condemning Pagan idolatry. It's pathetic people seem to think Paul is going to condemn Pagan idolatry and then, instead of condemning the rituals, somehow condemn a concept which wouldn't exist for almost 2,000 years later.
Not that URL. Google bible commentaries.

“Question all............. .....”

Since: Jun 08

Red Oak, TX

#49 Apr 19, 2010
bible teacher wrote:
<quoted text>Ever heard of AIDS? Very harmful. I have seen a my mom's friend die from AIDS because he lived and practiced a homo lifestyle, I was 7 yrs old when I saw him very sick, I'll never forget that sick dying young man, it was truly sad.
If you're gonna use the "AIDS is proof that same-sex relations are wrong" argument.....

Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, Hepatitis, Herpes, Syphilis, as well as HIV/AIDS are all hetero diseases. Sex itself is extremely harmful if you follow this argument, so we should ban everyone from doing it.
bible teacher

Rosemead, CA

#50 Apr 19, 2010
bad_medic wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're gonna use the "AIDS is proof that same-sex relations are wrong" argument.....
Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, Hepatitis, Herpes, Syphilis, as well as HIV/AIDS are all hetero diseases. Sex itself is extremely harmful if you follow this argument, so we should ban everyone from doing it.
True, Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural and a sin against a Holy Creator.

Since: Dec 07

Atlanta

#51 Apr 19, 2010
What I'm getting real sick of is this whole "Gay marriage takes away my religious freedom" crap. Bull! In actuality it is the religious who are using the power of law to force others to practice THEIR religion. No one church should ever be forced to preform a homosexual marriage (those lawsuits are bunk and should be thrown out), BUT many churches do wish to preform homosexual marriages (not to mention the nonreligious). So what we have here is the people against gay marriage, have no problem taking away the religious freedom of those churches. Hypocrites!

“II Samuel 1:26”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#52 Apr 19, 2010
bible teacher wrote:
<quoted text>True, Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural and a sin against a Holy Creator.
It is??? How do you come up with that?

“Question all............. .....”

Since: Jun 08

Red Oak, TX

#53 Apr 19, 2010
bible teacher wrote:
<quoted text>True, Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural and a sin against a Holy Creator.
Wow, you obviously didn't read the whole post.

I'm not agreeing with you bro.

“OK, Here's My Shocked Face!!”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#54 Apr 19, 2010
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go again with you avoiding discussing facts at all.
FACT: Paul did NOT use the Greek term for "sex between men" but said "soft" and "male bed".
Are you referring to Corinthians and Romans here?? Also, what is the ancient greek word for sex between men??
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
FACT: Romans is a letter condemning Pagan idolatry and female and male temple prostitution is condemned numerous times in the Bible.
There is no dispute with what is stated here. The important part of that letter is the punishment for that idolatry. They were given over to vile affection, performing unnatural acts, that which is unseemly, given to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves. What is described here is homosexuality. Vile, unseemly, unnatural, and unclean are words to describe how homosexuality is viewed.
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
FACT: The only instance of homosexuality in S&G is attempted rape.
From what I've seen in the Bible, I tend to agree here. I never use S&G in an argument because even though sexual immorality and perversion played a big role, I don't believe there is enough evidence to pin the main cause down to consensual homosexuality.
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
FACT: Corinthians, less than a hundred years ago, condemned masturbation instead of homosexuality.
I use the KJV, which says abusers of themselves with mankind, but basically sexual immorality of any kind is included in this passage. Sexual immorality is any sex outside the confines of marriage.
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
FACT: The Hebrew term for "bed" has vanished in modern translations of the two scriptures from Leviticus used to condemn homosexuals so, in fact, both scriptures (when translated properly) state "on a woman's bed".
To believe that you're right here, and that God is ok with homosexuality, we would have to believe that heterosexual sex, outside of marriage is immoral, but homosexual sex is ok. We would also have to believe that homosexuality is accepted by God, anywhere, as long as it doesn't happen in a woman's bed. If it does happen in a woman's bed, those homosexuals, who would normally be fine, have committed such a grevious offense that they would need to be put to death. Do you really believe that a woman's bed is worth the lives of two men, in the eyes of God. I have a hard time with that one.
McMike wrote:
<quoted text>
--- Would you like me to keep on with the facts or are you just going to ignore them as usual?
I'm not ignoring them, I'm dealing with them one at a time, as many as you'd like to post.

“OK, Here's My Shocked Face!!”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#55 Apr 19, 2010
bible teacher wrote:
<quoted text>I never thought of it that way, a sexual deformity? It certainly has nothing to do with homosexuality. Here is a commentary...
c. For there are eunuchs who were born thus: The term eunuch was used figuratively for those who voluntarily abstain for marriage. Jesus doesn't necessarily mean biological eunuchs, though He certainly includes them among those who abstain from marriage.
Another commentary....
which were so born from their mother's womb;
meaning, not such who, through a natural temper and inclination of mind, could easily abstain from marriage, and chose to live single; but such who had such defects in nature that they were impotent, unfit for, and unable to perform the duties of a marriage state; who, as some are born without hands or feet, these were born without proper and perfect organs of generation; and such an one was, by the Jews, frequently called,(hmh oyro), "an eunuch of the sun F14": that is, as their doctors F15 explain it, one that from his mother's womb never saw the sun but as an eunuch; that is, one that is born so; and that such an one is here intended, ought not to be doubted. The signs of such an eunuch, are given by the Jewish F16 writers, which may be consulted by those, that have ability and leisure. This sort is sometimes F17 called (Mymv ydyb oyro) "an eunuch by the hands of heaven", or God, in distinction from those who are so by the hands, or means of men, and are next mentioned:
When in doubt just google bible commentaries. You are right on the born eunuchs.
Maybe deformity wasn't a good word. Genetic mutations, hermaphrodites, etc. I don't know exactly which word to use for it.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#56 Apr 19, 2010
medic0506 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pais appears to have several meanings, and is used in a number of contexts, having nothing to do with sex of any sort. I'm not saying that it can't ever mean what you say, but I think it would depend on where you want to apply it that way, and what the rest of the passage says. What verse are you talking about here??
What are you talking about? Are you getting this information from your opinions? Try historical facts when you're discussing what pais means. Even without knowing how pais was used we know very well it was quite common for Roman men to have younger male slaves as lovers (go watch Sparticus if you don't believe me). Now, would a man, gay or straight, be so consumed to save just some cook or maid or perhaps any many, then and now, be consumed to save the life of the person he loves? We're talking about a manly soldier who isn't going to go out of his way in such a manner just because someone cooks him the best mac-n-cheese he's ever had.

If you can't figure out how to use Google I'll be more than happy to start posting information on what pais meant.

And which scripture do you think I'm talking about? There's only one story about a Roman soldier (even though, yes, it is found in 3 of the 4 Gospels).

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#57 Apr 19, 2010
bible teacher wrote:
<quoted text>Hetero's as well, sin is sin in any form.
So you not only think all homosexuals should stop having sex but also every heterosexual?

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#58 Apr 19, 2010
bible teacher wrote:
<quoted text>Not that URL. Google bible commentaries.
Wow, you can always spot someone who knows they're full of it when they refuse to give you the actual URL their information came from. Odd thing is that page had the same exact text you posted.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#59 Apr 19, 2010
bible teacher wrote:
<quoted text>True, Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural and a sin against a Holy Creator.
NEWSFLASH: By definition homosexuality is 100% natural since it's already been documented in over 1,500 species of animal.

Dealing with people like you is beyond lame because your best ammo is "AIDS is why being homosexual is wrong", even though it's a mostly heterosexual diseases, and "Homosexuality is unnatural", even though it's abundant in nature and therefore totally natural.

btw, how's your closet doing tonight?

“Just saying....”

Since: Dec 08

Denver

#60 Apr 19, 2010
bible teacher wrote:
<quoted text>True, Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural and a sin against a Holy Creator.
Yep and so is masturbation, where's the great christian protest there?...Well?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The University of Findlay Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News UF discussion on Islam to address election rhet... (Oct '16) Dec '16 snorko 5
News Corbin, Hooks Set for Run-off in Treutlen Count... (Jul '08) Jun '16 cemyamsmith 381
News UF students to host African Night (Apr '15) Jun '15 lion 2
News Mom's smoking tied to oral birth defect (Jul '08) Jun '11 MyAdvocates 6
News Springdale Har-Ber coach arrested in rapes (Jul '08) Apr '10 player 18
News Cold Case: Investigators try to identify girl f... (Jul '08) Jan '10 Saddened 54
News Seven Coronation Lakalaka will not include Tata... (Jul '08) Oct '09 Da Man 100
More from around the web