Chic filet

[lurtsman]

I didn't call you ignorant, because I would rather keep a civil tone. If you would like to go back and quote the part where I called you ignorant, please do so. If you are using mozilla, you can use the search function by pressing CTRL + F. You'll find the word was not used prior to your post. I'm going to attempt to translate the paragraphs above, so we can get to the heart of the matter.

1. You have challenged me to show where it is okay for a same sex couple to marry. Should I challenge you to show me where the bible says it is okay for an elephant to point his trunk left for three minutes then swing it in a clock wise motion? It appears you have misunderstood the burden of proof. The one making accusations must carry that burden. Otherwise I could claim that Cathy was bringing down God's wrath by wearing unattractive shoes. How absurd would our system be if everyone could make accusations without proof and require the other person to disprove them? If you want to say they are doing something immoral, you find proof in the bible.

2. Yes. we have freedom of speech. I do know what I'm talking about, and again you have brought no evidence to the contrary. I could respond with the same claim, or better yet use "I'm rubber and you're glue". Christ lived his life as a pure and blameless individual who was completely without sin. To say that you, I, or any other human does the same is to say that are equal to God. That is heresy. As a new testament believer, do you say that the old testament no longer remains relevant? If you are taking the position that you only must live by the new testament, then I would encourage you to find anything in the new testament that condemns *** marriage.

3. This starts with unfounded assertions and leads into a slippery slope. This is the same as if I suggested that by stopping homosexuals from marrying we would have to stop interacial couples, and unrelated couples, and .... Please don't waste my time or yours with a slippery slope argument. Congratulations on not suggesting that we murder them. I'm glad you are not promoting genocide. However, I must admit that I generally feel being "anti-genocide" is a pretty low bar. If you don't kill your slaves, do you have a right to own them?

4. Nothing wrong with defending those beliefs. I never said there was. No one else in the thread said there was. I haven't a clue where you were planning to go with that except as a lead into suggesting that "If I don't like it, oh well". The south considered the civil war to be the "war of northern aggression". The North did not accept "if you don't like it, oh well" as an answer to the South wanting to keep slavery alive. If you really follow what you read, then please tell me which verse in the new testament contains a condemnation of *** people from Jesus or God.

5. Just a reminder, I have not called you ignorant, nor called you names. If you feel ignorant, it is not my intent. I'm not insulting you, but I'm encouraging you to examine your beliefs.

To ensure this is clear, my closing question is: If a *** man or woman is also washed in Grace under the Blood of Christ, and as a new testament believer is free from the law, then which verse in the new testament declares with the authority of God that they are living in sin? You won't find one. The closest you'll find is a reference in a letter sent from one of the disciples. If you want to claim that the bible is telling you that homosexuals do not deserve equal rights, then you need to re-examine what the bible says about men who "add to or take away from" the bible.

PS. We may be the only two talking in this thread, but I hope it is still being read. It serves as a template for the discussion on *** marriage and may lead to some people begrudgingly opening their eyes.

[snack dude]

It boils down to this

I will fight for your right to believe:::

God hates gays

God is ***

there is no god

Allah hates infidels

Budda got it right

Catholics hung jesus from the cross

You must be washed in the blood

you must take up the serpent

anointed in oil

Lester was the thirteenth decipal

and oh yes, the world will end tomorrow and the next day and the next day etc. etc.

Whatever it is that you believe in, you have the right to think that

All I ask is that you do not try to make me believe it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of the above groups have one common thread. They all believe in free speech as long as it agrees with them.

Everyone needs to grow another layer of skin and get on with their lives

[lurtsman]

Thank you Snack Dude. I think we can all appreciate freedom of speech. I'm refraining from responding any further, because I don't want to derail this thread. I'm waiting to see how Big Red responds to my closing question. It took well into the second page to reach the critical juncture, and I'm excited to see his response.

[BigRedvender]

It boils down to what you believe to be right and to state it. I believe what I believe.

I never claim perfection but I try to walk in it every day. I fall short on so many things but I still try to live my life every day to the Glory of GOD love me hate me it doesn't matter. As Popeye Say's I am What I am.

To Repent. 1: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life

2 a : to feel regret or contrition

b : to change one's mind

The NIV

1 Corinthians 6:9-20 Do you know that the wicked shall not inherit the kingdom of GOD? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor Idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor greedy nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of GOD. 11 and that is what some of you were But you were Washed you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ. and by the spirit of our GOD. 12 Everything is permissible for me but not everything is beneficial Everything is permissible for me but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food but GOD will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexually Immorality but for the LORD and the LORD is meant for the body 14 By his power God raised the LORD from the dead and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know your bodies are the members of Christ Himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 For it is said the two shall become one flesh. 17 But him who unites himself with the LORD is one with him in spirit. 18 Flee from sexual immorality all other sin a man commits are outside his body, But he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you. whom you have received from GOD? You were bought with a price Therefore honor GOD with your Body.

In this passage Living a Homosexual lifestyle is a sin. Just as living in any kind of sexually Immorality is a sin. Adultery fornication so on and so forth.

In that note I don't hate anyone who is ***. I don't jump in there face and say nasty things to them. I am nice pleasant helpful to anyone. There are a lot of people I might not agree with just like there are a lot of people that won't agree with me.

From my biblical world view I don't that *** people should get special preference for a sexual practice. the founding Fathers wanted a Country with Freedom of Religion. We have been slowly become a country with many searching for Freedom From Religion. Which has been eroding the rights of those who do have a biblical world view.

Cathy's quote is that I printed is what started this whole mess. As far as the tv interview unless it was live big deal. I have a wife in the media I have known people that have worked in news on the local level and one told me it is amazing what you can get out when you know how to put things together. (out of context) If it was CBS that is he was on I think. Didn't they use explosives to try to prove a GM Pickup was unsafe. The flag wavers of true honest Journalism.

He doesn't believe in @!$ marriage oh well Not every state allows it. So what dose that say. Are they all haters too then. when it comes up for a vote on a ballot and it gets voted down are all the people that voted down Hate mongers. Disagreement is not Hate. Those are terms used a lot to bully people into caving or backing down from what the believe in.

[lurtsman]

Do you know how many states supported slavery? They actually tried to leave the United States and brought on the civil war. Dominant ideology does not prove moral superiority. Were people speaking out against slavery trying to bully those poor defenseless slaver owners?

You brought up "special rights". This is one of the absurd attacks repeated by Fox news. What special right are we talking about? The ability to marry the person they love? Is that a right that you do not have? It appears to me that this would be an equal right, not a special right. When a *** person asks for some "right" that would not be permitted if his or her partner were dressed as the opposite gender, then you have a special right.

Did you know that the Southeast portion of the United States had barred interracial marriage until 1967 when the Supreme Court struck it down? So when they wanted to marry someone of a different race, was that a "special right"? If you wanted to get married and the woman you loved was black, should you be told that it is a special right? The claim is absurd, and it only persists because the people on Fox news repeat it so often that people think it must exist. Now that we've dealt with "special rights", lets get back to talking about the bible. I will not afford any more time for chasing down these little extra trails.

Do you believe the people who translate the bible have the divine hand of God? I do not. I believe the original bible was not written in English, and that translation errors do occasionally occur. Those errors are magnified when the translators are pushed to do two things. The first is to create multiple translations so the bible can be presented in different languages, and the second is the political pressure that comes with producing a book that supports their own views. Since this view is one of the more commonly cited mistranslations, I'm going to bring up another version of the same verse. Then I'm going to trace it back to the original language and the words that God commanded. I think we can both agree, that God is a higher authority than translators. I'm also going to leave out completely unrelated things, and ignore parts of the post that were unrelated. I will also quote and paraphrase the words of someone who has dealt with this far more often than I. I'll be curious to hear your response. Just know that if you move on from the term Malakoi and go to sexual abusers that I have already prepared an answer to that as well. That section begins here:

One passage of Scripture sometimes used against *** people is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which reads as follows in the King James Version:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (Note that I have shortened it only for brevity sake.

In this passage there are two key phrases relevant to our discussion. First there is the reference to “effeminate” persons, which is often viewed as a reference to *** men. In truth, however, the Greek word translated “effeminate” in verse 9 is quite broad. The word is malakoi, and it literally means “soft.” (See note 1.) So Paul is saying “soft people” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since we know Paul was not talking about the Pillsbury Dough Boy, we have to ask what he meant.

This common Greek word had different connotations depending on the context in which it was used. In terms of morality, it generally referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of courage. (See note 2.) The connotation was of being “soft like a woman” or like the delicate expensive fabrics worn by rich men. In the patriarchal culture of the time, women were thought to be weaker than men, more fearful, more vulnerable, and more vain. Thus, men who ate too much, liked expensive things, were lazy, or liked to dress well were considered “soft like a woman.” Although this type of misogynistic thinking is intolerable in our modern society, it was common in ancient times and explains why the King James Version translated malakoi as “effeminate.”

But it is important to understand the difference between ancient and modern notions of what makes one effeminate. Paul wasn’t condemning men who swish and carry purses; he was condemning a type of moral weakness. The ancient Roman and Greek understanding of what it meant to be manly or womanly was quite different from today. First-century Romans didn’t think of effeminacy as merely a homosexual trait. In that culture, any man who was more interested in pleasure than in duty was considered to be woman-like. And men who worked to make themselves more attractive, “whether they were trying to attract men or women, were called effeminate.” They saw all pleasure-seeking men as effeminate, whomever they sought pleasure with. In first-century Roman terms, most pro-wrestlers in the WWF (manly men by our definitions) would be considered effeminate, because of their apparent interest in fancy, hyper-masculine costumes and posturing. From this perspective, Paul was condemning men who are vain, fearful, and self-indulgent.

In recent years, however, some have suggested that, in the context in which it appears in 1 Corinthians 6, malakoi may refer specifically to male prostitutes, who would have served as the receptive partner (i.e., soft, “woman-like”) in sexual intercourse. This translation is reflected in two of the most widely used modern English translations of the Bible, the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version. Since malakoi was used to refer to men who exhibited the negative traits associated with women in first-century culture, it’s not hard to see how the term might also be used to refer to male prostitutes. They would be viewed as sexually indulgent (a trait associated with women) and as the ones who played a receptive role in intercourse (again, associated with women). Because here Paul uses malakoi in a list of sexual sins, it is possible to infer that he may have been referring specifically to male prostitutes, rather than soft men in general.

However, regardless of whether Paul intended to refer specifically to male prostitutes or more generally to all men considered morally soft, it is apparent that the term malakoi has nothing to do with the question we bring to Scripture. We are not defending prostitution, nor vanity or self-indulgence. Our question is whether same-sex couples may live in loving, committed relationships with the blessing of God. The term malakoi does not address that.

[shepherdsflock]

Lurtsman, I think you've got a pretty good grasp on exegesis in general, but I would suggest that Romans chapter one at least infers that homosexuality is not something that is acceptable from a biblical point of view. I will agree with you that homosexuality is not "the unforgivable sin". How many and which sins can the blood of Christ atone for? ALL SINS. With this I agree with you. However, there is something called repentance, in which somebody who has received the forgiveness of sins naturally desires and makes all effort to turn away from the things he/she knows to be an obstacle between himself/herself and God.

Whether its booze, pornography, gambling, or in this case homosexual intercourse, there are things that are terrible obstacles to a close relationship with Christ and having a sound reputation and testimony to the unbelieving world (see 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 as a reference concerning freedom). An unrepentant homosexual is not seeking a closer relationship with Christ, they are stubbornly refusing to admit that God's Word says that homosexual intercourse is degrading and shameful (and is likely to result in health problems). Even if they can't be convinced that what they are doing is wrong, if they really love Jesus and want to have a credible reputation with the unbelieving world, they would stop doing it just for the sake of those whose consciences they might defile by continuing. This is what shows that unrepentant homosexuals very likely aren't sincere Christians. They put their own desires above the needs of others, not willing to give up their pleasure for the sake of others.

Before I get too long winded with this post, I want to be clear that selfishness of this kind isn't limited to homosexuality, it's the same kind of idolatry that we all engage in (and why the Bible says that we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). We all get trapped in something at some point in our lives that consumes our thoughts and desires, whether its sexual immorality, covetousness, corporate ladder climbing, sports, or a number of other things, we all have at least one thing that is our "Achilles heel" if you will. There is at least one weak spot in all of us where if we're allowed free access to something we'll chase it with abandon, disregarding all others to get and have what we desire. And to say that it is "hate" to try to prevent people the free access they desire to something destructive is a contradictory statement if I ever heard one.

It is loving to show somebody that what they love is dangerous and contrary to their best interests. God loves *** people, and you better believe He hates the homosexuality that is killing them prematurely and contributing to myriad diseases and conditions that afflict homosexuals in large percentages. Homosexuals are more likely to develop or contract a wide range of conditions and diseases and have been demonstrated to have a shorter lifespan (yes, I know you'll want a source quotation, and I'd be happy to dig through my records to find the exact sources for my statements when I have time). Why do places like FRC and others try to get people away from homosexuality? Why would somebody like Mr. Cathy warn that it brings the judgment of God? Is it because they hate homosexuals? No! Emphatically no! These people want to save homosexuals and those drawn to the lifestyle from the heartache, suffering, and misery that accompany it (both temporal and eternal).

[lurtsman]

I would like to hear which verse this stems from. Until there is a verse actively condemning it the claim about homosexuality being wrong could be substituted with eating chocolate chip cookies being wrong. Since gluttony is considered one of the seven deadly sins, why don't we have a law limiting the portions people can order at Chic-Fil-A? Don't answer that, it's only a rabbit trail and I don't want to detract from the real conversation.

Though this has general been a conversation with big red, I applaud shepherd'sflock for joining the discussion. I can see what you mean about Romans 1 inferring there being something fundamentally wrong with homosexuality. For anyone reading along, you'll want to focus on verses 21 to 28. I'm going to refer to that section now, and I want readers to know that this is a fairly long response because the topic is complicated. As Shepherd noted, it appears to infer a problem. The difficulty then lies in deciding how we interpret it. We've discussed context somewhat, but sometimes it is more important than others. Let's examine the context in which Paul is writing this book. Again, I will borrow from authors who are more accomplished than myself.

For example, in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, the Apostle Paul says women should wear a veil when praying. He also says they should have long hair. Here are two rather simple, straightforward rules announced in the New Testament. How should we interpret them?

Some Christians have tried to interpret them without any reference to the cultural context in which the Apostle Paul spoke. So they require their women to wear hats in church (a modern type of veil) and require them to maintain hair that is shoulder length or longer.

But others who have studied the cultural context of this passage tell us that in Paul’s time only prostitutes wore short hair and appeared in public unveiled. If this is true, then the likely meaning of Paul’s ruling changes radically from an absolute command to one that was meant to address a problem unique to the culture of the time -- women who wore short hair or appeared unveiled in public could easily be mistaken for prostitutes. Today, even most conservative Christians do not require their women to wear head coverings or to keep their hair long. They take this position even though the words of the Bible specifically say women should do so. They refrain from imposing these requirements because they understand that the meaning of words is determined largely by the context in which they are spoken.

If anyone believes that the bible is true, context is irrelevant, and laws should be made to enforce religious values on others, then they should support legislation to criminalize short hair cuts on women. If we don't take that stance, either we don't believe the bible, we do believe context matters, or we don't believe in theology.

Romans 1 may seem daunting when first approached because it is written in a rhetorical style most modern readers are not used to. Paul, the writer of Romans, was trained as a scholar of Greek classics and Hebrew literature, and his style may seem obscure to those of us (like Tyler) who enjoy reading Dear Abby and USA Today. The pertinent passage reads as follows in the King James Version:

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” (Romans 1:21-28)

Though it may come as a surprise, we consider this to be the easiest of the clobber passages to interpret. This is because Paul, in his classically trained style, thoroughly explains the factual assumptions and rationale behind his condemnation of the behavior described here. This makes it easy for us to answer our question: Does this passage apply to inherently same-gender-attracted people who are living in loving, committed relationships?

If we follow the passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about people who:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorify God. (v. 21)
   
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator). (v. 23)
   
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v. 25)
   
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex in an unbounded search for pleasure. (v. 26-27)
   
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v. 29-31)
   

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution (See note 2.)), and with people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available.

There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting with *** sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures, then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the experience of the vast majority of ***, lesbian, and bisexual people.

So given the context, and understanding that Paul's background brought him to establish all the relevant facts, it becomes unlikely that in his divine writing he neglected to mention that it was homosexuality rather than promiscuity that he was remarking upon. Would he accidentally leave out something so fundamental to the meaning? Is our God one who is unclear or forces us to infer his commands? His desire for clarity was so strong that he wrote the ten commandments in stone.

[mission vending]

This has been a great conversation guys. Thanks.

[ronsidney]

I would like to hear which verse this stems from. Until there is a verse actively condemning it the claim about homosexuality being wrong could be substituted with eating chocolate chip cookies being wrong. Since gluttony is considered one of the seven deadly sins, why don't we have a law limiting the portions people can order at Chic-Fil-A? Don't answer that, it's only a rabbit trail and I don't want to detract from the real conversation.

Though this has general been a conversation with big red, I applaud shepherd'sflock for joining the discussion. I can see what you mean about Romans 1 inferring there being something fundamentally wrong with homosexuality. For anyone reading along, you'll want to focus on verses 21 to 28. I'm going to refer to that section now, and I want readers to know that this is a fairly long response because the topic is complicated. As Shepherd noted, it appears to infer a problem. The difficulty then lies in deciding how we interpret it. We've discussed context somewhat, but sometimes it is more important than others. Let's examine the context in which Paul is writing this book. Again, I will borrow from authors who are more accomplished than myself.

For example, in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, the Apostle Paul says women should wear a veil when praying. He also says they should have long hair. Here are two rather simple, straightforward rules announced in the New Testament. How should we interpret them?

Some Christians have tried to interpret them without any reference to the cultural context in which the Apostle Paul spoke. So they require their women to wear hats in church (a modern type of veil) and require them to maintain hair that is shoulder length or longer.

But others who have studied the cultural context of this passage tell us that in Paul’s time only prostitutes wore short hair and appeared in public unveiled. If this is true, then the likely meaning of Paul’s ruling changes radically from an absolute command to one that was meant to address a problem unique to the culture of the time -- women who wore short hair or appeared unveiled in public could easily be mistaken for prostitutes. Today, even most conservative Christians do not require their women to wear head coverings or to keep their hair long. They take this position even though the words of the Bible specifically say women should do so. They refrain from imposing these requirements because they understand that the meaning of words is determined largely by the context in which they are spoken.

If anyone believes that the bible is true, context is irrelevant, and laws should be made to enforce religious values on others, then they should support legislation to criminalize short hair cuts on women. If we don't take that stance, either we don't believe the bible, we do believe context matters, or we don't believe in theology.

Romans 1 may seem daunting when first approached because it is written in a rhetorical style most modern readers are not used to. Paul, the writer of Romans, was trained as a scholar of Greek classics and Hebrew literature, and his style may seem obscure to those of us (like Tyler) who enjoy reading Dear Abby and USA Today. The pertinent passage reads as follows in the King James Version:

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” (Romans 1:21-28)

Though it may come as a surprise, we consider this to be the easiest of the clobber passages to interpret. This is because Paul, in his classically trained style, thoroughly explains the factual assumptions and rationale behind his condemnation of the behavior described here. This makes it easy for us to answer our question: Does this passage apply to inherently same-gender-attracted people who are living in loving, committed relationships?

If we follow the passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about people who:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorify God. (v. 21)
   
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator). (v. 23)
   
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v. 25)
   
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex in an unbounded search for pleasure. (v. 26-27)
   
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v. 29-31)
   

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution (See note 2.)), and with people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available.

There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting with *** sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures, then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the experience of the vast majority of ***, lesbian, and bisexual people.

So given the context, and understanding that Paul's background brought him to establish all the relevant facts, it becomes unlikely that in his divine writing he neglected to mention that it was homosexuality rather than promiscuity that he was remarking upon. Would he accidentally leave out something so fundamental to the meaning? Is our God one who is unclear or forces us to infer his commands? His desire for clarity was so strong that he wrote the ten commandments in stone.

Just saying this lurtsman,, the reason the thread stopped in case you didn't know......You know how when you read a argument and then one party arguing basically agrees with the other party because they quote something that so obviously agrees with what the other person is saying it makes the person quoting it seem foolish..You know what i mean?

some real nice quotes from someone evidently who reads the word, but one can not just read the word and understand it ..A person needs sunday school or guidance teaching to fully understand what they are reading or they look foolish when they don't understand what they are reading or quoting. A person can not truly learn to be a doctor just by reading medical books.

lets put this in vending terms since this is a vending discussion board..

A person is a exterminator who is hired to kill rodents etc.. He has a new invention that is a new kind of rat poison that is similar in shape and size to a gum ball..highly deadly to anybody that one ingest it.. A person is to take this gum ball shaped rat killer and put the capsule in their air vent in their house,, microscopic particles would be released in the air ducts of the house and kill only rats or mice but leave humans totally unaffected.. So it was the perfect rat poison,totally safe when used in the right capacity..

He gets a normal NW 60 gum ball machine so he can vend them at a quarter each and places the machines around to sell his invention..Would this be wise?? to use something that evidently was made to do something else?? should the responsible people(other operators) just say its his gum ball machine and leave him alone and he isn't hurting other gum ball machine operators selling gum balls?? should someone tell him he is potentially harming the innocent if some naive person buys his product and eats it because they thought it was a gum ball because every where you look the machines dispense gum balls and its obvious that is what the creator of NW60's intended his creation to dispense?? etc. etc.

To make excuses for him and try to defend him, because it is his right to do whatever, is OK...Just don't expect the other vendors of gum balls that are worried about their whole vending industry being tainted to support him.. They are all worried that the Northwestern corp will get pissed, and worried about their creation being distorted ,, that they would just quit making them or selling spare parts etc.. That they would just let the whole thing die basically, because without any support from the creator and manufacturer it would fall apart..

To try and manipulate the obvious reason something was made and use it for something it wasn't made for and could be harmful is wrong. To then try and argue that case to other people saying they are wrong and you are right is dumb. .........To say its a choice and I choose to be wrong is the truth.. Why don't people just admit it?? there is no "natural" reason why someone is *** other than a defect in the programming, either by birth and a mental illness of some sort..or by being emotionally trained or abused to where it becomes the result... I don't think anyone should be persecuted because of it, but as fellow "vending operators" who can see the error shouldn't the truth be shared and supported??

nobody is *** bashing here!! I have *** people i love, My uncle and my niece are both *** and I love them dearly. Im sad that they are *** because they won't know true happiness no matter how you try to bend the world to fit them.. There is no changing them so why bother,, but for me to go cuss out a preacher for "preaching" what is written because it hurt their feelings would bring the wrath onto me.. Like the bible says somewhere (can't remember as I'm not gonna sit here looking up bible versus) basically that the liquor store owner selling the liquor to the drunk is doing the wronger sin even if the liquor store owner is not the one drinking it...you must look out for your fellow man, not lead them astray. To cuss out the preacher would be the same as being the liquor store owner..

I originally started this thread not for controversy or arguments but to use the chic fil a as a example of how to get free press and a bunch of money from controversy....just in a business mindset,not to start a argument here.

ron

[caserri]

My uncle and my niece are both *** and I love them dearly. Im sad that they are *** because they won't know true happiness

Wow. With all due respect Ron, that is a very ignorant statement. By your logic, someone who was born deaf will never know true happiness because they can't hear like you do. Or, someone who was born without hands will never know true happiness because they can't hold something in their hands like you do. Or, a dog will never know true happiness because he can't walk upright like you do. Or, a bird thinking that people will never know true happiness because we can't flap our wings and fly!

I can go on. My point is that homosexuality is as much as a choice for gay people as heterosexuality is for you. To put it simply, it is not and for you to sit there and think that someone who is gay will never be happy is absurd and extremely narrow minded.

Here is an exercise for you. As someone who was born a heterosexual, try to imagine converting yourself to homosexuality. You couldn't do it. To you, it would be like changing your race and becoming Chinese. Why can't you acknowledge that it would be the same for someone who was born gay?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[ronsidney]

Wow. With all due respect Ron, that is a very ignorant statement. By your logic, someone who was born deaf will never know true happiness because they can't hear like you do. Or, someone who was born without hands will never know true happiness because they can't hold something in their hands like you do. Or, a dog will never know true happiness because he can't walk upright like you do. Or, a bird thinking that people will never know true happiness because we can't flap our wings and fly!

I can go on. My point is that homosexuality is as much as a choice for *** people as heterosexuality is for you. To put it simply, it is not and for you to sit there and think that someone who is *** will never be happy is absurd and extremely narrow minded.

Here is an exercise for you. As someone who was born a heterosexual, try to imagine converting yourself to homosexuality. You couldn't do it. To you, it would be like changing your race and becoming Chinese. Why can't you acknowledge that it would be the same for someone who was born ***?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

What is your definition of true happiness??? They where arguing religion, in that context a *** Christian person could never have true happiness if he/she is directly going against what their God wants for them... So your comparisons don't fit this argument ... Race or handicap has nothing to do with ones religion.

ron

[caserri]

My definition doesn't matter. What makes me happy may not be what makes you happy. As far as religion, I hate to break it to you but not everyone has the same religion, if any at all. So, what makes me happy and fulfilled in my religion will not be the same as what makes you happy in yours. Therefore, you have no right to tell me, or anyone else, that they will never find true happiness based on what "you" believe in.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[ronsidney]

like I said,,, the argument was about Christian beliefs in this whole thread, from top to bottom of WHOLE thread..That is the context in that statement..My uncle and niece are both Christians and that is context of my statement also... I didn't tell you anything about you or anybody else,,just my uncle and niece was the only examples i made..

nobody was arguing from a view point of atheism or other religion..

ron

[caserri]

like I said,,, the argument was about Christian beliefs in this whole thread, from top to bottom of WHOLE thread..That is the context in that statement..My uncle and niece are both Christians and that is context of my statement also... I didn't tell you anything about you or anybody else,,just my uncle and niece was the only examples i made..

nobody was arguing from a view point of atheism or other religion..

ron

First, I'm not arguing. I'm discussing.

Secondly, I don't care in what "context" your statement was made or what this thread is about. The point you made was that you feel sorry for your uncle and niece as they will never find true happiness being gay. How can you say that? You have no clue what true happiness means to them. How would you feel if I said you'll never find true happiness because you believe in God and as such you'll never experience the happiness of true spirituality like I do?

I'm sure if I said that you'd think it absurd. After all, God is the path to true happiness, right?

All I'm saying is to look at it from another perspective. Maybe your uncle and neice feel sorry for you because you'll never know true happiness. Trust me, there is no reason to feel "sorry" for them.

Listen Ron, I respect your opinions everywhere on this forum. You are a valued member and I appreciate your input. However, I just can not agree with you on this matter.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[lurtsman]

Ron,

In your long response to my long response, you brought up a very strange story about rat poison and vending machines. I commend your use of metaphor, but the story was so estranged from the facts being discussed that it didn't represent any clear position. What I got out of your post:

You think someone seems foolish. You are comparing someone, but isn't clear whom, to a person ingesting rat poison.

You feel that something is somehow comparable to cussing at a preacher. It isn't clear where this analogy is going. So far, you are the first person in this thread to suggest that another person is any of the following: Foolish, defective, mentally ill, or abused. In an attempt to keep this conversation civil, I would encourage you to focus on the task at hand. This thread is now about biblical principles. Since Jesus does not command you to inform others that you consider them foolish, defective, mentally ill, or abused, I would appreciate it if you would participate by sharing your insight on the word of God.

It appears that you believe that studying the bible, meditating on the word, and praying to God are not enough to have an intimate relationship with the Lord God Almighty, but going to other humans have the power to change that. I don't agree with that. If you must go to a teacher rather than read God's writing to have a relationship with God, then it should be spelled with a little g. The god you are describing is not the Lord Almighty.

Did you consider your family to be defective by birth, or abused to the point of homosexuality? I don't think that's a nice thing to say about anyone. It is your right to say it, and it shows the strength of your conviction that you would feel that way about your family. However, you did not bring up any evidence from the Bible. Is your emotional intensity supported by biblical principles? Do you actually read the bible and meditate on the scripture? The scriptures are the divine word of a perfect and almighty God. Your pastor is a human who sins and falls short along with the rest of us. If your pastor is telling you something that you can not find in the bible, you should ask him to find it. If he is preaching things that are not in the bible and claiming that it is the word of God... well God already made his stance clear. You can find it in the Bible.

So, again I ask, where does the Lord God Almighty declare with his sovereign authority that homosexuality is a crime against him? No human on earth has the authority to make that declaration. Anyone who attempts to make such a declaration seeks to usurp the power of the church and wield it for their own agenda.