Do Homosexuals Think They Can Get a Free Pass from God?

That would not be a proper role of government. Churches like that'll go the way of the dinosaurs faster if the government doesn't unconstitutionally interfere in free association. You want to fight that problem, I'll help you-- and I'm not saying that just for bluster. It'd be a violation of the liberties of the people associating in such backwards churches.

However, you have no business interfering in the formation of legal contracts or in the romantic associations of homosexuals on behalf of your fairy godmother, or whatever, just because you're worried about the government bothering you in the business of your associations in the future.

 

That wouldn't keep out any bi people, but if they're supplying the women I'm all for it.

 

Funny how I also added Rom. 1. So ironic.

Oh, you don't believe the writings of Paul are part of the Word of God. I should have known.

And Paul was a bigot you say? Well, see this is why I don't trust your claim of beign Christian.

Really. Jesus Christ was under the law. He said that every jot and title of the law must be fulfilled. That includes the declaration that homosexuality is an abomination to God. So, don't say that Jesus is not bothered by homosexuality. That is a lie. Jesus had the same atitude toward homosexuality as the Mosaic law did. Matt. 5:18

Quantrill

 

No, we should not try to force it on anyone, that's the wrong way. If someone tells me to stay away and they don't want my help, i will leave them alone. There's nothing i can do. But there's many that are open to listening...they are the ones we continue to help. A Christian should never force themselves on anyone. That's no "Christ-like" at all.

 

Let me say this: If it was up to me homosexuality wouldn't be a sin.

But it's not up to me.

And it's not up to Pastor Dave at the All-Welcoming Church of Diversity and Inclusion.

Pastor Dave can't make the sin go away either.

It is not within the power of human beings to change what is or what is not a sin.

Any homosexual who reads the Bible must ask himself:

Will I give in to temptation and commit this sin?

Or will I pray to God for the strength to avoid sin?

That's the choice every homosexual has to make.

I have to make the same choices. As a married man I must avoid committing adultery no matter how much I might be attracted to a female co-worker.

Two years ago, a new female lawyer came to our firm and the first thing she started doing is flirting with me. I am pretty sure that if I wanted to, I could have had an affair with her.

But I did not do that because I am faithful to my wife.

Everyone has temptations. However, homosexuals are trying to convince the world that they alone don't have the strength to avoid temptation.

 

lol I guess not. But their main concern usually seems to be that of homosexual men, since sodomy makes them want to hurl so much (which is ironic since heterosexual sodomy is on the rise.)

 

I wholeheartedly agree. =)

 

Every local church will have people who go to church but are not saved. They are not Christians. They may say they are, but they never have come to Christ, and just participate in the services, for whatever reasons.

There is no witch hunt to find out these people. Much like Judas with the 12 disciples, God knows who they are, and they will be there.

But if, for example, a homosexual decides to go to church and then proclaim himself as a homosexual Christian, then the Church must act, and remove him from the Church. The same would be true if say someone was openly practicing witchcraft yet attending the Church. They too must be ousted out of the Church.

If anyone attends a Church of Jesus Christ, with the intent to decieve or fool the Church, then it is in God's hands. And He will deal with it. He is there and is very interested and acts upon such deception. And we would leave it to Him. We are a supernatural people and involved in the Spirit world. The true Spirit.

Quantrill

 

And that's where you're wrong. God can't make you a slave to his disgusting morality, even if he does exist.

 

Please, are you saying its wrong for me to vote against homosexuality when its brought to the voting booth. I have no right you say.

Quantrill

 

What if they attend church every single day with the intent of trying to better themselves and abide by the teachings of God? Why would you throw them out for attending and truly listening and trying to learn?

Even if they don't learn at least they tried. But what use is it to throw them out like yesterday's garbage? =/

I thought the followers of Christ were supposed to open their arms and their hearts to anyone who wants to listen.

Obviously if their intention is just to corrupt and cause harm to those within the church they need to be ousted. But if they are peacefully minding their own business I don't see why you feel you must be rid of them. I thought everyone was welcome in God's home, regardless of what 'sins' may be upon their soul at that moment. Because as they say, 'we are all sinners,' including you.

 

Obviously every person has every right to vote however they like and for whatever reason. Whether his neighbors and friends think it's a stupid reason or not is irrelevant. I can walk into a voting booth and mark yes or no on every single issue proposed without even reading or researching them if I want to. I simply have that right, just as you have the right to vote based on your own moral and religious code.

I personally don't believe certain things should even be up for a vote though. Marriage being one of them as I believe the government needs to cut all ties with this particular institution and leave it to the churches or to personal family gatherings or whatever. That way everyone can be married and nobody can say crap to them. Because if you're married in the eyes of God, or married with your family present, or privately with your significant other that should be the only binding contract you need.

 

The Bible however interesting and helpful to mankind was still written by man, and therefor in my mind is not Gods final word, men are mortal and will be influenced by the times they live in. We are taught and believe Gods word is final in all matters, so I myself will leave it up to the big guy...
He is the final word, not the Bible....

 

This kind of attitude towards marriage is exactly why the homosexual agenda is so dangerous. I saw this coming way back in the early 90's when I was in law school. I told the leader of my pro-life group that opposing the homosexual agenda was a more important issue than even abortion. She thought it was a lost cause and was ready to give up.

But now the very institution of marriage is being brought into question and is under attack. The Communists made it their goal in the 1930's to eliminate marriage and the family, but they failed to acheive it. But the homosexual agenda has picked up where the Communists left off and fought for the same cause.

 

I think Ayn Rand said it the best: "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

Or, if you prefer the founding fathers, whose logic bears out even if not consistently applied in their time, here's a quote from Federalist 10: "Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true."

Madison continues to lay out the main problem of democracy: "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community... The causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects... When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed."

So, in other words, the constitution was written the way it was... to stop you.

 

If what you mean by 'bettering themselves and abide by the teachings of God' is to seek repentance from the sin of homosexuality and turn to Christ as Lord and Saviour, then yes they can be recieved into the Church.

But, no they cannot remain in the Church as homosexuals. All are welcome to come to Christ. Regardless of their sins. But when one comes to Christ and is born-again, they are no longer a homosexual. If they just want to come to church and remain a homosexual then they don't want Christ.

Yes I am a sinner. But I am a Christian. I have accepted Christ as my Lord and Saviour. Homosexuality is a sin of perversion which has its roots in not recieving the truth of God. It has its roots in unbelief. To come to Christ reverses that and the person is born-again and is no longer a homosexual.

Quantrill

 

No, rights are not for minorities. Rights are for the people of the land we live in. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was to protect the people from the government they just made. Homosexuality is not a right.

So, your saying I should not be allowed to vote for any bill against homosexuals?

Quantrill

 

Marriage will never disappear as long as there are people interested in committed monogamy, and dedicated to their love of a single person. I hope this will not end in my lifetime.

There is no reason this sort of relationship needs to be validated or legitimized by government decree. It is a personal issue. A legal contract is necessary to deal with inheritance and families' money management, but it need not be given a specific title by the contract enforcer, i.e., by the government, when the real aim of the document is personal, religious, spiritual, etc.

 

No, you should not. There is no clause in the Constitution that allows for such an issue to even be considered, and it is the antithesis of the American spirit to do so.

If anything, it is a states' rights issue, and even then there is no persuasive moral argument that concludes that liberty should be up for vote by whatever majority wishes to vote on it.

We have every right to do with our bodies what we will, to associate as we will, to do anything and everything we wish that does not infringe on the liberties of others. This is not that hard to understand: "Live, and let live." That is the only catchphrase worthy of association with individualism. I do not acknowledge your right to circumvent my liberties. Simple.

When you wield the government as your religious weapon of choice, you are being amoral in the only real sense of the word.

 

If some legeslati0n is coming up for a vote, then I have every right to exercise my vote. And will. Sorry. But, for now we do still live in a free country.

Quantrill

 

Why is it not enough for you that marriage is validated by your God but it must also be validated by the government? You'd think it would be of the greatest validity once your union has been blessed by a holy deity and that would be enough!

If marriage truly is a religious institution then it belongs in the churches, not in a judge's courtroom. The government has no place in the affairs of religion and it also has no place in the affairs of people's personal relationships.

 

You are confused about what freedom means. Freedom is being free from oppression by dictators and by mobs. It does not mean having a say in how people pursue time in their bedrooms. Voting =/= freedom, as our founding fathers definitely understood. If so, that'd be pretty sad. You're so free that you can... never affect the course of any election or policy in any meaningful way. Gee, let me in on this racket.

 

Were the pharisees who followed the scriptures in Jesus' day following God?

Some of them do more than sin against each other. They also sin against children by disseminating their propaganda into the culture.

Nobody gets to be a Christian worthy of the name by wishing.

Actually He could if He were of a mind to; but more to the point, the god of this world can and will make you a slave to his IMmorality, whether you find it disgusting at the moment or not.

They can't do that and call themselves homosexuals who were born that way. All they can do is tempt people to doubt their own common sense.

Young man, you literally don't understand the first thing about the Constitution.

 

yes, currently we live in a free country. if you had your way though, we wouldn't live in a free country. you are trying to limit the freedoms of 2 consenting adults. that's not freedom, that's oppression. and it's what the constitution prevents you from doing. you are trying to force your personal religious beliefs on those who do not believe as you do. homosexuals do not affect you in any way shape or form.

 

Then at least he has you for company.