Will God welcome Gays into the Kingdom of Heaven

The Muslims are going to have a field day with you and your friends. Muslims and Europeans deserve each other.

 

To shorten my reply on these homophobic rantings of yours:

You're homosexual and realized how to induce arousal at some point? Nice!

Marriage is not about lineage protection, it's basically a romantic act expressing commitment and a legal contract that secures this commitment on practical levels. I'm married because of many reasons. Lineage protection isn't one of them. Very many heterosexual couples get married knowing full well that they'll never get children. And very many heterosexual couples who get children never get married.

You should stop burying your head in the stone-ages.

 

in today's world, i could not deny

but the term is far older than you................. marriage to many was between people that did not even meet.


back when the term was created................... it was about lineage, not love!

you probably got married for tax reasons, not love, commitment, children or the good of anything but your own financial wants

based on your posting, your partner perhaps is more stable than you and you want security

idiots shouldnt have children; thanx

do you wear a helmit when you walk?

i be in heaven

guess who is posting to you?

 

Back in which days was the term created and by who? Is it possible you're mistaking ancient religious and social norms for 'nature'?

And psst: in this day and age we have DNA-tests. And even though that enables us to find out now, there probably were 'cuckoo-children' since time immemorial.

It's pretty evident that the person who's posting to me is the kind of person who has to resort to insults when running out of arguments. Thus I see no sense in continuing our discussion.

 

all words are the creations of mankind.

nature dont write words, people do.

You and i both know, back when the term marriage was created 'tax benefits' did not exist.

And if you wanted to comprehend when and what the word marriage was used for, you would not need to ask such stupid questions.

Your problem is, you dont want to read what is real.

and the dna tests of human life will prove, that same sex copulation dont make a baby...... (procreation by same sex copulation is without the progression of life)


so no reason to get married, except to steal from others by pursuing tax gains

i am glad you dont make babies.

that aint an insult, that is my opinion.

the rest of the parts that hurt were of your own conscious slapping you

all i did was ask questions so you yourself could feel your own responsibility

i agree............

i can judge and i will enable you to your own conscious experience of personal responsibility.

what i crack up on, is no matter where you run, where you hide and what you ever do for the rest of your life; what you have read will be a part of you until death.

ie..... either grow up or enjoy your own self imposed hell.

 

Christians are bisexual and believe that everyone else is like them and can choose between men and women. We also see this tendency to project their own characteristics onto others when they say things like "People have no sense of morality naturally, it must come from an external source like the Bible."

I can't see how a man would want to do nasty things with another man. Seems crazy to me. So it must be how they are naturally because no one would choose that unless there was something very different about them compared to me. Christians don't understand this line of reasoning because they think "I could go either way and I choose the way of the Lord, and everyone else should do the same or be tortured for all eternity."

 

I have determined that an otherwise intelligent person can remain a full on believer in Christianity if they are a little sociopathic and bisexual. Without the natural sense of morals most of us have, the Christian sees the existence of morality itself as proof of God's existence. "We don't get it naturally," he concludes, "so it must come from God."

And of course "People choose to be that way!"

In both cases, they fail to realize that not everyone is like them.

Of course, many are just dumb.

 

A thoroughly Catholic response. If you aren't Catholic, you should be!

 

Could you elaborate why you think that it isn't also a protestant view?

 

If the gay repents, of course.

 

There's a concept called forgiveness. In terms of Catholicism, simply go to confession and go through your penance, and you can be forgiven of sins. Very simple process.

 

At least in Catholic terms, there is no difference between gays having sex and any unmarried people having sex. Both are sins.

 

No difference, IMHO. Both are sex without marriage.

 

Lol, yeah I am Catholic. How could ya tell???

 

Book, Chapter and Verse?

 

Again, I can't recall reading the temptation of Jesus by the woman. Please be specific--Book, Chapter and verse. If you make outrageous claims, you need to back them up.

 

Circumcision is not a requirement for Catholicism. Try again.

 

By your response. Protestants are the only ones vain and reckless enough to decide who is and who isn't going to heaven. They provide a sort of "prescreening" service for the Almighty, though their "help" is woefully unsolicited. To touch upon the immutable and inscrutible judgements of God is nothing short of arrogant and sinful. Catholics understand this. Protestants do not.

 

This is the part of your argument that is internally consistent, meaning that it will make sense to those who assume God is pro-creation and that his opposite is Lucifer and that by "pro-creation" we mean specifically procreation of humans.

Because this is an argument made within a metaphysical frame, there's no real argument I can make against it other than that it has no founding in any kind of empirical evidence.
You are stating a belief here but not really making an argument for anyone but those who already agree with you.

This sounds like a malfunction.
I'm guessing that you are stating another belief: that what is true is true. This I think is necessary to assume that any philosophy has meaning.

However there is absolutely no connection between that argument and the argument you made above, as the argument above has no founding in empirical evidence.
The idea that Creation is Truth does not support your unfounded assertions of what Truth is.
And the only connection to Creation is a rhetorical one, profiting greatly from the ambiguity of language.
Logically if I were to believe what is real is true, I would have to assume that gay people are real, existing within (big C) Creation. This provides no support to the idea that God is for or against (small c) creation. We are relying completely on your assertion.

Certainly it is. It's as much truth as when a man lusts for a woman (which rarely has anything to do with procreation, and yet results in it). It happens. Therefore it's true.
Isn't that what your second argument asserts (it's hard to tell, as it was Word Soup).

You've made no argument that truth and self are mutually exclusive.
It seems your argument is based on equating Creation with procreation and assuming all things not procreative are false? On what basis? Because you say so?

Perhaps you're trying to make the more logical argument that the human race has to replace itself generation by generation? What this has to do with the universe holding together, I have no idea, but for the survival of humanity maybe.
The problem is that overpopulation has been a problem to societies in the past (and continues to be), doing more damage than a few lost babies. Most societies have had some form of birth control (usually crude) and abortion/infanticide to prevent this (as well as suicide and war).
Wouldn't it be possible that homosexuality helps to offset that problem (and is then cancelled out by societal pressure for gay people to procreate anyway), thus helping societies (and thus people within the societies) survive? That's how altruism genes are believed to come about.

The genetic pattern of homosexuals is correlated in males to birth order rather than heredity, suggesting an environmental trigger. In women, sexual orientation is not thought to be as hardwired, which makes sense as attraction for women is considerably more adaptable and based more on social norms (usually whatever is found to be a symbol of security).
The idea that more people= better is flawed, and was actually a problem for animals as well as people.

After all if God is pro-procreation, then he is, at some point, also pro-violence, as violence is the natural method society most often employs to diminish the effects of overpopulation.

 

I don't know who you're responding to. Robodoon started this thread and then abandoned it.

 

Ehem, I don't want to stir old (***) and I have deep respect for our Catholic brothers and sisters, but may I remind you of the reason that Luther split from the Catholic Church?
He was appalled by the Catholic Church selling for money the grace of God to finance the building of St.Peter. The Catholic sales-slogan was "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Abuses
So actually it seems to be the Catholic Church who is presumptuous enough to proclaim to have a say when it comes to the Lord's judgement.

 

Good, then don't stir up old (*)(*)(*)(*) because it has no relevence to what I said. Today's Protestants make judgements concerning who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Today's Catholics do not. It doesn't matter a bit whether Luther did this or not considering that modern Protestants have abandoned many of Luther's teachings.

 

I still don't know what exactly you're referring to. Probably because there are many exotic churches in the USA I've never even heard of.

As far as I know the Catholic churches teachings of indulgence are still in place:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
In Catholicism you can get to heaven by good deeds whereas in Protestantism as I know it via faith and God's grace alone.

You may of course be referring to Calvinist teachings of predestination, but I am not aware of any Calvinist church that states that they know or even have a say in who's predestined to be saved and who isn't.

There are of course many posters here who'll readily predict hellfire for others, but I don't think that this unpleasant kind of behaviour is limited to any denomination.

 

Then you should educate yourself.

Indulgences have to do with plenary sins and their temporal consequences. If you have no idea what I'm talking about then maybe that should serve as a clue to you that you shouldn't comment on issues you're ignorant on.

Calvinists, armenians, they all do it. What's at issue here isn't a person by person decision, but by setting the criteria, based on human understanding, by which God is bound to judge people. God becomes restricted to biblical formulas, created by Protestants, instead of his own sovereign case by case judgements. The OP is just an example of how Protestants lay artificial criteria on how God will judge the fates of men.

Actually, it's categorically excluded in the Catholic and Orthodox faiths.

 

In the USA new Churches spring up like mushrooms. It's hard to keep up. So I hoped you'd help me along in my wish to be educated, rather than brushing me off.

From a Protestant point of view no Priest has the right to absolve sins. It would be seen as messing with God's affairs.

It seems you're pretty ignorant when it comes to Calvinists, so maybe you should take your own advice and don't comment on them.

Nice. Somebody should tell the Catholic Lay group "Youth 2000": they embarrassed the Priest of St Mary's church in Glastonbury by attacking pagans and shouting they would go to hell. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/04/religion.world

So after I just could not help myself answering your snappiness with my own, please let me apologize. This dispute is rather stupid, especially seeing that obviously we're both of the opinion that the OP is a piece of insolent (***) and that the poster TheHat was absolutely right in his reply.
You may not recognize it, but my avatar shows a copy of the Westphalian peace treaty that ended the thirty years war which ravaged Europe with Catholics and Protestants bashing each others heads in. I had no intention whatsoever to start a similar flamewar in this forum.