Another homophobic christian

[The furosious robot has left]

Link to original post: Another homophobic christian



I encountered this guy on youtube, I just HAD to post it.

 

[:mad:]

In before lock? Lol @ the post. He lies. A sin.
He'll be the the one going instead.

Spoiler

No god imo.

Posting in this was not one of my better ideas...

 

[The furosious robot has left]

In before lock? Lol @ the post. He lies. A sin.
He'll be the the one going instead.

Spoiler

No god imo.

Posting in this was not one of my better ideas...

This was one of the many idiots on youtube. even though I am a christian, I really only bring up the bible in debates to prove hypocracy in anybody who is a christian that I may be debating with.

Anyway, This guy is an overall idiot.

 

[mzink*]

That's some pretty pathetic reasoning lol. But hey, hopefully in the future he'll learn a bit and maybe his opinion will shift.
Who knows?

 

[:mad:]

I used to call myself christian, but at this point, I don't think so.
I'm an atheist until I learn more about religion.

This actually has potential to become a good blog, you shouldn't waste this opportunity.
You could add more to it.
This could be like a youtube wall of shame, and you could always argue on the subject of why this person is wrong. Not sure.

And I respect everyone and all, but I can't stand the people that preach to everyone that does care. "Jeszus is mai lord and saviorrr"

 

[Mith_]

Straked if you don' t like when people disrespect homosexuals and other things deemed "wrong" by Christians then you shouldn't disrespect them either.

I tend to stay away from debates like these because quite frankly I dunno what to say in these type debates xD.

I don't want to offend anybody (not really) or sound stupid so I just don't say anything.

 

[:mad:]

To be honest, I don't really care if anyone disrespects them. I just don't like how narrowminded some people can be when it comes to other people's lives.

I care if someone disrespects Ness though.

Spoiler

Again, not really.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Edit:

I should probably correct this post, since I didn't notice you said you belonged to said group in your second post.

I mistook it as an ignorant stereotype based upon someone else's ignorant stereotype

 

[Cinder]

It's good to know that not all Christians are like this...

But for those who ARE like this...they don't deserve to walk this earth >>;

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Not everyone Homophobic is even Christian

 

[kirbywizard]

I follow my own morals not some may be god thank you very much
I already seen enough of this, its almost all the same, I dont care what those homophobic Christians people say they are just ignorant

 

[Skrah]

I think he would be some sort of religious fanatic or something.

I DO hate, or rather I'm very annoyed, racists or people of that sort.

Yeah, make it a Youtube wall of shame, you can add an enty every week or so and explain more or less what the loser of the week did or what his argument was.

 

[:mad:]

I think he would be some sort of religious fanatic or something.

I DO hate, or rather I'm very annoyed, racists or people of that sort.

Yeah, make it a Youtube wall of shame, you can add an enty every week or so and explain more or less what the loser of the week did or what his argument was.

Good idea. That might save this from a lock.
And it'll be great for laughs.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

No, they wouldn't have to be a religious fanatic.

People naturally hate anyone that is different than them, no matter if it's in ignorance or wisdom.

Racism isn't something that is religiously exclusive, why would basing someone off sexuality be any different?

 

[Skrah]

No, they wouldn't have to be a religious fanatic.

People naturally hate anyone that is different than them, no matter if it's in ignorance or wisdom.

Racism isn't something that is religiously exclusive, why would basing someone off sexuality be any different?

I meant the guy in the first post, I'm not saying ALL of them are lol. Although living in Mexico you meet a lot of religious people.

Yeah this blog has its potential, lets just wait what ferocious has to say.

 

[The_Altrox]

Deism is the way to go baby

 

[Deleted member]

I don't mind Christians, but there are always losers who have to yell it in my face.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I'm inclined to leave this open, so long as it doesn't degenerate into:
1) LOL Chistuns r teh sux
2) An attempt to convert all the "non-believers".

Basically, keep it civil guys.

 

[Bandit_Kieth]

^ fair call

personally, my experiences with the other christian kids at my school are bad, they're fairly preachy and whatnot.. i've been to a christian youth group where they recite lines from the bible and ask you to pray to god and all that jibbah jabbah >_<

i dont hate towards religion, just those who try to enforce it on others

A question for Furious Robot.
since "God" had supposedly created us, why has he given the option to be homosexuals? :S

 

[The furosious robot has left]

Wall of shame....hmmm....
Yes.

Bandit Kieth:Free will. I don't really understand why god would want us to be able to sin. Jesus said it himself "Let he without sin cast the first stone". Seriously, Did he expect any human being at all to be sinless? Those are dang high expectations.

 

[Firus]

If you need any help finding examples of idiots on YouTube, I have a whole video full of PC fanboys who think that the PC is factually better than consoles in every department except for cost.

 

[Bandit_Kieth]

good enough reason there furious

i suppose the christians at my school tend to make me stereotype them all that way (preachy types).

but i have seen otherwise. good job

 

[Teran]

I dunno about A Wall of Shame. Trust me, it would be freakin endless, Youtube is the land of the lowest common denominator.
I like the Blog though. The problem is, this is all to do with belief. Not Christian, but rather personal belief. No matter how much we move forward, people will always follow their own paths and form their own opinions. Hatred of homosexuals shouldn't be too surprising today, considering the recent acceptance of homosexuality in our society. It's still greatly looked down upon in many other societies, and will remain looked down perhaps forever. The thing is, opinions are opinions, traditions are traditions, and it is impossible to police people's minds. I say patience, it's not changing any time soon, unfortunately.

 

[Scott!]

I used to hate on the Christians like this. I was raised without religion, and always got mad at the anti-gay, anti-evolution, general anti-science and anti-alternate lifestyle religious people. I never understood how they could put their faith in something with so little proof.

More recently, I've thought about my stance more critically. While the Christians who discriminate on gays and such are wrong for their ignorance, does that give us the right to hate on them for their beliefs? They say being gay is a choice. Of course, that seems improbably to me (straight), considering the massive social stigma attached to it, the fear associated with telling people, the lack of rights, etc. But for them, are their beliefs really a choice either? Do you control your beliefs? Sure, people convert, but do they really, consciously make their beliefs change? Or are they just reclassifying themselves into something that aligns better with what they already believe? I don't know. I'm agnostic, personally. I was an atheist until I realized that being an atheist meant you were just as positive in the lack of God as those of faith are in His existence. I don't have that certainty, so I fit myself into a group that better fit my ideas.

So, I got off track a bit there, but what I was trying to say is that, while we abuse them for their ignorance in saying that being gay is a choice, their belief is no more of a choice. Arguing with them won't make them change their minds. They need education, not abuse. Both sides need to understand the other, I think. The guy in the OP believes that being gay is wrong just as strongly as we think it's right.

 

[S.B.Soldier]

I am 100% roman catholic, and am appalled by the fact that catholics even dream of profiling people based on their sexuality. They have every right that we have period, its that simple... I wish people could see how little the difference is between gay and straight. People have been gay for thousands of years, dating back to spartan warriors, who had boyfriends (so they would never be cowardly while fighting alongside them)... point is simply that peoples insecurities always seem to go hand in hand with stereotypical views.. who knows, maybe that guy is in denial and is taking out his anger on the original poster.

 

[chris the brawler]

my name is Christian, but im not a christian. and im not homophobic either.

now you know.

 

[Proverbs]

^ fair call

personally, my experiences with the other christian kids at my school are bad, they're fairly preachy and whatnot.. i've been to a christian youth group where they recite lines from the bible and ask you to pray to god and all that jibbah jabbah >_<

i dont hate towards religion, just those who try to enforce it on others

A question for Furious Robot.
since "God" had supposedly created us, why has he given the option to be homosexuals? :S

Why does he give us the options to be murderers? As Robot says, it's free will. And the explanation of why He gave us free will isn't that hard to figure out, but I won't spell it out unless you need me to.

Wall of shame....hmmm....
Yes.

Bandit Kieth:Free will. I don't really understand why god would want us to be able to sin. Jesus said it himself "Let he without sin cast the first stone". Seriously, Did he expect any human being at all to be sinless? Those are dang high expectations.

No, Robot, he didn't expect anyone to be sinless. It was rhetorical, he was making the point that none of them were sinless, and even though He was, He still chose not to condemn her either. He was making a point. But I could go a whole lot more on this, but I'm not sure you guys are interested in hearing all about it. If you are, I'd explain it.

I am 100% roman catholic, and am appalled by the fact that catholics even dream of profiling people based on their sexuality. They have every right that we have period, its that simple... I wish people could see how little the difference is between gay and straight. People have been gay for thousands of years, dating back to spartan warriors, who had boyfriends (so they would never be cowardly while fighting alongside them)... point is simply that peoples insecurities always seem to go hand in hand with stereotypical views.. who knows, maybe that guy is in denial and is taking out his anger on the original poster.

You kinda don't seem to understand here. It's written in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong, specifically Leviticus 18:22, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." At that time women weren't provided the freedom to do something like that anyway, so the possibility of lesbians was excluded, but is alluded to in Romans which also speaks against homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Both are NIV quotations.

Now, one can believe homosexuality is wrong, but not be homophobic. To see the two as the same is looking at it from a very one-dimensional point of view, and also is "not accepting."

Typically people will get angry at Christians for their beliefs in that and say "You need to be more accepting." Now, there are two problems with that statement (that I'm going to address here, I'm sure there are more).

1. The first question I ask is, how accepting should we be? Should we all types of sexualities? Because that means we need to allow for beastiality (it's technically bestiality, but I'm using the common word for it). If the animal enjoys it, we should not protest. It could be the same thing as petting a dog. I'm sure they get pleasure out of it.

Likewise, we would need to be open to pedophilia. If a child is pleased by having sex with an older individual, why should there be a problem? We should be more accepting of all sexualities and preferences, right?

Or, let's even take living beings out of this. What if someone is sexually attracted to drainpipes and decides that those are what he wants to engage with in sexual activity. Since the drainpipes are not feeling or thinking--should we accept that? Is that okay? How far do we go in being, accepting?

And if in all of this you're thinking, "Well, yeah, these are extreme examples. That's not really fair." Well then how about this: incest. What if I'm attracted to--or let's say even in love with my mother, sister, or even father or brother. What then? Should I be allowed to engage in a romantic and sexual relationship with them? I mentioned this to one girl and she said, "Yeah, but that's just wrong. And I said "Yeah, it is. And that's exactly how people used to respond to homosexuality."

Furthermore, some people say this whole "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous and is unfounded. Untrue. Historically the cultures who have accepted homosexuality have later come to accept beastiality. Right now in Vermont it's legal to have sex with an animal over 100 pounds (The weight limit is so that there's no animal abuse), so I don't think the idea of us accepting beastiality is too farfetched.

And if you were grossed out by the whole suggestion of incest: Well, when I brought this up in one of my classes (the discussion was going on already, I didn't start it up), one of the homosexual members of the class responded later to me that he didn't see anything wrong with incest--that if you loved the person, that it was still okay. Still think this isn't a slippery slope?

2. This one is much shorter: If we need to be accepting to all types of viewpoints on life, we also need to be accepting of the people who believe homosexuality is wrong. I think it's entirely valid for someone to believe that. Likewise it is valid for someone to believe eating meat is wrong--and no one judges them for it, even though sometimes they can tend to be more aggressive than your average Christian in trying to 'convert' people.

A lot of the rants I hear about when people speak of Christianity and homosexuality typically show a serious lack of knowledge of the Christian faith and viewpoint.

I believe homosexuality is 100% wrong, but that doesn't mean I hate homosexuals or think they can't get into Heaven. They certainly can be Christians (and I've even heard of them becoming Christians), they simply need to give up homosexuality. And some people after coming to God realize they weren't homosexual at all, and take a wife or husband. Other people in the middle of their lives, suddenly realize they are homosexual. Now, I know I did just change the tone and purpose of this paragraph, but roll with it. What I was originally saying is that homosexuals can and have become Christians. There's no problem with that--even if the feeling still persists, they can resist the urge. Plenty of people do that, and some Christians even stay celibate, regardless of their sexuality. But what I was also alluding to in that some people have switched in both directions (the latter I did not mean they switched to homosexuality as Christians--this I have never heard of happening), convinces me that it's not something you're born with, but rather something that is acquired. I would call it a perversion, in the most technical sense, and not in an insulting way.

Now, if you're looking to understand why it's a sin, that's another conversation that I'd be glad to have for anyone who's interested.

But let me close in saying this: The last person I quoted said that homosexuality has been going on for a long time. I'd agree, and that's fine. Murder's been going on for a long time too, and so has ****--but I don't think we justify either of those, now do we? And if you say, "Well, yeah, but it was accepted, and neither of those things were." Not true, when Lot was living in Sodom, two angels visited him. He convinces them to spend the night there (Lot was considered a righteous man), and "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them" " (Genesis 19:4-5 NIV). If that's not **** I don't know what is. They didn't end up having sex with the angels (I admit I don't even know how one would go about doing that sort of thing), but they were prepared to, as you see here.

And if you're about to say "Yeah, well that's the Bible," then you must know that Sodom was historically a very corrupt place, and even if this specific event didn't happen, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that it would.

In closing: Don't judge Christians or else you're no better than the ones judging homosexuals. And I'll admit, some Christians are homophobic because they don't understand Christianity. But not all of them are.

 

[:mad:]

But seriously. To avoid having this be closed, let's just pitch in and add a few screenshots.
Since Jam was nice enough to keep it open, why not, lol.

And avoid religious debate, a little. We don't want this to turn into a battle of beliefs.

 

[Maniclysane]

If you need any help finding examples of idiots on YouTube, I have a whole video full of PC fanboys who think that the PC is factually better than consoles in every department except for cost.

PC is cheaper than a console, lawl. You can get a computer than can run Crysis for 400-500 dollars, and even then you're going to be using that computer for a hell of a lot more than just gaming. The people that think Consoles are better than PC's, are the missinformed ones that think you need to upgrade every other week for a $500 dollar graphics card.

Factually, the PC is better. Honestly, the PC is probably cheaper. The games are cheaper, and if you want to get sketchy, the games are free.

These days though, you can be happy with any console. 360 has the library and the online, the PS3 has teh 9001 hard drives with some really good exclusives, and the Wii has...

 

[Teran]

and the Wii has...

Virtual Console, Metroid Prime 3, and the ability to play Melee.

 

[:mad:]

Virtual Console, Metroid Prime 3, and the ability to play Melee.

Daym, you beat me to it.

The Wii's also good as a paperweight and doormat.

 

[Miggz]

Why does he give us the options to be murderers? As Robot says, it's free will. And the explanation of why He gave us free will isn't that hard to figure out, but I won't spell it out unless you need me to.



No, Robot, he didn't expect anyone to be sinless. It was rhetorical, he was making the point that none of them were sinless, and even though He was, He still chose not to condemn her either. He was making a point. But I could go a whole lot more on this, but I'm not sure you guys are interested in hearing all about it. If you are, I'd explain it.



You kinda don't seem to understand here. It's written in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong, specifically Leviticus 18:22, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." At that time women weren't provided the freedom to do something like that anyway, so the possibility of lesbians was excluded, but is alluded to in Romans which also speaks against homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Both are NIV quotations.

Now, one can believe homosexuality is wrong, but not be homophobic. To see the two as the same is looking at it from a very one-dimensional point of view, and also is "not accepting."

Typically people will get angry at Christians for their beliefs in that and say "You need to be more accepting." Now, there are two problems with that statement (that I'm going to address here, I'm sure there are more).

1. The first question I ask is, how accepting should we be? Should we all types of sexualities? Because that means we need to allow for beastiality (it's technically bestiality, but I'm using the common word for it). If the animal enjoys it, we should not protest. It could be the same thing as petting a dog. I'm sure they get pleasure out of it.

Likewise, we would need to be open to pedophilia. If a child is pleased by having sex with an older individual, why should there be a problem? We should be more accepting of all sexualities and preferences, right?

Or, let's even take living beings out of this. What if someone is sexually attracted to drainpipes and decides that those are what he wants to engage with in sexual activity. Since the drainpipes are not feeling or thinking--should we accept that? Is that okay? How far do we go in being, accepting?

And if in all of this you're thinking, "Well, yeah, these are extreme examples. That's not really fair." Well then how about this: incest. What if I'm attracted to--or let's say even in love with my mother, sister, or even father or brother. What then? Should I be allowed to engage in a romantic and sexual relationship with them? I mentioned this to one girl and she said, "Yeah, but that's just wrong. And I said "Yeah, it is. And that's exactly how people used to respond to homosexuality."

Furthermore, some people say this whole "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous and is unfounded. Untrue. Historically the cultures who have accepted homosexuality have later come to accept beastiality. Right now in Vermont it's legal to have sex with an animal over 100 pounds (The weight limit is so that there's no animal abuse), so I don't think the idea of us accepting beastiality is too farfetched.

And if you were grossed out by the whole suggestion of incest: Well, when I brought this up in one of my classes (the discussion was going on already, I didn't start it up), one of the homosexual members of the class responded later to me that he didn't see anything wrong with incest--that if you loved the person, that it was still okay. Still think this isn't a slippery slope?

2. This one is much shorter: If we need to be accepting to all types of viewpoints on life, we also need to be accepting of the people who believe homosexuality is wrong. I think it's entirely valid for someone to believe that. Likewise it is valid for someone to believe eating meat is wrong--and no one judges them for it, even though sometimes they can tend to be more aggressive than your average Christian in trying to 'convert' people.

A lot of the rants I hear about when people speak of Christianity and homosexuality typically show a serious lack of knowledge of the Christian faith and viewpoint.

I believe homosexuality is 100% wrong, but that doesn't mean I hate homosexuals or think they can't get into Heaven. They certainly can be Christians (and I've even heard of them becoming Christians), they simply need to give up homosexuality. And some people after coming to God realize they weren't homosexual at all, and take a wife or husband. Other people in the middle of their lives, suddenly realize they are homosexual. Now, I know I did just change the tone and purpose of this paragraph, but roll with it. What I was originally saying is that homosexuals can and have become Christians. There's no problem with that--even if the feeling still persists, they can resist the urge. Plenty of people do that, and some Christians even stay celibate, regardless of their sexuality. But what I was also alluding to in that some people have switched in both directions (the latter I did not mean they switched to homosexuality as Christians--this I have never heard of happening), convinces me that it's not something you're born with, but rather something that is acquired. I would call it a perversion, in the most technical sense, and not in an insulting way.

Now, if you're looking to understand why it's a sin, that's another conversation that I'd be glad to have for anyone who's interested.

But let me close in saying this: The last person I quoted said that homosexuality has been going on for a long time. I'd agree, and that's fine. Murder's been going on for a long time too, and so has ****--but I don't think we justify either of those, now do we? And if you say, "Well, yeah, but it was accepted, and neither of those things were." Not true, when Lot was living in Sodom, two angels visited him. He convinces them to spend the night there (Lot was considered a righteous man), and "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them" " (Genesis 19:4-5 NIV). If that's not **** I don't know what is. They didn't end up having sex with the angels (I admit I don't even know how one would go about doing that sort of thing), but they were prepared to, as you see here.

And if you're about to say "Yeah, well that's the Bible," then you must know that Sodom was historically a very corrupt place, and even if this specific event didn't happen, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that it would.

In closing: Don't judge Christians or else you're no better than the ones judging homosexuals. And I'll admit, some Christians are homophobic because they don't understand Christianity. But not all of them are.

Wow! This was some kind of deep.

 

[Proverbs]

^Hahah, I can't tell if Miggz is mocking me or not.

 

[Bandit_Kieth]

how about this, you believe what you want to believe, and i'll believe whatever i want

end of story

 

[Barge]

homosexuality isnt a choice

 

[Firus]

PC is cheaper than a console, lawl. You can get a computer than can run Crysis for 400-500 dollars, and even then you're going to be using that computer for a hell of a lot more than just gaming. The people that think Consoles are better than PC's, are the missinformed ones that think you need to upgrade every other week for a $500 dollar graphics card.

Okay, well...it was the PC fanboys who admitted that. And I actually spoke to a PC gamer who splurged a few thousand into this epic gaming computer and told me that he was going to have the latest technology for the next two weeks. I'm not just making it up, I'm getting it from PC gamers...unless they're making things up to bash themselves (and the latter was not under any sort of argumentative situation but rather in casual conversation), which I don't know why they would.

I don't even know what Crysis is (sue me), so I don't even know what sort of requirements and crap it has. But I can tell you that I have a pretty good computer and it lags running the few games I have. You can use PCs for more than just gaming...but nowadays, consoles can too. I don't need to splurge more money on what I don't need in a PC if what I've got works fine. My computer may lag like hell if it tries running Unreal Tournament 3, but it can run Photoshop and Paint, it can run Firefox, it can run Word, it can do this, that, and the other thing. It can play DVDs, it can play stupid minigames if I want. That's all I need.

Factually, the PC is better.

Factually, that is an elitist statement.

It comes down to opinion. That's like saying "Factually, the PSP is better than the Sega Game Gear." If I personally like the games on the Game Gear better, it doesn't matter how fancy and shiny the PSP is. And I do, in fact, like the Game Gear better than the PSP. It comes down to opinion. Not fact. There is no factually here. That's my entire point.

Honestly, the PC is probably cheaper. The games are cheaper, and if you want to get sketchy, the games are free.

If you can pay $400-500 for a PC that can run Crysis, whatever its needs, that's still more expensive than the Wii and 360. Last time I checked, the games weren't much cheaper, if at all...but correct me if I'm wrong.

I know you can torrent everything for the PC. But that's not a good argument, because I can technically rob my local GameStop to get every single console they have and any game I want. That's not legal either.

These days though, you can be happy with any console. 360 has the library and the online, the PS3 has teh 9001 hard drives with some really good exclusives, and the Wii has...

Yes, you can, because both consoles and PCs have their own advantages.

For me, consoles easily win in terms of games. From what I can tell, PC = RTS and FPS. RTS's are kind of fun but not fun enough for me to spend my free time playing them. I really don't care for 90% of FPS's either, so there ya go. Last I checked, they didn't make my favorite game of all time, Super Metroid for the PC. ROMs don't count, because again, legally iffy.

All I'm saying is to each his own. You like PCs, then great. You like consoles, then great. Enjoy playing what you want to play and just don't tell me my opinion is factually wrong, and I will be happy to leave you alone.

If you have more to say in this argument, say it via PM or on my Visitor Profile so I don't completely derail this thread.

homosexuality isnt a choice

I personally agree...but can we drop the religion for now? Or take it somewhere else?

 

[c3gill]

homosexuality isnt a choice

No but is it a choice to act on homosexual desires. Im a christian and I believe partaking in homosexual activities is a sin, but im not about to go preach on a pedestal that people are going to hell for it.... Its your life choice. The Bible also says, "Judge not lest ye be Judged."

Everyone is flawed in some way or another- why should we look down on someone with a sin? dont we all have them? Rather hope they ask God for forgiveness- or find God, if that is the case- just dont act in that typical "holier than thou" manner that people look down on Christians for.

Just be accepting- do you think Jesus in the flesh would condem someone for being gay?

 

[Asdioh]

Just be accepting- do you think Jesus in the flesh would condem someone for being gay?

He killed a tree for not giving him fruit, so maybe ._.



Anyway, the OP was interesting, but one of my gay facebook friends (I barely know him, I just know he's gay) wrote a note recently about a similar youtube experience, but what the homophobe guy wrote was 1000x more extreme than the OP. I was pretty shocked when I read it. I'm tempted to post it here, but.. maybe not... >_>

 

[Scott!]

No but is it a choice to act on homosexual desires. Im a christian and I believe partaking in homosexual activities is a sin, but im not about to go preach on a pedestal that people are going to hell for it.... Its your life choice. The Bible also says, "Judge not lest ye be Judged."

Everyone is flawed in some way or another- why should we look down on someone with a sin? dont we all have them? Rather hope they ask God for forgiveness- or find God, if that is the case- just dont act in that typical "holier than thou" manner that people look down on Christians for.

Just be accepting- do you think Jesus in the flesh would condem someone for being gay?

Ok, I have to ask this. First, let me say that I only am asking this because I genuinely want to know. Not being raised Christian, I have trouble seeing things from their point of view. I have often judged their points of view as inferior just because I don't understand it. But this is ignorance on my part, and I want to be better than that and understand both sides rather than judge.

That said, I don't really understand your position. You accept that homosexuality is hereditary, right? You agreed that it wasn't a choice. Well, you could believe that it is on the nurture side of the whole nature vs. nurture debate, and I would not disagree completely there. But anyway, you say that it isn't a choice, but that it is sinful to act on those urges if one has them, right? If at any point, I'm misstating your position, just tell me. I'm not trying to; just to understand the reasoning here. Anyway, I have trouble understanding how God and Jesus think it's better for someone to suppress their true nature than to accept themselves. At the end, you say to just be accepting, but how can we, flawed humans, be expected to accept someone who God sees as innately sinful? If God doesn't accept someone's homosexuality, why should anyone? If they're supposed to spend their lives in repentance and to marry against their nature to make up for something God sees as sinful, why shouldn't they be held to the same standards by us mortals?

Again, I'm not trying to trick anyone, or ask what they call "gotcha" questions to catch you or something. I just don't understand, and I would like to understand better, because I feel the reason this debate often becomes heated is due to a mutual ignorance of the other side. And I apologize to those who want to stay away from the religion talk. I promise I'm not trying to start anything. If flaming starts, it won't be from me, and I will gladly report the thread for closure. But I think if both sides stay rational and respectful, there's hope of intelligent debate.

 

[Asdioh]

That's a good question.

I think there is no denying that in at least SOME cases, homosexuality IS genetic, or "nature" rather than "nurture." I personally believe this is in MOST cases.

Scott!, is what you're asking basically "why would God do this to someone...is it a form of torture?" .. or at least, that's the question I'm asking. Why make someone naturally want to do something, and then tell them it's wrong, one of the worst things they can possibly do?

I'm trying to come up with a good analogy for being given something and then being told not to use it, but it's after 2 AM and I'm tired. I think everyone is capable of understanding what my question is.

Oh, here's a simple way to think about it: let's say that tomorrow, we straight people find out that the Bible ACTUALLY says that heterosexuality is wrong, and we have to start being homosexuals if we don't want to go to hell. Would you be able to do that? That's basically what it's like from a gay person's point of view: they probably think "Perform heterosexual acts? ew..."

ok, goodnight. If nothing I said is relevant, and will lead to flaming or whatever, then just ignore it or edit it out. I'm tired, and possibly somewhat incoherent.