Did Jesus say anything about gay folk?.

a reply to: DarknStormy

Both make sense to me. Turning the other cheek makes so much sense to me, but as you've said - there's a limit.

originally posted by: mikefougnie
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

The answer to the question still stands. God loves homosexuals, even if he does not approve of your life style. I am not saying that you are going to hell either, I am saying that you are just as much a sinner as I am. We all sin, and God loves us all.

The christian god might not approve of my 'lifestyle' - as you put it - but the actual God does and that's what's important.

a reply to DarknStormy

That question makes it seem like there are only two choices but there aren't.

How is letting children get killed compassionate?

You can protect the children without resorting to killing.

The philosophy of revenge is a false solutions to problems. it didnt solve the problems in the middle east all it did was lead to an endless warS since ancient times.

a reply to: arpgme

*Glances at the myths surrounding the Tablets of Destiny*

Why would Enlil-YHWH require them, if he was most high? Seems to me, they were on loan.

I digress. Much mythology abound that destroys his most high claim.

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: arpgme

*Glances at the myths surrounding the Tablets of Destiny*

Why would Enlil-YHWH require them, if he was most high? Seems to me, they were on loan.

I digress. Much mythology abound that destroys his most high claim.

So true. If he was really most high, then his law would already be written in heart of humanity since he would be the creator of all, just like we already intuitively know to be compassionate and not hurt others for no reason.

originally posted by: OptimusSubprime
a reply to: boymonkey74

He said plenty about happy people... and some things about Sodomites. Sodomy is included in the general term "sexual immorality", but we see in Romans 1 where Sodomites are singled out and how they should be killed for their gross and abominable lifestyle, as well as those who support and condone it.

Is that true? On my oath, the more I read about what some christians believe, the more they seem like evil little nasties that must be stopped.

a reply to: arpgme

What about the philosophy of self defense?

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

I wonder what History has to say about it? I hope we don't end up down this road if we aren't already there.. Oh wait a minute, it sounds like historical script of America.



Got many Communists or Zionists in your country? I'm pretty sure this revolution started when people started mocking Jesus..

a reply to: DarknStormy

I think the worst way to mock Jesus would be to misrepresent his teachings.

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: arpgme

What about the philosophy of self defense?

If by "defense" you mean revenge, fighting back, then that question was already answered.

Jesus did not teach an eye for an eye, he taught people to turn the other cheek and walk away from violence. If you want to justify violence, then that is your choice, people do it all the time and they experience the consequences of their actions (endless fighting or wars), a follower of Christ's Teachings will keep peace and walk away from violence.

EDIT: Hitler did not follower Christ's Teachings either, he did not promote love, only domination/tyranny through the disguise of "power to the people" which was actually "power for his army". He practiced magic such as inscribing runes on stones to gain power. The Nazis believed in that sort of stuff, even in secret societies.

Jesus taught us to bless those who curse us, not to do magic rituals to try to curse whoever we don't like. Any negative energy you put out comes back to you. Jesus taught that you will reap the seeds that you sow, you cannot plant thorns and think you're going to get grapes.

So basically, you believe that homosexuals are illegitimate which means that gays are inferior to you, since some of your actions may be sinful but you see the very existence of gay people as sinful.

arpgme,

Not at all. I said that I do not believe homosexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation. I never said individuals who identify as homosexual are illegitimate, nor do I believe that I am superior to anyone else in terms of value or worth. All life is sacred because God created it, and all people are precious in God's eyes.

I have to wonder... IF being Gay is not something "designed" by God...

Why is it found all throughout nature?

Perhaps nature is sinful?

Or Maybe God didn't create nature?

Akragon,

The New Testament makes it clear that all creation fell when mankind chose to disobey God in Eden. (See: Romans 8:20-21)

I found your post to be surprisingly interesting to read through and have to say that I appreciate all the effort. I wasn't aware that some christians don't believe that hell is eternal.

I have to say, I don't believe in hell at all so it's a slightly easier to answer question for me.

I know where you're going with your post, but all I was doing was saying, well here's a pretty funny and yet frighteningly poignant meme to explain something rather complex.

I honestly can't bring myself to believe in, or worship the god of the bible. I believe there's something, but I'm sure whatever there is isn't angry or judgy and is cool with us being us so long as we do our best not to hurt other people and animals and our environment.

We don't always succeed, but we can do our best.

That's where I think so many christians and other religious people go so wrong. They are often the most judgmental people ever and it's their way or the highway. It's pretty frustrating.

BasementWarriorKryptonite,

Thanks for your reply! I definitely agree that a lot of Christians are very judgmental and I don't think that is right. The New Testament says that God is love and I believe that. I obviously do believe in hell but I don't think God delights in anyone going there (Ezekiel 33:11). Nevertheless, a just God can't let guilty people go free, can he?

Well, those are just the thoughts off the top of my head. Thanks again for your kind response.

originally posted by: arpgme
orangetom1999

Even if you are correct and there were gay people in these wars that has nothinG to do With their sexual orientation. They killed for politics not in the name of feeling a same-sex attraction to other men.

LOL LOL LOL...goodness me...talk about obfuscation.. LOL LOL LOL..ok..no problem.

BasementWarriorKryptonite and others have tried to make the point that Homosexuals are more moral than others. The lesson from history shows a different point. Particularly when you can read what is not desired for us to know today..and much of history is just that way. And this to achieve the very results you see here on boards like this one.

My point is that they were right in the middle of all these so called Immoralities and violence. You are trying to separate the sexuality from this very thing....yet bring it out a badge of honor and respect when it suits you. So too with BasementWarriorKryptonite. I just don't buy into this technique.

You see ..I occasionally see a woman who likes to watch these day time talk shows. I do not hang around when she goes through this religious rite and zealous worship...and often. For you see..I quickly determined that if you take the sex and sexuality out of these programs...you have no program. I can do this with many and much on television and movies. Thus causing me to ask what and where lay some of these peoples real talents and skills.

I do not watch such programming for Amusement.

A- without

Muse-thinking

Without thinking..amuse/amusement.

Something fed to us to prevent thinking. I can make the same point about someone stroking our emotions in order to control us..often by preventing us from thinking..and ceding to our base instincts and emotions...ie....sex and sexuality.

It makes many of us no better than base animals.


BasementWarriorKryptonite,

I started to reply to Orangetom, but anyone can just scroll up quickly to read the words I would have replied to. What an absolute joke.

Sorry, Orangetom, but none of that is worth addressing. You're clearly clueless on the subject and I can appreciate your attempts to understand, but you're so way off that it's ridiculous.

Have a good weekend.

Ahh....I have been waiting for you to take this route..one can see it coming...no problem again. Bon Appetit.


arpgme,

The judgmental religious people of Jesus's day were called Pharisees and that is what I am reminded of whenever I see/hear people judging based on traditions rather than being in the Spirit (treating others fairly and kindly, treating others how you would like to be treated)

People make judgements all the time ...daily./ Go left ..go right ..buy this ..don't buy this..associate with this person and not that person.....et al.

The Hebrew people were to make judgements all the time as to whether something was of God or not..and that which is not ..they were to separate from this. Same thing with His people today. To separate...this requires knowledge, discretion, and judgement to so do.

If believers did not have the ability to Judge ...how would they ever know when to put someone out of the Church??

Same thing for non believers..they make judgements all the time.

People often bring this topic up...judging in these types of posts and threads...and it is easy to predict once again where it goes and leads. And hence with non judgment and where that too leads.

Thanks for bringing up that line of thought.


Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

BasementWarriorKryptonite and others have tried to make the point that Homosexuals are more moral than others.

When did anyone say that a person is more moral just because they are homosexual?

It makes many of us no better than base animals.

Just because you enjoy sexuality that doesn't mean you are a 'base animal'. Everybody likes physical things to some extent whether it be delicious food, nice clothes, sexuality, or something else.

A gay person is not defined strictly by sexuality, gay people eat, sleep, and do other things, too.

People often bring this topic up...judging in these types of posts and threads...and it is easy to predict once again where it goes and leads. And hence with non judgment and where that too leads.

There's a difference between judging based on tradition and discernment through The Spirit (God is Love).

originally posted by: arpgme
When did anyone say that a person is more moral just because they are homosexual?

I think I know now what's getting at this orangetom character. Jealously.

They will deny it, vehemently. But, there's no denying their already written words and if they honestly think anyone here or anyone ever has said that homosexuals think they're more moral than them - they're in a fairy land of dreams.

They've created a world in which they must fight against the evil homosexual, for imaginary reasons.

Strange, really, since reason is not something they seem to have a firm grasp on.

a reply to: arpgme

When did anyone say that a person is more moral just because they are homosexual?

BasementWarriorKryptonite back on page 19,

a reply to: orangetom1999

I don't give a damn that the 'average american' is supposedly shielded from the behavior at gay parades. If they can accept their country bombing the crap out of others - without even going into the details - they can deal with some gay butt sex.

Seriously, deal with it and move on.

Gay ses is so tame in the grand scheme of things, so why is it focused on? It's just gay sex.

Morality???

A gay person is not defined strictly by sexuality, gay people eat, sleep, and do other things, too.

Seriously?? Your kidding here yes?? That is the point I have been making form the beginning..thanks.

Yet it seems to go over the heads of so many people and posters here on this thread. One would never know that Gay in other times meant to be happy ..elated...content.

Today it means sex and sexuality. The very word..new speak.

Do you not know that people have historically defined themselves by their lineage, their occupation, or some great work they have done and left to posterity??? They do not define themselves by their sex and sexuality.

Only self indulgence to the point of ignorance can dumb a people down so far that they no longer and obviously do not know the difference.

The very word you are using here is textbook of this point and the new speak behind it...Gay. That this is all and the focal point of what these people are. There are people out here who know differently and can read history and see what is and is not.

And once again ..this applies hetero as well as homo...that people do not define who and what they are by their sex and sexuality.

Good grief..people...try some thinking some time..followed by some history.

There's a difference between judging based on tradition and discernment through The Spirit (God is Love).

This is the pagan New Age definition of god..another god and another religion. Those versed in Occult religions know this.

This is not from the Bible..it is therefore another god and another bible.

Love in the Biblical sense is obeying God...not mans new age definition.


BasementWarriorKryptonite,

They've created a world in which they must fight against the evil homosexual, for imaginary reasons.

Strange, really, since reason is not something they seem to have a firm grasp on.

No that is not what I stated..I stated that hetero and homo..both ..a person does not define themselves by their sex and sexuality.

And furthermore ..historically a person defines themselves by their Lineage, their Occupation, or some Work they have done and left to posterity.

Are any of you posting this line of thought in lieu of the type and character of Judgement and Sophistry going on here???

If not you are dealing a hand from a deck which does not have in it all the cards, so to speak, and thinking no one will know the difference.


Thanks,
Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

Ok, here's the thing. Gay is a term which stuck to homosexuals because they were generally seen to be happy and fun-loving etc. People like you are doing and have always done their very best to make them unhappy.

I see those sorts of people are vile, disgusting things which need to be squashed.

I'm sure you aren't that bad, but you are definitely leaning toward that side, rather than the live and let live and let everyone just be happy being themselves team.

By the way, there's nothing immoral about homosexuality or gay sex.

Just get over your jealousy that people you don't like are happy and don't care about you. You never know - perhaps if you just stopped being a mean person, they might start to care.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: orangetom1999

Ok, here's the thing. Gay is a term which stuck to homosexuals because they were generally seen to be happy and fun-loving etc. People like you are doing and have always done their very best to make them unhappy.

I see those sorts of people are vile, disgusting things which need to be squashed.

I'm sure you aren't that bad, but you are definitely leaning toward that side, rather than the live and let live and let everyone just be happy being themselves team.

By the way, there's nothing immoral about homosexuality or gay sex.

Just get over your jealousy that people you don't like are happy and don't care about you. You never know - perhaps if you just stopped being a mean person, they might start to care.

Wow!!! BasementWarriorKryptonite, this is deep and intellectual stuff. Well said. Well said!!


LOL LOL LOL...I was not aware that this is a definition of people who were happy..and wanted to have a good time...fun loving et al.

It has been used for years now to denote homosexual behavior...period. It has not been used in public to demonstrate..denote or connote fun loving, happy, et al..but strictly certain sexual behaviors.

For you see...fun loving, happy ...is also a definition of heteros..or in general...people.


Now ..people like me are doing my best to make them unhappy?? Wow!! Do you see a problem intellectually with your statement??? I most certainly do.

I see insecurity. For you see, BasementWarriorKryptonite, I don't depend on others per se for my happiness. And certainly not you. And if I don't get it from your or others...as if I deserve it from them...then I squash them.

I don't see people like that as vile..I see them as very insecure.

I mean you have some real issues here..the first is with your entitlement beliefs.

And by the way...while I am thinking about it...that is exactly what the media and the homosexual groups tried to do with that beauty contestant many years ago. They put her on trial ...and executed her...squashed her for voicing her opinion which one of the judges asked her for this very opinion. And when he did not approve of her opinion for which he asked her...the turned on a whole machine to go after her.

And furthermore ..I don't care for insecure people around me. No drama queens need apply. I get enough of those at work. At least I get it on the clock.

Someone dependent on me for their happiness..has issues...far beyond this topic here. You seem to not be aware of this kind of thinking.

Well..enough of that for now..thanks for your post,
Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

It seems as though you're arguing with yourself. You know full well that gay was a term to describe the often seen 'camp' nature which was almost expected of homosexuals at one point.

I'm curious that seeing as we are no longer discussing Jesus, why are you bothering to discuss homosexuals and homosexuality? Got a bit of interest in the subject on a personal matter, do you?

There's nothing wrong with that, if it's the case.

a reply to: orangetom1999

originally posted by: orangetom1999
Yet it seems to go over the heads of so many people and posters here on this thread. One would never know that Gay in other times meant to be happy ..elated...content.

Today it means sex and sexuality. The very word..new speak.

Languages changing over time is not "new speak". Changes in languages is a natural process and it has been happening since languages began, most people do not say "thou" anymore either and many words changed definitions over time, not just in modern times, and not just in one language (English the 'international' language) as some type of conspiracy like "new speak".

originally posted by: orangetom1999

This is the pagan New Age definition of god..another god and another religion. Those versed in Occult religions know this.

This is not from the Bible..it is therefore another god and another bible.

Love in the Biblical sense is obeying God...not mans new age definition.

Actually the Bible does say that God is Love (1 John 4:8 ); and Jesus' definition of Love is self-sacrifce for others (John 15:13).

originally posted by: orangetom1999
No that is not what I stated..I stated that hetero and homo..both ..a person does not define themselves by their sex and sexuality.

Actually, if a person wants to define themselves by their sexuality, whether straight or gay, it is their right to do so. America (and some other western civilizations) are based on principles of Individuality such as is about being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and if that includes defining yourself by your sexuality then it is your right to do so. If a person is not being treated equally because of who they are (which has nothing to do with imposing on the liberty of others) then they have the right to stand up for justice to be treated equally like every other member of society, and allowing gay people to be married without the religious stepping to say "no" is not stepping on the liberty of the religious - it's stepping on the liberty of gay people.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: orangetom1999

originally posted by: orangetom1999
Yet it seems to go over the heads of so many people and posters here on this thread. One would never know that Gay in other times meant to be happy ..elated...content.

Today it means sex and sexuality. The very word..new speak.

Languages changing over time is not "new speak". Changes in languages is a natural process and it has been happening since languages began, most people do not say "thou" anymore either and many words changed definitions over time, not just in modern times, and not just in one language (English the 'international' language) as some type of conspiracy like "new speak".

originally posted by: orangetom1999

This is the pagan New Age definition of god..another god and another religion. Those versed in Occult religions know this.

This is not from the Bible..it is therefore another god and another bible.

Love in the Biblical sense is obeying God...not mans new age definition.

Actually the Bible does say that God is Love (1 John 4:8 ); and Jesus' definition of Love is self-sacrifce for others (John 15:13).

originally posted by: orangetom1999
No that is not what I stated..I stated that hetero and homo..both ..a person does not define themselves by their sex and sexuality.

Actually, if a person wants to define themselves by their sexuality, whether straight or gay, it is their right to do so. America (and some other western civilizations) are based on principles of Individuality such as is about being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and if that includes defining yourself by your sexuality then it is your right to do so. If a person is not being treated equally because of who they are (which has nothing to do with imposing on the liberty of others) then they have the right to stand up for justice to be treated equally like every other member of society, and allowing gay people to be married without the religious stepping to say "no" is not stepping on the liberty of the religious - it's stepping on the liberty of gay people.

arpgme,

Hmmmmm...how be it that your posts show so much more understanding and maturity than do the posts of BasementWarriorKryptonite??

I have deduced by this difference that BasementWarriorKryptonite is young and not matured..at least emotionally. No problem..just an observation. Certain emotional immaturity levels are sometimes an indicator of other tell tails

Continuing on..


Concerning definitions..The meanings of words both past and present are known. One need only do some reading and studying of words..etymology et al. What is disturbing to me is the "assumption " here and on many boards that people think that only their definitions apply. I find this to be very provincial...in thinking as well as in emotion. I only began to realize this when reading books which were over a hundred years of age. I found I needed a good dictionary and not just todays abridged dictionary.
The assumption here is that only one definition need apply. I don't agree with this technique.

Languages do indeed change..but this does not cause the older meanings to expire. This change does, however, often dumb down people into provincial thinking and without them even being aware that this has taken place. It is very easy to deceive and control people by this manner and without them being aware it is happening to them. By the use or misuse of a word..by redefining a word. If one controls the word...they control someone's thinking, and by this route one can also control someone else's actions.

And runaway emotions...coupled with re defining or use/misuse of a word has exactly this effect.



It is indeed someone's right to define themselves by their sex and sexuality. But that was not the point I was making from the beginning of my threads here.

My point once again..is that a proper human being is more than sex and sexuality. Much much more. On this thread ..one would never get this point if someone did not bring it up for examination. I find people with mostly sex and sexuality as their definition to be boring and instant gratification types. Hence little use for them ..male or female...hetero or homo.

This simply because I know this line of thought and can see it through history.

I find that the method and rationale for a person defining themselves by their sex and sexuality to be the very dumbing down of a people. It is not to me the epitome of human greatness or excellence, Illumination.

I do not have to mix with such people..I simply leave them right where they are. In like manner to all the women I have not chosen..I just left them right where they are or were.


As to God being love...once again..a matter of definition.

Because it is obvious from the Olde to the New Testament that God's people were not to define themselves by their sex and sexuality...this simply because the nations outside of God's people were already doing this very thing...defining themselves by their sex and sexuality. This particularly around their holydays and festivals.

The nations around God's people ..such as Corinth and others were already of this definition...rampant, rabid, runaway sex and sexuality. But one would have to know certain histories to be aware of this fingerprint in existence.

And God's people choose to separate from this kind of thing. To come out from amongst them and be ye separate sayeth the Lord. And they are given the Liberty in this form of government to so do.

But somehow ..under some "Higher " law..some higher morality ...this choice is being attempted to be taken away from God's people.

This is becoming more and more obvious when government steps in and tells these people that they can be made to do things which are against their religion..under this higher law ..higher morality.

I know of people who have been warning of this time coming for over 50 years back. It is coming to pass.

And redefinition and dumbing down is the path under which it is taking place. Under which it is attempting to be justified.

And this is not the only cause celeb under which this is attempting to be done ..there are others.

But thanks for your post as well.

Once again...people are more than sex and sexuality.

Orangetom