As a Christian what are your thoughts?

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by bob x

You are surrendering yourself to humans who are claiming to speak for God.

Speak for yourself, or they'll speak for you.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

Aging, sickness, death, etc. were results from Adam and Eve's transgressions, not sins in and of themselves. Aging is not a sin (that would really suck), but in my faith, Homosexuality is.

I think you misunderstood me there. I didn't say they were sin. I meant they were results of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. My question to you is, if aging, sickness, death, blindness and deafness are the "bad stuff that happens to God's creation" after the "fall," a result of eating the fruit, could homosexuality not be included? My point is, aging, sickness, death, blindness and deafness are beyond our control. Your point is that a homosexual is a "chooser" not someone born with the condition. I'm just asking you to reconsider based on my reasoning, assuming you haven't thought of seeing it this way before. Do you consider homosexuality a natural mindset? Not talking about the act here, but the mindset.

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

I assume it cannot be natural because my Church and the Bible confirm that it is not.

What do you regard as "natural?" It may be "unnatural" to procreate with two men or two women because they can't have sexual intercourse (need man-made medical technology), but it may not be "unnatural" to have the mindset. As far as I'm concerned, the Bible was talking about the outward, not the inward aspects of the phenomenon.

At this point I'm not arguing whether the outward is more important than the inward, at this point I'd be interested in whether you think the inward phenomenon of homosexuality in the mind is natural. I'm assuming you weren't making a distinction between "inward" and "outward" in the quote above. What would you say now if I was to quiz you about that distinction?

Remember that Jesus said that a person was guilty of adultery even before the act itself. The sin was in thinking about it. Did this not highlight the importance of thoughts over actions?

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

But it is condemnable, it is a sin. Does that mean go taunt people? No.

I didn't say anything about taunting people. The issue is whether, if you can accept the existence of transsexuals (bodily displaced heterosexuals), can you accept the existence of homosexuals (Nature giving us the wrong minds)?

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

I don't consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder.

As I said before, the Bible addressed the outward (observable), not the inward (hidden) phenomenon.

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

People are judged by their faith and their actions. God knows and sees all, is merciful, and can break his own rules.

My impression was that the mindset in Christianity was more important than actions. Actions only reflect our true attitudes half the time, maybe even less. Would God not be more interested in our true attitudes than our actions? If God was more interested in actions, why not just replace God with a man? Quite obviously man is good enough to be God.

Furthermore . . . from my perspective . . . Christianity isn't about following rules and judging people by rules. I believe it's more important to understand a person than to follow rules, as rules only reflect what we really think less than half the time. Was this not the Spirit of the Gospel? Paul said we are free from the Law implying that, "I can do anything, though not everything is beneficial." ie. Breaking the Ten Commandments is not beneficial.

[bob x]

In my religion, it is against human nature to be homosexual, no exceptions. We can agree to disagree?

I believe my nature to be "human", and you DISAGREE??? And you expect me to be fine with that???
Whoever taught you to think of my nature as subhuman and monstrous is an enemy of mine, at the profoundest of levels.

It's not like the Sabbath rules

On what basis do you say so? Both called for the death penalty, just like making images or other laws that you disregard. Leviticus puts homosexuality in the same category as shellfish-eating and fiber-mixing.
What is your basis for deciding which of the old laws you hold on to? Jesus gave you the criterion, but you don't put any importance on it.

Again, do you have this straight from God, or are you allowing some humans to take the place of God?
If rules are given to man from God

That's a mighty big IF there. All you know is that these humans claim they got their rules from God.

All I have straight from God is what is revealed in His creation, in particularly the way He created me. None of that is consistent with the notion that the old Middle Eastern books are infallible guides to what God is all about.
Well, I guess that explains why you aren't a Christian then.

It ought to be relevant to whether you are a Christian, at least a "Christian" of the particular type you are.

But apparently it doesn't matter enough to you for you to make it your actual basis for moral decisions.
The rules of mankind and not the divine do not make the basis for my moral decisions and they never will.

I was talking about the standard that JESUS gave. Why it is that Christians disregard that standard is a mystery to me. Basing your moral decisions on "whatever the authorities tell me" is the standard used by his crucifiers.

What do you think I think repenting is?

I have no idea.

I have to make up for my sins, I can't just go along on my happy way and not try to make amends.

I asked you: how, exactly, would I or anybody "make amends" for having given joy to others? By inflicting pain on them?

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I think you misunderstood me there. I didn't say they were sin. I meant they were results of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. My question to you is, if aging, sickness, death, blindness and deafness are the "bad stuff that happens to God's creation" after the "fall," a result of eating the fruit, could homosexuality not be included? My point is, aging, sickness, death, blindness and deafness are beyond our control. Your point is that a homosexual is a "chooser" not someone born with the condition. I'm just asking you to reconsider based on my reasoning, assuming you haven't thought of seeing it this way before. Do you consider homosexuality a natural mindset? Not talking about the act here, but the mindset.

Well, you can choose to act or not to act, even though you said you weren't talking about that.... I'm not under the impression that people (for the most part) actively choose to have a homosexual mindset, but I'm not sure and that's not for me to decide. I don't know if homosexuality could be included with aging, sickness, etc, either because it hasn't been revealed as far as I'm concerned.

What do you regard as "natural?"

I regard opposite sex attraction to be natural.

At this point I'm not arguing whether the outward is more important than the inward, at this point I'd be interested in whether you think the inward phenomenon of homosexuality in the mind is natural. I'm assuming you weren't making a distinction between "inward" and "outward" in the quote above. What would you say now if I was to quiz you about that distinction?

No, I don't think the " inward phenomena " is natural either.

Remember that Jesus said that a person was guilty of adultery even before the act itself. The sin was in thinking about it. Did this not highlight the importance of thoughts over actions?

I don't think the thought of it is more important than the action, but that they are both equally important in terms of sin. Going with that, yes, just thinking about it would probably be a sin in and of itself.

I didn't say anything about taunting people. The issue is whether, if you can accept the existence of transsexuals (bodily displaced heterosexuals), can you accept the existence of homosexuals (Nature giving us the wrong minds)?

Oh, I know you didn't say anything about taunting, I was just trying to dispell any strange suspicions that people might come up with (like I'm on a mission to destroy people's lives?). By accept the existence (assuming that it could be a natural original state) do you mean do I think it's okay?

As I said before, the Bible addressed the outward (observable), not the inward (hidden) phenomenon.

Then again, the Bible wasn't meant to be an encyclopedia on sin, sinning, and aspects of sin. I don't think " hey, it's not in the Bible, that means it's a grey area " and then stop there.

My impression was that the mindset in Christianity was more important than actions. Actions only reflect our true attitudes half the time, maybe even less. Would God not be more interested in our true attitudes than our actions? If God was more interested in actions, why not just replace God with a man? Quite obviously man is good enough to be God.

But we aren't just judged by your faith, we are judged by your actions as well, so they're not exactly unimportant or trivial. Ideally your actions should reflect what is on the inside...

Furthermore . . . from my perspective . . . Christianity isn't about following rules and judging people by rules. I believe it's more important to understand a person than to follow rules, as rules only reflect what we really think less than half the time. Was this not the Spirit of the Gospel? Paul said we are free from the Law implying that, "I can do anything, though not everything is beneficial." ie. Breaking the Ten Commandments is not beneficial.

Well, you kind of have to follow the rules (ie. the commandments) in Christianity and anyone that says you don't have to follow them or at least try to follow them to the best of your ability (even if you screw up) is full of it.

When I say rules, I mean the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus Christ. We are not and never free from the Ten Commandments.

And Christianity isn't souly about the Last Judgment, no, but it's pretty epic and need not be discarded. The most important thing is to have a relationship with God and following Jesus Christ's teachings achieves that.

[bob x]

What do you regard as "natural?"

I regard opposite sex attraction to be natural.

That's your nature. It is also most people's nature. But it isn't mine. Yet I insist that I am still a human, no matter what you or your church says.

I was just trying to dispell any strange suspicions that people might come up with (like I'm on a mission to destroy people's lives?).

By spreading the ideas you do, you may end up destroying people's lives whether that is your intent or not.

Ideally your actions should reflect what is on the inside...

??? Whereas, my actions should not?

When I say rules, I mean the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jesus explicitly broke the "Commandments" on the Sabbath issue, and considered it right to do so.

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by bob x

Jesus explicitly broke the "Commandments" on the Sabbath issue, and considered it right to do so.

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath.

[bob x]

He said "the son of man" (presumably rendering the generic Hebrew phrase ben-adam "son of clay" for any human being, as in "put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help") is lord of the sabbath. He was not saying that he *alone* was allowed to violate the sabbath; on the contrary, all his disciples were doing so.

[BlaznFattyz]

love comes first.

[bob x]

except when it comes to people like me?

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by bob x

I believe my nature to be "human", and you DISAGREE??? And you expect me to be fine with that???
Whoever taught you to think of my nature as subhuman and monstrous is an enemy of mine, at the profoundest of levels.

I disagree on the naturality of it. I don't expect you to be fine with that, but there is no point to arguing over the statement anymore.

So whoever does not think homosexuality is justifiable is your enemy?

On what basis do you say so? Both called for the death penalty, just like making images or other laws that you disregard. Leviticus puts homosexuality in the same category as shellfish-eating and fiber-mixing.
What is your basis for deciding which of the old laws you hold on to? Jesus gave you the criterion, but you don't put any importance on it.

Most of Leviticus states sacrificial/ritual law. Do we need to do sacrifices anymore? No. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Jesus told us to follow God's commandments and to follow him. In the New Testament, Jesus says explicitly to follow the commandments, the commandments of God, those are the ones we follow. That's how we decide.

This doesn't appear just in the Old Testament, either.

That's a mighty big IF there. All you know is that these humans claim they got their rules from God.

I know the Bible comes from God, in fact, I'm positive.

It ought to be relevant to whether you are a Christian, at least a "Christian" of the particular type you are.

What?

I was talking about the standard that JESUS gave. Why it is that Christians disregard that standard is a mystery to me. Basing your moral decisions on "whatever the authorities tell me" is the standard used by his crucifiers.

What standard am I disregarding? " Whatever the authorities tell me " You mean whatever my Church tells me? The Orthodox Church existed before the Bible was written, since the first Pentecost, and it's head is Jesus Christ. So, it is completely wrong to think that it is the same standard as those who nailed him to the cross.

I asked you: how, exactly, would I or anybody "make amends" for having given joy to others? By inflicting pain on them?

I have no idea. Someone who is blessed to hear confession could answer you. If you consider seperating yourself or others from sin to be inflicting pain, then that is yet, a whole 'nother ballgame.

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by bob x

That's your nature. It is also most people's nature. But it isn't mine. Yet I insist that I am still a human, no matter what you or your church says.

So you're acknowledging that it's not normal? It's not natural. Not for anyone. The Church doesn't say you're not human, not in the slightest. Maybe your nature isn't natural, but that doesn't mean you're not human.

By spreading the ideas you do, you may end up destroying people's lives whether that is your intent or not.

How am I destroying lives? You tell me.

[mee]

OK ,havent read all the posts but as a christian that believes the bible to be the word of God and worth reasoning on . i think this verse is worthy of thought.


What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.......1 CORINTHIANS 6;9-11


The thing that stuck out to me was that it seems to say that the things listed are things that a christian no longer takes part in . in verse 11 it says............. And yet that is what some of you WERE .......... SO a thief would nolonger pratice thiefing, so men who lie with men would refrain , many people lived their lives out of harmony with Gods ways but after learning from the bible what is right and what is wrong in Gods eyes they put themselves inline with Gods thoughts as to right and wrong for us , what we dwell on has a great bearing on how we act. so filling our minds with Gods ways would help .

“The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, 10) Wrong thoughts and desires start to fill the heart, triggering a deadly chain reaction. “But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death.”—James 1:14, 15.

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by bob x

except when it comes to people like me?

this is why jesus came and was crucified on the cross, because god loves you, so you might find everlasting life through his son.

[bob x]

I disagree on the naturality of it.

I don't even know what you're saying anymore. It IS my nature to love other men. You seemed to be saying "Any creature that was like that by nature would not be human-- but that's why I don't believe you're really like that". The problem is, of course, that I REALLY TRULY AM like that; the creature that you are refusing to recognize as human is, in fact, me.

So whoever does not think homosexuality is justifiable is your enemy?

You don't think it's "justifiable" for me to exist at all? Obviously that is being my enemy at the profoundest of levels.

Leviticus states sacrificial/ritual law. Do we need to do sacrifices anymore? No.

Do you need to avoid such "abominations" as shellfish, mixed-fiber clothing, and crop rotation? No.
What makes you pick out one particular sentence in Leviticus and say "THAT is eternally applicable" even though you disregard the continuation of the sentence (the part that says you have to kill us) as "not" applicable? You appear to have no moral standards at all for deciding such a question, except "whatever my church says".

In the New Testament, Jesus says explicitly to follow the commandments, the commandments of God, those are the ones we follow.

He doesn't tell you to follow every letter in the old book: he tells you to follow these commandments, "love God with all you have, and love your neighbor as yourself"; and if you bothered to apply those principles, you would know what parts of Leviticus are meaningful and what aren't.

I know the Bible comes from God, in fact, I'm positive.

OH??? You were there when the book was written? Pray tell me how you come by such "knowledge"!
Or do you mean, that you "believe" very strongly?

It ought to be relevant to whether you are a Christian, at least a "Christian" of the particular type you are. What?

If your church tells you that the moon is made of green cheese, in fact tells you that GOD SAYS the moon is made of green cheese, then the experience of Neil Armstrong, who has actually been there, should be relevant to whether you ought to believe that your church knows what it's talking about, either about the moon or about what GOD SAYS.
Your church tells you things about my nature, which I know, in the direct cogito ergo sum sense of "know", to be untrue. Since you don't have the direct knowledge of what is in my head, you can decide that I am lying to you, but don't pretend that there is any possibility that I am mistaken. I know what I am, and neither you nor your church has anything to teach me about it.

I asked you: how, exactly, would I or anybody "make amends" for having given joy to others? By inflicting pain on them? I have no idea. Someone who is blessed to hear confession could answer you.

You are mistaken. Nobody in your church has any kind of an answer.

So you're acknowledging that it's not normal?

??? OF COURSE I'm in a minority in that respect, as in many others. My blue eyes aren't "normal" either: it is natural for most people to have dark eyes. Neither is white skin "normal", for that matter.

It's not natural. Not for anyone

It is for ME. Now you are excluding me from being "anyone", again.

Maybe your nature isn't natural

What the hell does that mean???? My eyes have a blueness, but that blueness isn't blue?

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by bob x

I don't even know what you're saying anymore. It IS my nature to love other men. You seemed to be saying "Any creature that was like that by nature would not be human-- but that's why I don't believe you're really like that". The problem is, of course, that I REALLY TRULY AM like that; the creature that you are refusing to recognize as human is, in fact, me.

I am not refusing to recognize you as human, that is insane. I am refusing to believe that homosexuality is a natural and normal state of being.

God didn't create us to sin so I cannot accept that it is natural state of things.

You don't think it's "justifiable" for me to exist at all? Obviously that is being my enemy at the profoundest of levels.

You are blowing my statement way out of proportion. I don't think the sin is justifiable in that there is no way it can be positive. It is a sin, it is wrong, and it will never be right. That's what I mean.

Do you need to avoid such "abominations" as shellfish, mixed-fiber clothing, and crop rotation? No.
What makes you pick out one particular sentence in Leviticus and say "THAT is eternally applicable" even though you disregard the continuation of the sentence (the part that says you have to kill us) as "not" applicable? You appear to have no moral standards at all for deciding such a question, except "whatever my church says".

We do not keep dietary laws because of this:

Mark 7:18 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?"

Thus, we can eat whatever we want.

As for Homosexuality, in the New Testament, the verse Mee quotes is perfect:

Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.......1 CORINTHIANS 6;9-11

The status of it as a sin did not change.

He doesn't tell you to follow every letter in the old book: he tells you to follow these commandments, "love God with all you have, and love your neighbor as yourself"; and if you bothered to apply those principles, you would know what parts of Leviticus are meaningful and what aren't.

Yes Bob, because you are the final authority on Jesus Christ, and nearly 2,000 years of sacred tradition and wisdom is meaningless compared to your earthly logic.

I just told you how I know and WHY which parts of Leviticus are still applicable.

OH??? You were there when the book was written? Pray tell me how you come by such "knowledge"!
Or do you mean, that you "believe" very strongly?

I believe it completely. That's what I mean. It is completely trivial for me to have needed to be there when it was written, because with apostolic succession, the faith is unchanged.

If your church tells you that the moon is made of green cheese, in fact tells you that GOD SAYS the moon is made of green cheese, then the experience of Neil Armstrong, who has actually been there, should be relevant to whether you ought to believe that your church knows what it's talking about, either about the moon or about what GOD SAYS.
Your church tells you things about my nature, which I know, in the direct cogito ergo sum sense of "know", to be untrue. Since you don't have the direct knowledge of what is in my head, you can decide that I am lying to you, but don't pretend that there is any possibility that I am mistaken. I know what I am, and neither you nor your church has anything to teach me about it.

That is ridiculous. Jesus has actually been there, the Apostles have actually been there, the Saints have been there, that's what the Church was and IS based on, not random ridiculous assumptions that sprung up out of the woodwork like you are suggesting.

I don't need to know what is in your head to say that homosexuality is a sin and is not natural in that it is a deviation from our creation.

It is your choice to accept or deny the teachings, not arguing with that.

You are mistaken. Nobody in your church has any kind of an answer.

It has the answer, you just don't like it and don't want to hear it.

What the hell does that mean???? My eyes have a blueness, but that blueness isn't blue?

It was a rather bad typo, actually, that I just became aware of. It should have said " What you think your nature is isn't natural ".