On Homosexuality & Religion [Merged]

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Sins are a matter of CHOICE according to the Bible, due to the concept of Free Will. However, attractions and emotions have nothing to do with WILL...only ACTIONS are determined by will.

Sexual Attraction is natural, and cannot be altered by one\'s decision to do so. There is NO CHOICE when it comes to one\'s sexual orientation, ONLY a choice when it comes to thier ACTIONS.

Your assertion contradicts the VERY basis on which you build it upon..the Bible. Since SIN is a matter of Free Will, and sexual attraction is NOT a matter of free will, homosexuality is NOT a sin.....as Feceman already explained.

Then how come it doesn\'t always turn out like that ? WE cannot control what Nature gives us, so....since Homosexuality not only OCCURS in animals, how is it unnatural in human beings ?

The Human Sex Drive existed WAY BEFORE the concept of marriage, so your assertion is PURE bullshit based on religious bias, and nothing more.

1) So then Heterosexuals should NOT have sex, unless the goal is to achive child. They should not have sex for thier own pleasure, if God\'s goal for sex was only pro-creation. You can\'t have it both ways ❌

And on that case, Infertile Men and Women shouldn\'t have sex either, if Homosexuals aren\'t allowed to, over the bullshit beleif that pro-creation is the only goal for sex.

2) Scriptures mean only as much as we allow them to mean. They don\'t mean jack sh*t to me, and I bet you favor one scripture over another. I\'m pretty sure there are plenty of scriptures that YOU ignore, and other Scriptures you favor because it suits your own purposes. If you were to truly beleive ALL the scriptures, then you would have a problem with the numerous contradictions every scripture presents.

1) Sin is a CHOICE

2) Homosexual Attraction is NOT a choice

3) Sin is just a religious word, and has no realistic validity to it. It is subjective and only means as much as one beleives it to mean. [/B]

I\'ll try to make this a brief as possible --

I never stated that having an emotion - is the same as sinning. But it is indeed sinful - when these emotions are used to *fantasize* or *lust* about performing sinful acts, regardless of whether one engages in actually performing the act. A man who excessively *fantasizes* about having sex with multiple women(that he is not married to) - has already commited the sin of fornicating with them. This is the same for all sin, whether the sin be lying, stealing, etc, etc(..etc).

However desiring to have sex with ones spouse(desiring in a non-excessive way of course) - is not sinful since the insitution of marriage(between a male and female) compliments this union of the sexes. Homosexual attraction, however, is always sinful, because it goes against the *natural* sex drives man was instilled with by God.

To state otherwise is very unscriptural - and in essence it is calling God a liar - blaming him for instilling one with these unnatural and sinful sexual attractions(and desires).

Regarding my description of sex within marriage, and what it constitutes - I must admit -- it was indeed a poor one, and I should have further extropolated upon it. So let me do so now. Procreation is but one loving aspect of marriage, expression of love between the sexes - is the other. I do believe that procreation is the more loving aspect, because the outcome of it(having a child) - requires one to have much more selflessness. I know this myself, seeing as how I have a child. This is not to say that one can\'t be loving with their spouse during sexual intercourse, but I have found in life - that those who take the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse more seriously - are generally the more loving individuals.

I\'ll make this my final post on this topic - seeing as how I believe I\'ve given a fairly thorough explanation of my beliefs. Good day to you as always. And God bless.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
"Sin" is basically "unloving" behaviour. It's your choice - to accept or to not accept what you believe "loving" behaviour represents. I fail to see as to how lying to oneself and others, coveting, or any type of fornication can be considered loving(even though I've been guilty of all of these things myself).

Despite being the sinners that we are though - if we so desire to - we can repent of our sinful behaviours - and God can truly change us from within. But making the initial choice involving one wanting to change - and involving one wanting to know the truth - is strictly up to oneself, however I must say that in my limited experiences with God - for every little bit I've given him - he's always given me back much more in return.

You have no idea what I was talking about, do you?

Let me try again: Your way of seeing life and the judgments that you make are just one way of looking at life. Because you believe it, does not make it independently true. A sin to you may not be a sin to someone else, and not all people follow, believe or even read the bible. This is why it is not our place to judge others, we should only say what is sin to us.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have no idea what I was talking about, do you?

Let me try again: Your way of seeing life and the judgments that you make are just one way of looking at life. Because you believe it, does not make it independently true. A sin to you may not be a sin to someone else, and not all people follow, believe or even read the bible. This is why it is not our place to judge others, we should only say what is sin to us.

He still won't get it Shaky...

He is convinced that he is absolutely right on all matters, so even if you somehow PROVED he was wrong, he would deny it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
He still won't get it Shaky...

He is convinced that he is absolutely right on all matters, so even if you somehow PROVED he was wrong, he would deny it.

No harm in trying. 😉

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
A man who excessively *fantasizes* about having sex with multiple women(that he is not married to) - has already commited the sin of fornicating with them. This is the same for all sin, whether the sin be lying, stealing, etc, etc(..etc).

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Homosexual attraction, however, is always sinful, because it goes against the *natural* sex drives man was instilled with by God.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I\'ll make this my final post on this topic - seeing as how I believe I\'ve given a fairly thorough explanation of my beliefs.

btw, you don't need a backslash before an apostrophee when writing. That's not what it's for. Y'know for someone who lives in the US, you really do suck at grammar, like using hyphens and dashes when not appropiate.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I could say the same. You can kill me but not my spirit because I am a strong person and will not succumb to you.*

* that's because no human can literally kill a spirit... because spirits have no flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)... spirits are intangible and humans can only hurt tangible things...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes fear a person that cannot only kill you physical body but your spirit as well......yes, ......That is why people commit suicide. It's because they can destroy your spirit or breaks your spirit.

* spirit and soul are somewhat different according to the Bible... but seeing as it is, people who commit suicide only kills their body but not their soul nor their spirit...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Why didn't anyone like Moses??...Why not him? He should have shouldn't he? He received the law, and yet never said what the consequences were if they were broken.

* consequences? there are consequences if the law of Moses was broken and reward if abided...

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,
Loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them."
Deuteronomy 30:19-20

Originally posted by debbiejo
Cause and Effect. The Son of man has come to tell you some truths,..just as others have.

To teach us some truths as he did in his parables...Jesus always spoke in word pictures to make a point.

Yes, We all can be in this state of becoming one with this universal/Spirit/Goodness to others and think above ourselves.... as Jesus taught...and if you follow him then you can be there also.

* the verses i gave were not parables, friend... the proof of Heaven is in the words of Jesus, heaven is where He ascended to and heaven is where He will come back from...

"And he said to him, Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise."
Luke 23:43

* Jesus mentioned the word, "Paradise" and it was revealed later by the knowledge of God bestowed on Saint Paul that...

"I must boast; there is nothing to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.
And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows--
And he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter."
II Corinthians 12:1-4

* that the Paradise is the third heaven... that is where Christ ascended to and where He will come back from...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well the OT is much more authentic and consistent with what Jesus taught, than Paul, and if you looked at Tarsus, which Paul was from then you'd see that it was very strong in Mithra ism. In fact it was like a beginning hub (excuse me for saying hub...airline slany).......lol...

* are you saying that the Jews are correct? are you saying that, them killing Jesus is alright? bear in mind that these Jews who killed Jesus only accepts the Old Testament and rejects the New... so, please expound...

Originally posted by debbiejo
If you study the whole Bible from front to back and make categories on what was taught by different authors, you'd see the discrepancies and where the false teaching came in....and the church at that time DID CAPITALIZE ON IT.........Why wouldn't a huge power NOT? The Roman system wasn't working, so why not speak in the name of god TO CONTROL the people...........Hmm.....I'd do it if I was of that demeanor...and needed to control kings and countries with MY WORD FROM GOD.

* you have my sympathy in this point, however, the culprit is NOT Christianity, my friend... they are Catholics from head to toe...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Thank you, though sometimes I feel that you feel I am not knowing my studies.......but ok then...Yet, study each book from the OT and compare it with the NT, and you will see for yourself that Paul is a new religion combining Mithra with Jewish theology and called it something new.

* there are similarities, no questions about that... but there are also differences... if we must inject strict Christian doctrines, it would further differ from Mithraism... i cannot blame you for it though, because the doctrines of Catholicism is closer to Mithraism rather than Christianity... even in symbolisms, Christians never did put symbols in pedestal like Catholics did...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well for one I am NOT ignorant of the scriptures at all, sorry to mislead you my friend, I am only trying to show you what you may not have not studied in all completeness....

* that is well-appreciated... 😉

Debbiejo claiming to know the Bible better than peejayd... 😆

Originally posted by FeceMan
They are not good, but their sins are forgiven. Thus, they have been made worthy of the glory of God.

Hmmm. Seems rather.... strenuous. Basically everyone is bad, but some of those people have kowtowed and as such gain slightly more legitimacy. They are no more moral or right thinking then anyone else. Does it, or does it not, essentially come down to being in the club?

I think it's more of a "You could not even begin to fathom my reasoning, and, even if I did explain it to you, you could not understand it, so you'll have to trust me."

And that is different from saying "don't ask" how?

That would be a lazy Christian.

Sadly there are lazy Christians out there, just like any other cause.

You might see it as the same, but that is an oversimplification of the entire thing.

But is it an incorrect interpretation?

You are allowed to ask God questions, you just aren't allowed to be a douche about it. God might answer the questiosn and He might not.

I'm not sure how I am being a "douche" about it. And to my knowledge people have been earnestly asking such questions about such things since the whole thing was first suggested... and to my knowledge God is yet to answer any. Unless we count the whole "where were you..." which is not an answer.

I'll try to make this a brief as possible --

I never stated that having an emotion - is the same as sinning. But it is indeed sinful - when these emotions are used to *fantasize* or *lust* about performing sinful acts, regardless of whether one engages in actually performing the act. A man who excessively *fantasizes* about having sex with multiple women(that he is not married to) - has already commited the sin of fornicating with them. This is the same for all sin, whether the sin be lying, stealing, etc, etc(..etc).

Holy &*$#!!!!! Call Deano!!! It turns out God is actually the thought police! Here I was thinking that my physical fidelity was fidelity. But it turns out fantasising is in fact committing a sin! You'd have fit right in with the Catholics back in the middle ages with them thar attitudes.

However desiring to have sex with ones spouse(desiring in a non-excessive way of course) - is not sinful since the insitution of marriage(between a male and female) compliments this union of the sexes. Homosexual attraction, however, is always sinful, because it goes against the *natural* sex drives man was instilled with by God.

What about if a guy fantasises about the honeymoon night with his soon to be wife?

To state otherwise is very unscriptural - and in essence it is calling God a liar - blaming him for instilling one with these unnatural and sinful sexual attractions(and desires).

Wouldn't want to call God a liar. Granted, I'd call him a mass murderer and tyrant, but liar - well, killing all those Egyptian children would pale in comparison to him lying.

Regarding my description of sex within marriage, and what it constitutes - I must admit -- it was indeed a poor one, and I should have further extropolated upon it. So let me do so now. Procreation is but one loving aspect of marriage,

What if the woman or man is sterile?

expression of love between the sexes - is the other.

Yes, let us leave out words and emotional aspects. Making babies and having sex = loving relationship.

I do believe that procreation is the more loving aspect, because the outcome of it(having a child) - requires one to have much more selflessness.

And if the women or man is sterile? If she had to have her reproductive organs removed due to cancer? Is the relationship somehow less loving as they will never have a child naturally? Sounds just like a homosexual couple really.

I know this myself, seeing as how I have a child. This is not to say that one can't be loving with their spouse during sexual intercourse, but I have found in life - that those who take the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse more seriously - are generally the more loving individuals.

Uh huh. So, how do you know that? Have you tested it? Procreated with women and then just had sex with others to be able to say those who aim for procreation are more loving?

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I\'ll try to make this a brief as possible --

I never stated that having an emotion - is the same as sinning. But it is indeed sinful - when these emotions are used to *fantasize* or *lust* about performing sinful acts, regardless of whether one engages in actually performing the act. A man who excessively *fantasizes* about having sex with multiple women(that he is not married to) - has already commited the sin of fornicating with them. This is the same for all sin, whether the sin be lying, stealing, etc, etc(..etc).

However desiring to have sex with ones spouse(desiring in a non-excessive way of course) - is not sinful since the insitution of marriage(between a male and female) compliments this union of the sexes. Homosexual attraction, however, is always sinful, because it goes against the *natural* sex drives man was instilled with by God.

To state otherwise is very unscriptural - and in essence it is calling God a liar - blaming him for instilling one with these unnatural and sinful sexual attractions(and desires).

Regarding my description of sex within marriage, and what it constitutes - I must admit -- it was indeed a poor one, and I should have further extropolated upon it. So let me do so now. Procreation is but one loving aspect of marriage, expression of love between the sexes - is the other. I do believe that procreation is the more loving aspect, because the outcome of it(having a child) - requires one to have much more selflessness. I know this myself, seeing as how I have a child. This is not to say that one can\'t be loving with their spouse during sexual intercourse, but I have found in life - that those who take the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse more seriously - are generally the more loving individuals.

I\'ll make this my final post on this topic - seeing as how I believe I\'ve given a fairly thorough explanation of my beliefs. Good day to you as always. And God bless.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
God is the Gestapo. Got it.

To be more precise Herr Flick of the Gestapo. I always knew there had to be more to the cross dressing.

This is why I thought we should bring Deano in - God being the thought police needs to be spread to the masses before it's to late.

Hmm I just realised how many women I've "fornicated" with. My oh my, I am quite the sex god.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Hmm I just realised how many women I've "fornicated" with. My oh my, I am quite the sex god.

Hmmmm.... that means it is actually possible stereotypical "geeks" and the like might be veritable sex machines...

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I never stated that having an emotion - is the same as sinning. But it is indeed sinful - when these emotions are used to *fantasize* or *lust* about performing sinful acts,

Thank you for your condemnation of your own lord and savior, Jesus Christ....along with GOD himself.

If you guys wanna know why these threads go on for hundreds of pages, it's because people who see these stories as fairy tales actually engage in conversation with fanatics that dupe them into arguing against this dribble as though it was really a legitimate point of view. Dueling bible quotes are not going to prove or disprove a damned thing. Sure it's good to know what you're arguing against, but it doesn't prove anything.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So you think that being gay is not a sin, but acting on it is?

Just make a basic, clarifying statement for me. I'd love to know how you feel, straight up. No pun intended. [B]BEING gay is alright, but acting on being gay is what? [/B]

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
The human sex drive is designed to be a natural desire - between a *married* male and female.

Needless to say - any type of desire to have sex with males will always be sinful, because as stated in scriptures - men are commanded by God - to exclusively marry and only *lay*(or have sex with) women that they are married to.

In addition to all of this, the word "abomination" is toevah (or toebah), which is used to designate something as ritually unclean rather than morally wrong. So the abomination of gay sex just means it was--notice the past tense--an unclean thing, similar to touching a corpse, offering an imperfect sacrifice, and women immediately after pregnancy.

So in a nutshell - being a homosexual, or fantasizing/being attracted to having sex with other men -- is always a sinful behaviour.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
He is convinced that he is absolutely right on all matters

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Hmmm. Seems rather.... strenuous. Basically everyone is bad, but some of those people have kowtowed and as such gain slightly more legitimacy. They are no more moral or right thinking then anyone else. Does it, or does it not, essentially come down to being in the club?

It's not some exclusive resort that hangs on membership. Your describing it as "being in the club" is loaded.

And that is different from saying "don't ask" how?

(I'm not sure about the ass-kicking part. I recall a thread where people were talking about kicking God in the testicles, though.)

Job was being a douche. As justified as he might have been, that didn't stop God from getting irritated that Job thought he could do the job--heh--better than God.

Sadly there are lazy Christians out there, just like any other cause.

But is it an incorrect interpretation?

I'm not sure how I am being a "douche" about it. And to my knowledge people have been earnestly asking such questions about such things since the whole thing was first suggested... and to my knowledge God is yet to answer any. Unless we count the whole "where were you..." which is not an answer.

Originally posted by FeceMan
The post to which you responded wasn't even about gays. I was just talking in general. Prior to reading the articles I mentioned, I believed that being gay itself was not a sin, but acting on it was. Now, I believe that neither being gay nor acting on one's homosexuality is morally wrong.

So, you're divorcing morality from sin? But divorcing morality from sin doesn't help the sinner from going to hell. So, you still believe that an upstanding homosexual is going to burn in hell?

Don't get too worked up over me dragging this out.

Originally posted by FeceMan
It's not some exclusive resort that hangs on membership. Your describing it as "being in the club" is loaded.

How isn't it an exclusive resort? You have said no one is good. But the fact some people entreat God puts them ahead. Now, which part of the entreating gets them through the door?

Clearly it is not admitting sin/mistakes or whatever - many people, non-Christians, non-religious have said such about human nature for pretty much forever. Atheist philosophers have admitted it. Muslims have admitted it, Buddhists, Pagans all of them. So scratch "accepting "sin" as getting them through door.

And it obviously isn't asking for forgiveness. Once again people have been asking that from each other and other gods, God's, ascended beings forever. Yet apparently that isn't going to get them to Christian heaven. Thus it isn't so much the act of asking for forgiveness either.

The final - directing this to the Christian God. That is what gets you in. Belief in him. Doesn't matter how earnest my prayers to Allah or Ganesh or whatever, a certain type of Christian will tell me it is "only through Jesus" - thus it is an exclusive club. Getting in depends on which deity one has betted on. A Muslims will likely claim a Christian wont get in, despite the similarities between accepting human nature and asking for forgiveness. And vice versa. So how isn't it an exclusive thing? It is only through joining the "Jesus club" that it works. Doesn't matter the good things one does. Doesn't matter if one goes through the same "I'm sorry" process if it is directed at the wrong deity.

There is a difference between asking a question and "ZOMG WTF WERE U THINKING U SUXXORZ GOD DIE ***** IMA KICK UR ASS."

(I'm not sure about the ass-kicking part. I recall a thread where people were talking about kicking God in the testicles, though.)

Funny, but I can't remember ever making a statement like that. I believe you have mistaken me for Lord Urizen. The questions I ask are based upon my concerns with Biblical claims and so forth, and the fact it seems illogical and unjust. And full of clauses.

The closest I've come to that is the proposition that if God feels he can judge us despite the "inbuilt" faultiness of us as a species and all the rest, humanity should get the chance to judge him in return. Why do you think God would be opposed? Doesn't he support "justice and goodness will win out?" Is he not at peace with how he has handled things? Would he not be able to look humanity in the eye and argue his case honestly and be confident of being vindicated? But apparently not - maybe he feels that because there are apparently more people going to be in hell then heaven (including, according to certain Christians, everyone from Gandhi to a happily gay friend of my from university) the judgement might go against him.

It is as incorrect as saying that evolution is randomness.

Ah, I see.

I suppose it's a good thing that I never said you were being a douche. God has answered my questions, not that it matters.

To be honest I refereed to me as it seemed logical - I ask a question about God answering questions, you say "You are allowed to ask God questions, you just aren't allowed to be a douche about it. God might answer the questions and He might not." I didn't see the relevance of the douche in that context if you weren't saying it applied, somehow, to me.

But tell me - the concept of God loving us and wanting us all to be saved so badly... does it make quite as much sense if he doesn't answer the questions of those who doubt - an act that would most likely change their minds by clarifying those concerns they hold? It seems rather paradoxical he could provide an answer and thus save souls without destroying "free will" yet he doesn't. Does that not make him at least a little complicit in their damnation?

Guy speaking into phone - "Oh my God! There is a Bomb in the room, we wont be able to outrun it! IS - you know the code, tell me and it will save thousands of lives!"
IS at other end of phone - "No... I don't think I will."
BOMB - "*EXPLODE*

Now, I didn't build the bomb, didn't activate it, and only knew the code by way of coincidence... would you say I had anything to answer for because I didn't answer "Guy"'s question?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How isn't it an exclusive resort? You have said no one is good. But the fact some people entreat God puts them ahead. Now, which part of the entreating gets them through the door?

And it obviously isn't asking for forgiveness. Once again people have been asking that from each other and other gods, God's, ascended beings forever. Yet apparently that isn't going to get them to Christian heaven. Thus it isn't so much the act of asking for forgiveness either.

The final - directing this to the Christian God. That is what gets you in. Belief in him.

Doesn't matter how earnest my prayers to Allah or Ganesh or whatever, a certain type of Christian will tell me it is "only through Jesus" - thus it is an exclusive club. Getting in depends on which deity one has betted on. A Muslims will likely claim a Christian wont get in, despite the similarities between accepting human nature and asking for forgiveness. And vice versa. So how isn't it an exclusive thing? It is only through joining the "Jesus club" that it works. Doesn't matter the good things one does. Doesn't matter if one goes through the same "I'm sorry" process if it is directed at the wrong deity.

Funny, but I can't remember ever making a statement like that. I believe you have mistaken me for Lord Urizen. The questions I ask are based upon my concerns with Biblical claims and so forth, and the fact it seems illogical and unjust. And full of clauses.

The closest I've come to that is the proposition that if God feels he can judge us despite the "inbuilt" faultiness of us as a species and all the rest, humanity should get the chance to judge him in return. Why do you think God would be opposed? Doesn't he support "justice and goodness will win out?"

Is he not at peace with how he has handled things? Would he not be able to look humanity in the eye and argue his case honestly and be confident of being vindicated? But apparently not - maybe he feels that because there are apparently more people going to be in hell then heaven (including, according to certain Christians, everyone from Gandhi to a happily gay friend of my from university) the judgement might go against him.

But tell me - the concept of God loving us and wanting us all to be saved so badly... does it make quite as much sense if he doesn't answer the questions of those who doubt - an act that would most likely change their minds by clarifying those concerns they hold? It seems rather paradoxical he could provide an answer and thus save souls without destroying "free will" yet he doesn't. Does that not make him at least a little complicit in their damnation?

Guy speaking into phone - "Oh my God! There is a Bomb in the room, we wont be able to outrun it! IS - you know the code, tell me and it will save thousands of lives!"
IS at other end of phone - "No... I don't think I will."
BOMB - "*EXPLODE*

FeceMan at the other end of the phone: "The password is written on a scrap of blue paper that I put in your pocket."

Guy: "What? This paper has the password? I don't believe you!"

FeceMan: "That's the code."

Guy: "It is not! You're lying. Besides, there are all these other pieces of colored paper in my pocket!"

FeceMan: "I'm telling you, the blue one has the password. Furthermore, there are instructions written on the back on how to deactivate the bomb afterwards."

Guy: "But all these other papers have that, too! And what if I call other people for help--they'll probably just say the same thing. I don't know who to believe."

FeceMan: "Read the piece of paper again. It talks about defusing bombs in the past, and it's accurate. The history of bomb-making and the subsequent bomb-defusing back it up." [Wow, that paper must be larger than I thought.]

Guy: "No, I don't believe you! Just tell me the damn code!"

FeceMan: "I've told you what you must do to defuse the bomb--just use the code on the blue scrap of paper.

Guy: "I don't think any of these have the right answers. I'm just not going to touch the bomb because I've changed my mind and believe that the bomb won't go off."

FeceMan: "I'm sorry to hear that."

JM: "lol im in ur phone line listenin to ur conversations"

EDIT: Damn double-post.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you're divorcing morality from sin? But divorcing morality from sin doesn't help the sinner from going to hell. So, you still believe that an upstanding homosexual is going to burn in hell?

Don't get too worked up over me dragging this out.

Rather, they all get tossed into the oven while God cackles maniacally.

(No, not really. All sins are forgivable. For a Christian, all sins are forgiven. That's why even a murderer-rapist-pedophile can be welcomed into heaven.)

Originally posted by FeceMan
EDIT: Damn double-post.

I am not understanding. Are you trying to provoke me? I never once said--or even implied--that I was "divorcing morality from sin," considering that sin is based upon the violation of morality. Furthermore, I have stated time and time again that, even supposing having a homosexual relationship is sinful, God doesn't sit there and let murderers, rapists, and pedophiles through while laughing as He throws the homos into the oven.

Rather, they all get tossed into the oven while God cackles maniacally.

(No, not really. All sins are forgivable. For a Christian, all sins are forgiven. That's why even a murderer-rapist-pedophile can be welcomed into heaven.)

No, I'm not trying to provoke you. I'm trying to get a single, clear answer. Maybe you've addressed all this before, but that doesn't mean I've read it. You can't expect people to read every page of a thread that's as long as this one.

Are you saying that I have something to ask god to forgive me for doing?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Are you saying that I have something to ask god to forgive me for doing?

(Actually, it doesn't much matter, I suppose, if you don't believe it and have asked in the past.)