What Advice Do You Have Or Same-Sex Couples

[Genevanpreacher]

Homosexuality/Sodomy (and that IS what it is!) Is horrifyingly sinful, and a sin against one's own self!

People who have compassion on these animals are corrupt in their stand for right living, IF that's what they really are striving for.

Come on folks read Romans 1 and learn what God says to do with people like this. Stay FAR away from such!!

NOTHING good will come of it. They will infiltrate the church and weaken it, and eventually become a perverted church.

Tell'em to leave you alone, and shame them like real Christians used to, and bring back our moral society again!

Just because they come out of the closet, let's shove 'em back in and close the door!

Conversion should be preached and NO friendship made, as if they were murderers on the loose!

I am sick of this sin!

 

Venting with no regret!

 

And no hatred!

[JimsHelpmeet]

May I just say that one thing I'm tired of is when people (even people who claim to be Christians) say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, because homosexuality didn't exist back during the time the Bible was authored. I mean, what sort of logical gymnastics must one perform to reach that conclusion? Liberals claim the Bible only addresses "Pagan male prostitution". That King James invented the word "homosexuality". Oh, and let's not forget that the sin of Sodom was being "inhospitable". 

[swathdiver]

Both of my cousins proclaim this is the way God made them, and ask if it's such a sin, why would He make them that way? I have tried explaining to them we are all born with a sin nature, but that doesn't mean we should give into the devil. We are to resist him! They say, "well, I was born this way, the same way a black person is born with the color of their skin." Because there is so much acceptance toward these reprOBate lifestyles today, the homosexual offender has given up all hope in being radically changed by God. They just throw up their hands and say, "oh well. It's who I am". 

 

Believing that God made them that way is the first lie they believe.  What they do not understand or are more likely supressing, is that we all have a sin nature.  Their favorite sin just happens to be sodomy and fornication.  The other lie they believe is that they are the same as black folks.  Now that defies all logic, but the liberal mind operates on emotion, not logic.  

 

They haven't given up hope of being changed, they've exchange the truth for a pack of lies.  Deep down they know it's wrong but they love their sin unto death and will do anything to continue doing it as they are not ready to make repentance towards God and put their trust in Jesus Christ.  

[282Mikado]

Believing that God made them that way is the first lie they believe.  What they do not understand or are more likely supressing, is that we all have a sin nature.  Their favorite sin just happens to be sodomy and fornication.  The other lie they believe is that they are the same as black folks.  Now that defies all logic, but the liberal mind operates on emotion, not logic.  

 

They haven't given up hope of being changed, they've exchange the truth for a pack of lies.  Deep down they know it's wrong but they love their sin unto death and will do anything to continue doing it as they are not ready to make repentance towards God and put their trust in Jesus Christ.  

 

This all is part of that science falsely so called. Like evolution, they take small pieces of fact, intermingle a good deal of contrived "science", stir in a good dose of hopes and dreams, and tell us this is true scientific fact.

 

The fact is in 1993 the National Cancer Institute found that gay men (only) shared genetic signatures on part of the X chromosome, Xq28. Further studies have found this initial study to be not at all conclusive, and the current stance is "Homosexuality is only partly genetic with sexuality mostly based on environmental and social factors, scientists believe"¹. I find it interesting that while they found this supposed evidence in males, no such genetic evidence has been found for female homosexuals.

 

I once discussed this subject with a homosexual and his stance was that, 'no, they hadn't found genetic proof yet, but it was just a matter of time'. Therein lies the crux of what is often being called scientific fact today. "I believe it, and I believe it is just a matter of time until they prove it, so it must be true". In other words, science falsely so called.

 

1 - Sarah Knapton, Science Correspondent for The Telegraph. 13 Feb. 2014

[ThePilgrim]

The human mind is a wonderful thing.  If one's conciense finds him guilty of something all one has to do is think it over for a wnile and a justification can be found.  Wallah, :humble:I'm okay.

 

God bless,

Larry

[1Timothy115]

'Neoorthodoxy' and 'social gospel' religions want to make homosexuality OK. They want to remove it from the SIN category. No matter how much they seek to change Christian's opinions...there is still the Word of God prOBlem for them. You know KOB, you've been attempting this for years, why don't you give it up. No matter what kind of suit you dress this SIN in, at the end of the day it is still SIN. Sin has consequences and repercussions for the sinner and on the innocent entangled with that sin. This particular sin of lust is no different than any other sin of lust.

[Salyan]

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the way science is proceeding, one of these days we may actually have to contend with the presence of children having DNA from two different people of the same gender. That is, unless God simply does not allow that to 'work.'

[Salyan]

This all is part of that science falsely so called. Like evolution, they take small pieces of fact, intermingle a good deal of contrived "science", stir in a good dose of hopes and dreams, and tell us this is true scientific fact.

 

The fact is in 1993 the National Cancer Institute found that gay men (only) shared genetic signatures on part of the X chromosome, Xq28. Further studies have found this initial study to be not at all conclusive, and the current stance is "Homosexuality is only partly genetic with sexuality mostly based on environmental and social factors, scientists believe"¹. I find it interesting that while they found this supposed evidence in males, no such genetic evidence has been found for female homosexuals.

 

I once discussed this subject with a homosexual and his stance was that, 'no, they hadn't found genetic proof yet, but it was just a matter of time'. Therein lies the crux of what is often being called scientific fact today. "I believe it, and I believe it is just a matter of time until they prove it, so it must be true". In other words, science falsely so called.

 

1 - Sarah Knapton, Science Correspondent for The Telegraph. 13 Feb. 2014

 

You know the thing I can't figure out? How the liberal mind, which requires evolution as a way of avoiding the existence of a Creator God, can possible justify sodomy as being genetic. Natural selection as a means of the evolution of species must necessarily select out those who are producing no progeny! The genetic material would thus not be passed down to create more sodomites, and they would cease to exist. Case closed!

[swathdiver]

You know the thing I can't figure out? How the liberal mind, which requires evolution as a way of avoiding the existence of a Creator God, can possible justify sodomy as being genetic. Natural selection as a means of the evolution of species must necessarily select out those who are producing no progeny! The genetic material would thus not be passed down to create more sodomites, and they would cease to exist. Case closed!

 

You must understand that the liberal mind exists on emotion, not logic.  

[Alimantado]

You know the thing I can't figure out? How the liberal mind, which requires evolution as a way of avoiding the existence of a Creator God, can possible justify sodomy as being genetic. Natural selection as a means of the evolution of species must necessarily select out those who are producing no progeny! The genetic material would thus not be passed down to create more sodomites, and they would cease to exist. Case closed!

 

As an atheist who studied evolution at uni, I never had a prOBlem reconciling it, since several plausible explanations flow naturally out of the basic theory of evolution itself. Of course, as with most things (my own belief in theory of gravity and molecular theory for example!), the majority of folk who believe in evolution have never studied it and have almost no interest in it, so they don't have the means or inclination to justify anything by it. :-)

[John81]

The fact most people simply aren't interested is a key factor. These tend to either just accept whatever they are taught, giving it no real thought, or they reject the teaching as the absurdity it is but since they don't care about the subject they either accept some other possible explanation or give it no further thought.

 

It's like these interviews they do on the news sometimes where a reporter will go to a college campus and ask basic questions to which the college students have no answer for.

 

Perhaps even more telling was during OBama's first presidential run when a Fox News reporter went to several pro-OBama rallies and asked his supporters what OBama's position was on several key issues and not a single one at any of the rallies had an answer.

 

Much of the population seems to operate as if ignorance truly is bliss. What's more, they don't care. This leaves us with much of the population living their lives, casting their ballots and making their decisions on the foundation of ignorance and apathy.

[Alimantado]

True, John. And there are important things we ought to study and to my shame I can identify many things to which I ought to have dedicated a lot more time in study and prayer than I have. But most of us aren't polymaths and we can't learn everything, so we must pick and choose in order to 'redeem the time' as well as we can.

 

Just one example: I have no more than a senior school (i.e. to 16 years old) understanding of gravity, most of which I've forgotten. I could prOBably give a very sketchy description of some of the Newtonian laws of motion and that's about it. I certainly wouldn't be able to defend the theory without a trip to the library, nor would I be able to 'justify' my belief in it, since I've never fact-checked any of it by, for instance, repeating experiments I learned about, looking up landmark papers to check they really say what the textbooks claim they say etc. In fact, I've never been to see an original copy of Newton's Principia to check that it really exists (or that Newton himself ever existed, for that matter).

 

Why not? Well, I guess it hasn't been important enough to me; I haven't needed to have a working knowledge of it to get by. I can see why many feel the same way about learning natural history.

[John81]

Alimantado,

 

Absolutely we can't know everything, and many things are not worth knowing and many other things it's not necessary to know much at all about.

 

I was speaking mostly with regards to the masses who take stands based on nothing more than emotion, exceedingly limited knowledge or acceptance of faulty information. Such as the example of so many OBama voters who voted for him just so they could say they voted for the first black president, or because he was perceived to be cool, or young and hip, fresh, or someone who would do things differently. Meanwhile, so many of these voters had no idea at all what OBama's actual positions were or his stated goals or agenda.

 

For Christians, our main focus should be upon abiding in the Word, drawing closer to the Lord. That doesn't mean we will come to a point where we know the whole Word, have all the details figured out, that we can expertly address any aspect of Scripture. It does mean, as the Lord leads, we should be growing in knowledge and understanding of the Word.

 

The prOBlem is, even among the masses of Christians, most are willing to settle for knowing little, accepting what some preacher said, what they read in a book or saw in a move or TV show, making their decisions based upon limited or no understanding of the Word on a matter.

 

When it comes to creation, it seems perfectly clear to me there was a literal six day creation. When it comes to matters of the end times, while I have my leanings, I've still not come across a 100% airtight presentation of what will occur. I'll continue to study this as the Lord leads in this area, as well as with the rest of Scripture.

 

So really, my previous post was mostly about the masses apathy and ignorance, and their willingness to live and make decisions in accordance. I wasn't attempting to say that we, or anyone else, should study out every topic under the sun. While I have no need to delve into nuclear physics, others do. Yet when it comes to Scripture, all who claim the name of Christ should read and study the Word as the Lord leads; not to be experts in the Word, but to grow in the Word as the Lord leads.

[Alimantado]

Agreed and Amen! Excellent post, John!

[Alimantado]

I forgot to add, going back to Salyan's post and the point I was trying to make in response: OBviously, like you say, John, a Christian ought to study God's word, and when it comes to Genesis I can see how some might go on to study cosmology and natural history both out of interest and for practical purposes such as apologetics. But when it comes to most non-Christians, natural history (e.g. evolution) and genetics and stuff is going to be totally unimportant to them, trivia topics at best, so it would come as no surprise to me if I learned that most hadn't taken a critical look at evolution, genetics, genetic basis of homosexuality (or not) and stuff like that.

 

I don't think any of what I've just said there disagrees with your points, John...