Jump to content

Does God Love Homosexuals?


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

What does the Old Testament say about gay people?

If the bible is the word of God then it's not open for interpretation. You can't twist and turn what's in it to fit your viewpoints.


Either :

1) God hates gays and being gay is a choice
2) God hates gays but made gay people anyway (smart idea right?)
3) The bible is stupid
 

God does not hate any one...he hates SIN....SIN is a choice we make......we are not under the Old Testament anymore as that was a covenant between God and the Jews until Christ came to fulfill it......I would refer you to the book of Hebrews, but I highly doubt you'd follow up on that reference.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why he wants them put to death ?

*chris berman voice* - COME ON MANNNNNNN
 

As you've stated, you can't pick one small part of the bible to support your view. Sometimes you need the whole bible to understand the true meaning of one scripture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why he wants them put to death ?

*chris berman voice* - COME ON MANNNNNNN
 

It may be a parable for a "religious death."  Meaning those that continue to commit such acts will not enter into the Kingdom. 

But, on the other hand, again, Sodom and Gomorrah was an actual destructive act.  So...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"enlightened"......IF homosexuality is natural or genetic, then you obviously don't believe in evolution since all those billions of years of evolutionary carnage would have gotten rid of the homosexual trait in the great survival of the fittest battle......so which one is false? Evolution, or the belief that homosexuality is a natural occurrence and not a conscious choice made by an individual.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"enlightened"......IF homosexuality is natural or genetic, then you obviously don't believe in evolution since all those billions of years of evolutionary carnage would have gotten rid of the homosexual trait in the great survival of the fittest battle......so which one is false? Evolution, or the belief that homosexuality is a natural occurrence and not a conscious choice made by an individual.....

It's a fair question, homosexual genes and human evolution aren't necessarily at odds with one another, for the simple fact that even in the modern world, a great many homosexuals still have children. I think most of us likely know somebody directly, or know of somebody, who grew up traditionally, had a traditional marriage/kids due to social pressure, then later in life chose to embrace their innate attractions. That happens often in our society where homosexual lifestyles are generally accepted (to a degree). Now rewind through the history of civilization to a time when they would be murdered off hand for that lifestyle and it's easy to see how the genes could have survived. 

What makes the whole thing extremely interesting, is that it is highly likely that the majority's distaste for homosexuals is probably also genetic. It makes sense that our  paleolithic ancestors likely shunned homosexuality (a group that embraced it would be unlikely to survive) more so than most do now. Pushing many people into the prehistoric closet, (or the cave as it were).

The theory also holds up due the fact that just about every major religion is anti-homosexual, this goes hand in hand with the reality that our social theories and morals come from evolutionary inclinations toward group survival.  

 

So because it is in our genes to have a distaste for homosexuality, is it then okay to marginalize this group of people? Hardly, the whole point of civilization is for us to apply our rational brains and overcome evolutionary tendencies. We no longer practice infanticide if we feel that a new baby will stretch our resources too thin, or the child is too sickly, we no longer begin breeding our daughters as soon as they reach fertility, the list goes on and on. 

 

The world continues to move on for the better.  

 

side note: I really don't get the "homosexuality as a sin" logic. Typically "sins" are attributed to desires that we all hold, lust, envy, greed, etc. How can something be a perverse and sinful choice if it's not something that most people are ever tempted to do? In fact, something that straight people find to be outright gross . It doesn't wash, give it up, the argument is pretty much over. Nobody can come up with a single argument against homosexual acceptance other than "the bible says...." Well fine, but thankfully we don't make laws and social order based on the teachings of bronze age holy books. There is a group that's trying to get that kind of thing going in the middle east, seems like a real hoot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not "enlightened messiah" I just read some of the threads here in the political form...didn't even know there was one..and thought the guy could use a little support from a fellow traveler (Egads!, the very idea that there might be TWO non religious types in the SETX area! what if they multiply?!?!). I'm sorry if you feel that I didn't answer the question to your satisfaction. Rest assured it was my best effort so I won't try again. There are very few black and white's in science, everything is (and should be) up for debate. It's what makes it so dang fascinating. Much more fun than the "don't question anything we tell you and just repeat the words I say back to me a hundred times and let's pass the 'ol collection plate" thing that you got going on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^Good post, makes you think^^

It is a good, well thought out, well written post. That is, if you total exclude any higher power influence, or biblical credibility. If you base all our creation and existence on man's logic it's a good view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not "enlightened messiah" I just read some of the threads here in the political form...didn't even know there was one..and thought the guy could use a little support from a fellow traveler (Egads!, the very idea that there might be TWO non religious types in the SETX area! what if they multiply?!?!). I'm sorry if you feel that I didn't answer the question to your satisfaction. Rest assured it was my best effort so I won't try again. There are very few black and white's in science, everything is (and should be) up for debate. It's what makes it so dang fascinating. Much more fun than the "don't question anything we tell you and just repeat the words I say back to me a hundred times and let's pass the 'ol collection plate" thing that you got going on. 

Most around here welcome a rational debate (even though they can quickly grow irrational). You're going to have to grow a thicker skin though if you plan on hanging around. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not "enlightened messiah" I just read some of the threads here in the political form...didn't even know there was one..and thought the guy could use a little support from a fellow traveler (Egads!, the very idea that there might be TWO non religious types in the SETX area! what if they multiply?!?!). I'm sorry if you feel that I didn't answer the question to your satisfaction. Rest assured it was my best effort so I won't try again. There are very few black and white's in science, everything is (and should be) up for debate. It's what makes it so dang fascinating. Much more fun than the "don't question anything we tell you and just repeat the words I say back to me a hundred times and let's pass the 'ol collection plate" thing that you got going on. 

 

While I may not agree with everything, I applaud and welcome a different point of view. Some of the posters here do not realize how boring this forum will be if everyone thinks the same.

 

Hope you hang around

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined



  • Posts

    • You got a LOT more than that, you’ve got Riceland filling up. GCM is dropping down from 23-6A back down to 5A in ‘26.  GCCISD is redrawing attendance zones to make sure of that.  At the same time, BH was only about 100 students under the 6A threshold last time UIL drew districts so BH is definitely going up to 6A when those maps get redrawn, probably right into the empty spot in 23-6A GCM is leaving when they drop down.
    • Like I said, even if it’s only 10% of the 100 kids BHISD takes from GCCISD each year, that’s 10 athletes per year and that’s being generous.  You’re right about the jobs with BHISD, BTW.  There’s more than 1 athlete from Baytown originally who got transferred to BHISD after a job opened up for Mama.
    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...