Should homosexuality become a religion?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Should homosexuality become a religion?

Post #1

Post by AlAyeti »

Christianity is incompatible with those that are involved in lifestyle contrary to the Biblical views on marriage, family and sexual morality, and/or that will not repent of their "sins."

The homosexual ideological stance refuses to believe that they are doing anything wrong, claiming that homosexuality is a set pre-birth condition. This sets the Christian ideological and Theological beliefs against those that want to live a homosexual lifestyle.

Maniline protestant Christianity is clear in its teachings about the incompatibilty of homosexuals in the Clergy and Pope Benedict and the Catholic church (after being palgued by homosexual pedophila scandals) has issued guideleines for homosexual behavior and being a Catholic Priest.

If homosexuals claim that they are born to "be" homosexuals and deny that they are behaving contrary to the Bible, which puts their position in diametric opposition of established Biblical truths, shouldn't "they just start their own religion?
From the Associated Press:

Vatican Closes Door on Gay Seminarians

By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer

The Vatican is toughening its stand against gay candidates for the priesthood, specifying in a new document that even men with "transitory" homosexual tendencies must overcome their urges for at least three years before entering the clergy.

A long-awaited "Instruction," due to be released next week, was posted Tuesday on the Internet by the Italian Catholic news agency Adista. A church official who has read the document confirmed its authenticity; he asked that his name not be used because the piece has not been published by the Vatican.

Conservative Roman Catholics who have decried the "gay subculture" in seminaries will likely applaud the policy because it clarifies what the Vatican expects of seminarians and their administrators.

Critics of the policy warned that, if enforced, it will likely result in seminarians lying about their orientation and will decrease the already dwindling number of priests in the United States. Estimates of the percentage of gays in U.S. seminaries and the priesthood range from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a research review by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, an author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."

The document from the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education says the church deeply respects homosexuals. But it also says it "cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture."

"Those people find themselves, in fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women. One cannot ignore the negative consequences that can stem from the ordination of people with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies," it said.

"If instead it is a case of homosexual tendencies that are merely the expression of a transitory problem, for example as in the case of an unfinished adolescence, they must however have been clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination as a deacon."

For many gay-rights activists, the Vatican's distinction between deep-rooted and "transitory" homosexuality is without basis.

"For decades now, the scientific and medical community have said that sexual orientation is an immutable trait, what some of us might call a gift from God," said Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

"This new policy causes candidates for the priesthood to be deceptive, and that should not be what the church should be about," he said.

Vatican prohibitions on sexually active gays becoming priests are not new, and a 1961 document says homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood. But the issue came to the fore in 2002, at the height of the clergy sex abuse scandal in the United States.

A study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found most abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys. Experts on sex offenders said homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to molest young people, but that did not stifle questions about gay seminarians. In addition, some Catholic researchers said "gay subcultures" in seminaries were alienating heterosexuals, prompting them to drop out.

The new document underlines that long-standing traditions and church teaching consider homosexual acts "grave sins" and also intrinsically immoral and contrary to natural law.

Thomas Plante, a psychologist who for more than 15 years has conducted evaluations of prospective seminarians for U.S. dioceses and religious orders, said the document would have an "enormous" ripple effect on the future U.S. priesthood if it is followed.

"Sexual orientation in almost all the evaluations I've done over 15 years hasn't really mattered," he said. "Now what's coming out of the Vatican is that it matters in a big way. That's a real challenge because we think that there are many, many, many gay men who are fabulous priests."

He questioned how seminary directors would apply the new regulations, and suggested that many may resort to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The candidates too, may try to hide their sexual orientation because homosexuality is now a deal-breaker, said Plante, who is chairman of the psychology department at Santa Clara University in California.

The document, called an "Instruction," is only five pages long, including footnotes. It was signed by the prefect and secretary of the congregation on Nov. 4, and says it was approved by Pope Benedict XVI on Aug. 31.

The text makes no reference to current priests, directed instead to people entering seminaries and preparing for ordination. Its title reads: "Regarding the criteria of vocational discernment regarding people with homosexual tendencies in view of their admission to the seminary and to sacred orders."

The sex abuse scandals have forced an unprecedented introspection into the clergy and how to train future priests. In September, Vatican-directed inspectors started visiting all 229 American seminaries. Part of their mission has been to seek any "evidence of homosexuality."

The Vatican has often visited the issue of homosexuality, reflecting an unbending theological opposition but also an acknowledgment that discrimination based on sexual preference is not justified.

In 2003, homosexuality was described as a "troubling moral and social phenomenon" in a document by the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict this year.

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #11

Post by AlAyeti »

Quote:
Why not just develope their own religion based on their own "interpretations" of truth?
Al, you are doing that, if subtly.

YOUR INTERPRETATIONS aren't the ONLY ones. And thousands of other denominations prove empirically what I'm saying.

Still, I get the sense that you would not be satisfied, until others were FORCED to follow what YOU think is "Christian". That won't ever happen.

Please learn to love others directly, before you waste your life making more trouble than this world already has in it.
Mel, you personally attacke me, Not in such a bad way but a personal way none the less. I want to challenge this.

I love others enough to preach the truth in and of the Bible.
Pope Benedict is doing the same and yet I do not go into Catholic Churches and demand what you claim that I do, that "they" see things my way. Pope Benedict just knows Biblical truth no more no less.

Prove I do otherwise or apologize to me on these boards?

I am tired of being accused of being anti-Christian, a bigot or homephobic (whatever that means) by you (or anyone else). Prove it or apologize (you, non-Christians do not have to). I have stated that you and I are Christian brothers and you have made it clear that you are a homosexual. Homophobe and bigot, this statement is not.

Prove I do not love you in Christ - or as a citizen of the world that has the right to live freely - like I declare, or apologize to me on these boards. Christ is the ultimate pro-choice. I'll agree with the facts that Christians have misrepresented the truth of Christianty any and everytime that is proven to be the case FROM THE GOSPELS (hello). As in the case of celebrating what cannot be celebrated within the doctrine that defines the New Testament. If a person wants to lie or misrepresent that, then they either need to repent when proven wrong or! foundntheir own way of living their beliefs.

Prove that that is intolerance? Gays and Lesbians demand to be recognized. A new religion would do just that. Peace and inclusivity on the worlds stage would be the result. It is far past time for the homosexual agenda to stop being intolerant towards others that want to believe the Bible as it is wriiten. There are immutable facts in the Bible.

God does not change for politics. Or! the homosexual agenda of intolerance to anything that dissents from its leadership in all sexual matters.

This post is one entertaining the question of equality. Homosexuality and its proponents and adherants, should establish a new religion and stand among the earths belief-systems and declare itself the way that homosexuals want to, if they cannot force change in others.

That is neither hateful nor is it bigotry. Prove that it is.

melikio
Guru
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: U.S.A.

No attack, Al.

Post #12

Post by melikio »

Mel, you personally attacke me, Not in such a bad way but a personal way none the less.
Al, that I attacked you is a perception. And since you like being in the someone's face so much, I don't understand why you would be as sensitive as your are to gentle but pointed come-backs. Don't expect me and everyone else to just sit back and be passive, while you try to propagate YOUR customized version of biblical and moral truth; that isn't going to happen.

And you like to be point blank with what you believe is "truth", so I returned the same to you; as gently as I could.

I've seen people "attacked" on boards, and by comparison the things I said are virtually kind.

I didn't unleash some degrading attack, like you typically do with homosexuals; same old crap, wrapped in the various veils which conceal the evil from plain view.

You aren't helping homosexual people with the message you put out; that is my opinion, but it isn't an attack. You are generally unkind to and unsympathetic toward homosexuals in your comments, but that isn't an attack, because I pointed it out.

Don't be so sensitive. You know people are going to oppose your views and hold you suspect on these boards; you aren't exactly being kind to homosexuals or anyone who disagrees with you, Al. I feel as if you want to CONTROL others, but I'm willing to admit that I could be seeing that improperly.

Love is absolutely superior to these arguments, IMHO.

Peace an grace to you,

-Mel-
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #13

Post by AlAyeti »

There is no refutatation of my position in your post Mel. there is also no proof I am trying to "force" anyone to follow me. I present opposition to the wholesale willy-nilly attack on Bible-believing Christians that are denigrated and discriminated against for being Christians the way Christianity is presented in the Gospels and New Testament.

You responded like a politician; responding to the issue without addressing your error.
Quote:
Mel, you personally attacke me, Not in such a bad way but a personal way none the less.

Al, that I attacked you is a perception.


You have labeled me many times and yet never used the New Testament or Gospel to disprove my sound Biblical use of both. I want you to prove that I am not loving others? By ignoring truth it would seem quite clear is where hatred would be found.
And since you like being in the someone's face so much, I don't understand why you would be as sensitive as your are to gentle but pointed come-backs.
I seek in my opposition the honesty that they oppose me as this is the honesty that I show to them. I'll be doing the same thing to the Urantians soon. You go into some kind of personal therapy delivery on issues time and again and the use of debate is to present evidence not always just personal feelings. I would like to see you or anyone else change Christianity from the Bible? If that is seen as meanness then Christianity is being judged and rejected not me. I take no personal insult but challenged your error regarding some kind of "feelings" about me as one Christian (you) to another (me).

I have at no time "damned" you for anything. I present the Biblical view to what Christians can believe and what they can and cannot "license" in the church. You cannot prove that I do otherwise. Marriage is exclusively man/woman. If you are going to claim Christianity and want to support good marriages, then there is only kind and always will be. Evolutionary theories change because they are based on chaos, Christianity is based on the Way, the truth and the Life of Christ Jesus.
Don't expect me and everyone else to just sit back and be passive, while you try to propagate YOUR customized version of biblical and moral truth; that isn't going to happen.


This is an OP/ED piece. Nothing but personal opinion not backed up by facts. Present the New Testament or science to prove your position. I present both at all times. You of all people on these boards should be able to debate my views from the texts I use. I had from nothing.
And you like to be point blank with what you believe is "truth", so I returned the same to you; as gently as I could.


Where have you presented anything but OP/ED? Please a little evidence for your positions would be nice.All I've seen is personal experience of how you feel. I could post a lot personal experiences about a lot of things. I use anatomy, physiology, and biology and the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.

Please do the same. Emotionalism is what causes men to go to war.
I've seen people "attacked" on boards, and by comparison the things I said are virtually kind.


You assert that I do not have love. This is a declaration that I am not a believer. John's epistles declare that well. And you have made a judgment on me and I am challenging that as wrong. I have that right my brother.
I didn't unleash some degrading attack, like you typically do with homosexuals; same old crap, wrapped in the various veils which conceal the evil from plain view.


Pope Benedict and I agree. As do I and so many other people that believe in anatomy and God's word. Billions I think is the number to us "bigots" and un-loving Christians. And of course we have Jesus and His definition of divorce and marriage. I am in a large group with Jesus as our guide. I believe this is good "sexual orientation," if my dictionary serves me as well as my Bible.
You aren't helping homosexual people with the message you put out; that is my opinion, but it isn't an attack.
The truth will set you free. If it does not it is not my fault. I have never changed truth either scientifically or Biblically. Prove that I have?
You are generally unkind to and unsympathetic toward homosexuals in your comments, but that isn't an attack, because I pointed it out.
Then cancer doctors are bigots. Telling people that their lifestyle choices could and do kill them.
Don't be so sensitive.


I am being analytical. Big difference.

I have not presented my personal views about the suffering individuals that dwell in sexual regret. This breaks my heart but their unwillingness to change and their willingness to literally infect good people, that make good choices, demand that I protect the flock from those that would hurt the little ones. Prove that I do not.

I do not believe that sexual deviance - condoned and celebrated as a civil right - is what God in His word, allows from His followers. Prove that God from the Bible allows the redefinition of marriage and the celebration of sexual deviant behavior?
You know people are going to oppose your views and hold you suspect on these boards;


Like Jesus warned would happen.
you aren't exactly being kind to homosexuals or anyone who disagrees with you, Al.
The truth should not hurt. Repentance is an eternal analgesic. If someone chooses not to believe the Bible then I have to care for those that will.
I feel as if you want to CONTROL others, but I'm willing to admit that I could be seeing that improperly.


Please look up the word "orientation" and please use it correctly on sexual crime.
Love is absolutely superior to these arguments, IMHO.
When I see children that do not understand words in context playing on the freeway I will show them love and let them get struck by a car. Is that what you are saying is love?

Again, your position would make the American Cancer Society bigots and phobics, because they too want to warn people of behavior that is deadly.

You still have not proven from the Bible or science where I err? Where I am unloving.

Whether you want to apologize or not you still have not presented proof of what you claim. I on the other hand, have agreed with others, whenever I have violated scripture and the human anatomy and physiology.

Please show where a Christian can agree to change the Bible to fit persons personal choice behavior or a congenital condition that violates scientific OR Biblical law?

I enjoy a good OP/ED, but even a columnist has to prove his position from facts when challenged on his error.

Please do the same.

melikio
Guru
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Not Merely A "Refutation" of "AL"

Post #14

Post by melikio »

There is no refutatation of my position in your post Mel.
Al, you are basically mistaken. I've learned enough to not try to refute you directly or point for point, it is fruitless. YOU expect people to remain as narrowly and ineffectively focused as yourself. I understand what you say, but WHAT you say is as clear as looking at the sky and finding it "green" or the ocean "red".

For one, it doesn't take any amazing amount of fact, intuition or understanding, t confirm that you aren't speaking THE truth. Your conjecture, which is practically foolish to refute as YOU wish it to be (for your purposes), is nothing to expend too much though upon (a waste of time).

And Al, this boils down to LAW in the end (cut to the chase). Perhaps for a substantial time there will be "legal" yet unjust discrimination against homosexuals; it will change.

We differ:
You expect to convince people's hearts without "communicating" to them, I don't; you think your beliefs/facts are equal to "proof", I do not. I don't believe the Bible is to be taken literally, you DO.

So, I'm not directly arguing against your points, but sharing what I've found to be most valid. It may not be as "Christian" a point of view as you think you possess, but I don't care really. I certanly don't want to see religion prohibited as some do, but I do understand where those people are coming from. Primarily, it is a lashing out at the controlling nature of FUNDAMENTALISM.

Once your morality or religion goes beyond self-compulsion, to mandatorily compelling others to accept the same, then that is when I and many others will FIGHT BACK. It may be subtle/gentle as most reasonable people tend to be, or it may be radical against radical...etc.

I'd rather NOT be a "Christian", than try to convince, appease those who have no true compassion or understanding for those who are homosexual.

Remember Al (and you can't play this down), I've seen well over 100+ posts, where you adamantly imply that homosexuality or a homosexual orientation somehow equates with CRIME. Why do you think anyone should take you seriously? You can be a "fact-spewer", and STILL have the spirit of your overall message be EVIL. For example, I've been on the net, and seen "good" people (on "Christian" sites), support their hatefully racist attitudes with an amazing collection of facts and literary-eloquence. In other words, they couldn't have expressed their "WRONGNESS" in a more effective manner.

You believe/think homosexuality is sin. I even think you believe that being a homosexual is a sin. I have believed that myself, for a time. But what you fail to acknowledge or communicate, is that you aren't providing any real solutions to/for homosexual people. I see that easily in your views, and it echos the hopelessness and lonliness that homosexual people often endure.

YOU prove (readily enough) that you don't CARE about homosexual people. And you also prove that you believe what you do. I respect your right to those convictions and beliefs in a human sense, but you lend evidence that you cannot be trusted with the hearts and minds of those who are too easily influenced; I sense hatred in your views, even if I really couldn't disprove a damned thing you say.

I'm just here to say how you affect me and many others. And that is a pragmatic approach to all the things you think/believe you are saying to the (perhaps thousands) of people who "Google" the word "homosexual", "pedophile" or "Christian". So, while you certainly manage to call "red" by the name "blue", I still have seen what I've seen (so have we all). If you believe that you are somehow superior or possess more truth (from your biblical interpretations) than every other person who ISN'T anti-homosexual, then you need a serious REALITY CHECK.

As I said before, it's not hard to refute any one fact you like to throw out, but the evil (unintentional or not) locked into your messages canot be ignored. You seem to offer something helpful, but it really isn't in the practica sense. You speak of what you dislike, but in no way justify your or any other Christian fundamentalist's perceived right or justification to exert the types and levels of control upon others, as you or they tend to imply would be necessary or correct.

I see hatred and an oppressive attitude in much of what you are saying (overall). I don't read your statements fact-for-fact or point-for-point, so your analytical approach isn't having the type of effect you devised in your mental LABORATORY. From your keyboard to my mind, is the field test, that I believe YOUR LOGIC generally fails. I cannot see why I would trust you or Christians who think like you; can you give me a real reason to NOT dig a trench and prop a weapon up over the edge (in defense)?

Al, to directly refute what you say, is based in large part upon how tenable your points were to me originally; I'm not going to talk about things that make little or no sense to me. Even so, I WILL ALWAYS tell you how your message affects me as a person. As it now stands, you haven't helped me to be LESS homosexual than I have been for 35+ years; and there was a time where I thought ideas/doctrines like yours COULD indeed make a significan't difference, I used to believe the kind of stuff you and other fundamentalists push out here, but I can no longer abide those views.

-Mel-
Last edited by melikio on Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-

melikio
Guru
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Other viewpoints.

Post #15

Post by melikio »

Here are some links to views I find to be reasonable for "Christians", concerning homosexuality itself. I can accept the definition as "immoral", but not the hateful caveats and qualifiers many attach to their views. And more than most other issues, those evil caveats seem to accompany the comments of "Christians" where it concerns "homosexuality"; it is hypocritical and near-sighted at best. I see clearly enough in an impirical sense, that people have literally JUSTIFIED hating homosexual people, and if truly "just" or "loving" people cannot be compassionate toward homosexuals...why wouldn't they eventually defend themselves?

God isn't stupid.

http://www.radicalcongruency.com/ec04/campolo1.mpg

http://www.radicalcongruency.com/ec04/campolo2.mpg

http://www.radicalcongruency.com/ec04/campolo3.mpg

Not that anyone MUST agree with Campolo's personal views, but to present something credible from an authority on "people", who has nothing to gain or lose by posting on this thread.

Personally, I think Campolo's views are reasonable and truly "Christian". It's not some sterile and practically THOUGHTLESS (unfeeling), biblical interpretation from one who doesn't likely really care about or understand people.

You see, people who HATE, CAN DO IT using the Bible. And people who LOVE, can accomplish far more with the Bible than those who would hold it as a LAWBOOK (or war manual) over others' heads.

-Mel-
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #16

Post by Cathar1950 »

melikio's last two post were very insightful and all to obvious. This is not bobbleheaded.
Christianity is incompatible with those that are involved in lifestyle contrary to the Biblical views on marriage, family and sexual morality, and/or that will not repent of their "sins."
If homosexuals claim that they are born to "be" homosexuals and deny that they are behaving contrary to the Bible, which puts their position in diametric opposition of established Biblical truths, shouldn't "they just start their own religion?
First I would say this is just one interpretation even if all mainline Christians agree with you. They don't all agree.
Some would say adherence to a biblical view is non Christian, in that their faith is in a book. Their are many Christianities rather you like it or not.
There are not established bible truths except to some one who believes them to be bible truths. They all do not agree.
So I see no reason for then to start their own church unless they want to.
IF I were them I would avoid your church do to your authoritarian personality. There are many churches that accept them just fine with out becoming self righteous and obnoxious.

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #17

Post by AlAyeti »

I started here because I cannot practice psycholgy.
As I said before, it's not hard to refute any one fact you like to throw out, but the evil (unintentional or not) locked into your messages canot be ignored.
Evil in presenting the Bible without editing?
You seem to offer something helpful, but it really isn't in the practica sense.
No, it is not in a "personal" sense. These boards are not for warm and fuzzy proselytizing. The Urantians are finding that out.
You speak of what you dislike, but in no way justify your or any other Christian fundamentalist's perceived right or justification to exert the types and levels of control upon others, as you or they tend to imply would be necessary or correct.
Christians no well what the sexually licentious have done to them Our faith was founded on the death and hooro suffered by sweet people by sexual tyrants.
I see hatred and an oppressive attitude in much of what you are saying (overall).


A wolf does indeed need to fear my sling and stones. The flock does not.
I don't read your statements fact-for-fact or point-for-point, so your analytical approach isn't having the type of effect you devised in your mental LABORATORY. From your keyboard to my mind, is the field test, that I believe YOUR LOGIC generally fails.


I have always said it would not have any effect in changing you because I am not trying to. This is a debate group not a street corner or Church.
I cannot see why I would trust you or Christians who think like you; can you give me a real reason to NOT dig a trench and prop a weapon up over the edge (in defense)?
I am defending Christians from those that want unrepentant sinners to run our churches. Seems I have a friend in the Pope.
Al, to directly refute what you say, is based in large part upon how tenable your points were to me originally;


Just the facts man. Use the Biblical source of them.
I'm not going to talk about things that make little or no sense to me. Even so, I WILL ALWAYS tell you how your message affects me as a person.


You cannot debate without personal insult being grasped? Why?
As it now stands, you haven't helped me to be LESS homosexual than I have been for 35+ years; and there was a time where I thought ideas/doctrines like yours COULD indeed make a significan't difference, I used to believe the kind of stuff you and other fundamentalists push out here, but I can no longer abide those views.


What is a fundamentalist? I and many that see this definition as applicable use the Bible and science in the foundation of our choice behavior.

Even a homosexual has an anatomy exactly the same as any kind of Christian. Why not just prove your views through impaasionate sources?

Isn't the Pope doing what you want? He isn't trying to change a homosexual just asking them to toe the line expected of straight guys?

Celeibacy I assume is the same even in unnatural sex acts. This is somehow intolerant of POPe Benedict? If you don't like it why not start your own church? Why demand that others submit to the homosexual aganda when it is clear from the Bible that they cannot?

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #18

Post by Cathar1950 »

AlAyeti wrote:
Evil in presenting the Bible without editing?
I would say you are editing and interpreting and you may be a negitive evil.
A wolf does indeed need to fear my sling and stones. The flock does not.
The sheep need to flee you and be very afrain the wolf should just make it's territory on you.

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #19

Post by AlAyeti »

"Agnostic huh?
AlAyeti wrote:
Quote:
Evil in presenting the Bible without editing?

I would say you are editing and interpreting and you may be a negitive evil.


Please provide evidence? I present views that 100% Biblically sound. Even the use of anatomy is sound scientifically and does not "deviate" from the norm.
Quote:
A wolf does indeed need to fear my sling and stones. The flock does not.

The sheep need to flee you and be very afrain the wolf should just make it's territory on you.
I would like to see you prove that my views are negative to people that Believe that the Bible is not subjected to political correctness?

I believe that when a belief system drives a persons actions then a religion should be sought to back up those beliefs.

Thus, this thread.

Why shouldn't homosexuals found their own religion instead of demanding that Christianty alter its belief system to suit them?

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #20

Post by Cathar1950 »

AlAyeti wrote:
Please provide evidence? I present views that 100% Biblically sound. Even the use of anatomy is sound scientifically and does not "deviate" from the norm.
I don't think the question "Please provide evidence" is an appropriate question in this regard considering it is your opinion I an disagreeing with my opinion. You use of anatomy is not only unsound but disturbing.
Just because you present some lame anatomy excuse for a lack of understanding human behavior does not make it sound. If I remember correctly you were asked about sex acts between a man and a wife and you remained unusually silent. I am talking about foreplay and oral sex.
There is no such thing as biblically sound. It is a product of your own group imagination and limited parameter not accepted by every one including Christians.
Why shouldn't homosexuals found their own religion instead of demanding that Christianty alter its belief system to suit them?
Because they don't need to . There are plenty of Christians that will accept them. What makes you think you have an exclusive right to Christianity? I don't want to hear your usual it's biblical reply. It is not. There maybe some passages that say some things but they are only passages. That you claim all of it or nothing or that you chose to see it in only one way is just that your choice and you opinion. Some think that Paul may have had a homosexual orientation that he considered the thorn in the flesh he couldn't help wanting. Who knows maybe he was a self hating homosexual.

Post Reply