[retsoksirhc]

Fear what?

[Starman]

If I don't know anything about it, how am I supposed to know if I believe in it? And contrary to what Christians might say about "my lifestyle," I'm not gay. Just because I believe that homosexuals should not be discriminated against, either in society OR in the Christian religion,

I agree that homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against. However, what you consider discrimination is lack of approval of lifestyle. If a Moslem doesn't live in accordance with the Koran and is told he is wrong and not really a Moslem--is he being discriminated against? Or if a president behaves in the Oval Office in a way that he is not supposed to according to the rules of presidential comportment, and is told--is he being discriminated against? If a monk breaks his vow of silence and is told that he should adhere to the rules-is he being discriminated against? So you see, its not really discrimination as you are perceiving it but merely a reminder that certain rules have to be respected. Nothing more. Nothing less. You wish biblical support for the rules, OK. Here are some scriptures that you can look up and read for yourself.

Leviticus 18:22

BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: Leviticus 18:21-23;

Romans 1: 27

BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: Romans 1:26, 27;


Jude 1: 7

BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: Jude 1: 7;

Levitucus 20: 13

BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: Leviticus

that doesn't mean I'm gay. In fact, I'm not even bisexual. I'm *gasp* straight! Just because I don't consider myself a Christian doesn't mean I shouldn't care about the bible. If you're not a Buddhist, should you not give a rats arse about inner peace? And I never said it was disorganized.

Agreed, concern about inner peace can lead one to study the principles of Buddhism. I was referring however to people who wish to live their own way, don't view the Bible as authoritative, are determined to be a law unto themselves, but who simultaneously enjoy
Casting doubt on whatever the Bible says. However, I was wrong in assuming anything at all about your lifestyle. My apologies for my hasty unwarranted conclusion.

Though you mention that I think it's open to all and any interpretation. I guess I was wrong about that. There is only one form of Christianity. All those different denominations of Christian churches don't actually exist, I must have imagined them. I may not believe that everything stated in the bible is true, but it does teach several good lessons.

That different interpretations exist, they do. That all these interpretations are justified or equally valid--they aren't. That their existence proves that the Bible has no central theme which coherently unifies it and makes multiple interpretations Ok--it doesn't.

My point is, just because I don't consider myself a Christian doesn't mean I can't learn about Christianity. Knowing facts about what you don't believe is what makes arguments valid. If you can't see thing from another persons point of view, then what chance do you have of showing where you disagree and why? It would be like yelling at a brick wall.

Sorry, I was under the impression that you did fully understand where we disagreed and that you would continue to disagree. But let's give it another try and see if we can clarify things a little.

I agree, discussion is good and can lead to a broader understanding. I am not at all averse to discussing the reasons for Christian beliefs. I am however against a futile exercise in futility whereby 20 disagreements with 20 explanations provided are followed with twenty disagreements more with the explanations provided ad infinitum.

As for the mention of my interpretation of what the bible says about humans judging each other, feel free to disagree. But like I said, see it from my point of view. Explain to me why you think that interoperation is invalid. Don't just say I shouldn't be interpreting it because I don't consider myself a Christian. It's almost as if you think saying "Oh, you don't believe? Well **** you then" will help someone spiritually. That's how I perceive this post, at least. Feel free to disagree with me, but only if you plan to give an explanation of your reasoning so that I might try to understand where your opinion comes from.

No. I was simply trying to avoid the perpetual merry-go-round scenario and in that way preventing bus both from getting into an is! Is not! Contest. You see, my friend, when I said that my explanation was founded on scripture, you said that I was misinterpreting scripture. That in itself makes all further dialogue unproductive since any text proof I might present is under the threat of being immediately tagged as merely my particular interpretation. Of course you have a right to disagree with scripture. But please do so on some other ground than meaning when meaning is clear and really not an issue.

Sorry if I sound like an arse, but you CAN'T just tell me to F off (in a matter of speaking) without giving me a reason. The Internet is about open exchange of information, and AMHD is about helping others, not telling them they shouldn't be in a specific forum.

I look forward to reading your well thought out reply.

No, you don't sound that way at all. As a matter of fact, you sound like a reasonable person in search of answers. Also, please accept my apologies of I sounded the way that you say. It was not my intention to come across that way.

BTW

I didn't say they shouldn't be here. I said they shouldn't be surprised if scriptures are quoted in this forum.

[retsoksirhc]

Awesome. Thank you for clarifying, as you are one of the few people I have disagreed with that actually present a decent explanation of their position.

I agree that homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against. However, what you consider discrimination is lack of approval of lifestyle. If a Moslem doesn't live in accordance with the Koran and is told he is wrong and not really a Moslem--is he being discriminated against? Or if a president behaves in the Oval Office in a way that he is not supposed to according to the rules of presidential comportment, and is told--is he being discriminated against? If a monk breaks his vow of silence and is told that he should adhere to the rules-is he being discriminated against? So you see, its not really discrimination as you are perceiving it but merely a reminder that certain rules have to be respected. Nothing more. Nothing less. You wish biblical support for the rules, OK. Here are some scriptures that you can look up and read for yourself.

I definitely see where you're coming from here. I think the difference in our opinion comes from the fact that I think homosexuality includes being in love with someone of the same sex, not just having intercourse with them. My interpretation basically is that man shall not lie with another man based on the fact that trying to procreate with man in the same way he would with woman is a sin. Though I don't agree with that, I do believe that other sexual acts besides intercourse are not referenced, nor is the ability to have feelings of love for someone of the same sex.

Agreed, concern about inner peace can lead one to study the principles of Budhism. I was referring however to people who wish to live their own way, don't view the Bible as authoritative, are determined to be a law unto themselves, but who simultaneously enjoy
casting doubt on whatever the Bible says. However, I was wrong in assuming anything at all about your lifestyle. My apologies for m,y hasty unwaranted conclusion.

No problem. It happens a lot, when I get into these type of situations.

That different interpretations exist, they do. That all these interpretations are justified or equally valid--they aren't. That their existence proves that the Bible has no central theme which coherently unifies it and makes multiple interpretations Ok--it doesn't.

Now, this is where I think we would get into the is/is not issue. I believe that each interpretation could be correct, as long as you follow the commantments. I think that basically, the rest of the bible is a guideline, and not specific rules. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to convice you otherwise, and likewise.

Sorry, I was under the impression that you did fully understand where we disagreed and that you would continue to disagree. But let's give it another try and see if we can clarify things a little.

I agree, discussion is good and can lead to a broader understanding. I am not at all averse to discussing the reasons for Christian beliefs. I am however against a futile exercise in futility whereby 20 disagreements with 20 explanations provided are followed with twenty disagreements more with the explanations provided ad infinitum.

Again, I agree. This would be pretty pointless.

No. I was simply trying to avoid the perpetual merry-go-round scenario and in that way preventing bus both from getting into an is! Is not! contest. You see, my friend, when I said that my explanation was founded on scripture, you said that I was misinterpreting scripture. That in itself makes all further dialogue unproductive since any text proof I might present is under the threat of being immediately tagged as merely my particular interpretation. Of course you have a right to disagree with scripture. But please do so on some other ground than meaning when meaning is clear and really not an issue.

I don't believe I ever said you were misinterpreting. If I did, I'm sorry. This goes along with my belief that different interpretations are valid, although I can see where most people think otherwise, as this would definitely account for several of the separate denominations that exist today.

No, you don't sound that way at all. As a matter of fact, you sound like a reasonable person in search of answers. Also, please accept my apologies of I sounded the way that you say. It was not my intention to come across that way.
BTW
I didn't say they shouldn't be here. I said they shouldn't be surprised if scriptures are quoted in this forum.

I wasn't sure if you meant it that way or not, but it sortof sounded like it to me. I now realise that you didn't mean to sound that way, and I appreciate your response. I'm sure you've seen your fair share of people just posting an opinion without any real reason, and not having any inclination to listen to what others might say about their opinion. It's always nice to be able to make your claims, and actually have an explanation of why other people disagree. There are far too many people who just like to get into shouting matches.

[tickle]

If I found out my son was gay I would love him just the same. His proclavity doesn't change who he is and what he is mentally and spiritually. He is a good person and that would never change.

[Hope12]

B/c in the bible (their holly word) pish posh to me. It says god doesnt like gays. Well to me i think then that this "god" is a lier, fraud and time waster. It's different to be gay. So ppl get scared and go nuts. Just like they did to ppl with special gifts they called them witches. Bunch of crap to me.

Hello Raynefreak,

God never said he does not like gays, in fact God loves all people and that means exactly what the Bible says all people, Bi people, gay people, straight people and even those who have sexual habits that are perverted.
Notice that God set his son, Jesus to die for all, not just straight people. Read what it says:

John 3:16 (New King James Version)
"
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

2 Peter 3:9-11 (New King James Version)

9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[a] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.


Just because someone is gay that does not mean God does not like gays. If a person is a thief, it does not mean God does not like them. God love them as brought out in the scripture above which states ""For God so "Loved the world" He gave His only begotten Son." That shows the amount that God love every person, not just those who are straight, but also gays and thieves, and murders, and those who committ immorality.

Notice what God does say he hates.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New King James Version)
"9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

God does hate the bad behavior of those who disobey his laws. God though does not hate the person. God does not destroy or judge the individual our of hate but because he loves each one of us individually, he warns us and if anyone looses their eternal life, it is the persons fault, not God's. God warns us and he does not want for anyone to die. Notice.

2 Peter 3:9 (New King James Version)
" 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[a] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

If someone has actions that God does not approve of, if that person loses their eternal life, That is not God's fault but the consquences of their actions or bad behavior. They brought the punishment and negative judgement on themselves. That is not God's Fault.

People who commit sin and go against God's laws, blame God, but it is not God's fault nor because God does not like them. God loves them so much he gave his only son to die for them. Do you have that much love for others? If people do not want to obey their Creator, then the judgement that is negative is their own fault. They do not like themselves. If they did, they would not abuse their bodies in any way that it was not created to be used.

The ones who disobey God's direct laws, should place the hate and fault on the right person, themselves!

Take care,
Hope12