Christian Singer Comes Out

[Tintin]

I heard it was like 12.

Sources I read said under 23. It may have been as low as 12. Dang atheist propaganda!

 

[Sirk]

Sources I read said under 23. It may have been as low as 12. Dang atheist propaganda!

I know right! Another atheist propaganda piece is how many were executed during the crusades. They would have you believe it was hundreds of thousands when it was less than 2500. Not that every human life doesn't have value. They just like to fudge the numbers to make Christianity look bad. As an aside, I am really struggling with the moniker "christian" these days. Not that I don't love Jesus, just that so many people claim that title but aren't. Would like to think of a different name to go by in regards to where my heart is.

 

[Tintin]

I know right! Another atheist propaganda piece is how many were executed during the crusades. They would have you believe it was hundreds of thousands when it was less than 2500. Not that every human life doesn't have value. They just like to fudge the numbers to make Christianity look bad. As an aside, I am really struggling with the moniker "christian" these days. Not that I don't love Jesus, just that so many people claim that title but aren't. Would like to think of a different name to go by in regards to where my heart is.

Too right, dear brother! Also, the first two Crusades were warranted and very necessary. It's the others that were a travesty and not needed. But fair point. I see where you're coming from.

 

[jennymae]

I am not denying that those who claimed people to be witches were not burned. What I am saying it was never Christian to do so No where will you find after the birth of the church in the Book of Acts where they ( Christians) burned those practicing witch craft. Simon the Sorcerer burn his own stuff but he was not. The poster suggested that burning witches is a " Christian value " it is most certainly not.

It is not a Christian value. I haven't been researching this, but to my knowledge, the burnings were a secular thing. Heretics was an accusation thrown at almost everybody because that would secure an indictment which would lead to a conviction and get the defendant burned. The church had no part of it. In fact, the wife of the Lutheran bishop of Bergen, was accused of witchcraft, and was saved only because her husband after a long trial managed to convince the prosecutors that she wasn't a witch.

 

[CS1]

This is a better argument than the rest, probably the only one worth addressing. You need to understand what nature is. Nature encompasses the entirety of our material world as it pertains to life cycles, water cycles, gravity, right down to physical laws and the theories that explain them.

It's totally misnomic to say "homosexuality isn't part of nature". Nature is what governs homosexuality. And it was never a problem until Jewish value systems came about. Just like serial monogamy was never a problem (it's actually the "natural", majority relationship type. All humans are serial monogomers).

It's also misleading to argue that because something used to be treated medically (by chemical castration, I might add), that it ought still to be "treated" medically. Homosexuality doesn't actually pose a health risk in and of itself, either psychologically or physically. In fact, it only was ever considered to be harmful to society because of the JudeoChristian values embedded in the social psyche, that deemed it so. Now, those values are becoming more and more a minority opinion on how society should look. That's something Christians have to concede. You live in a uniquely secular constitutional democracy.

As for the natural benefit of homosexuality: it would have heloed naturally limit population expansion. The population expansion problem we have can actually be traced back to Abrahamic religion: giving women no authority over their sex lives. Middle Eastern Islam, many foreign Christian interpretations, and many Jewish traditions, and the Catholic church in many African states and in South America, allow or at the very least promote marital rape, contraception bans, divorce as a man's right only, the sexual and legal authority of man over woman, and the idea that more children is better than less children. This leads to population expansion, and subsequent scarcity of resources and the violence and poverty that inevitably come with it. Secular countries that allow homosexuality, allow females to divorce, allow women to have power over their own sexuality, and promote safe sex, have sustainable populations.

Homosexuality specifically, evolved in nature to deal with excessive populations. During any population boom, the percentage of homosexual people seems to increase. It's thought this was to provide extra help with childcare, since humans for many years were raised in communal settings. There are also genetic and neurological tells for homosexuality. It's not simply something that people just "decide" to be. With all the religious damnation and subsequent stigma, the threat of violence or even death in some countries, who would ever decide to be gay if they had a choice?

I should also point out that the founding father's were mostly enlightenment deists, not Christians, and morality is and always has been a phenomenon the specifics of which are relative to the population's majority. The very existence of different moralities between cultures professing the same religion is surely evidence of this.

The point you are making is not correct and completely out of context . No where in nature is the area of Homosexuality or application of it a plan or a part of natural cohabitation. You are also equating transgender which is an emotional issue as i stated and far more gifted people then I have shown that. Homosexuality has no benefit and attacking christianity to make your point is over the line. Homosexuality is a work of the flesh and those who think they are born that way think this because of parental , social , and educational authorities support and create a false narrative to be self -deceived.
Homosexuality is a problem because it is against the Word of God . For Me to accept your theory I would have to abandon my faith and believe that the God of the Bible did not mean what HE has said in context to men and women's relationship sexually . The point of Morality of the founding fathers was from the Bible that is just the facts.

Homosexuality is a choice just as drunkenness, adultery , murder etc.. They are all things of the flesh and The Power of the gospel message can break the sexual addiction. The killing of gays Jesus never would condone . to say

"It's not simply something that people just "decide" to be. With all the religious damnation and subsequent stigma, the threat of violence or even death in some countries, who would ever decide to be gay if they had a choice?"

That argument can be made for those addicted to Crack. who would decide to be a crack addict if they had the choice . The point you are making is self- justifying of sin that God has said you should not do. Those that practice homosexaulaity , drunkness , adulter and other like it them do so because they find pleasure in them. The Addict is what happens when they decide to stop it and can't because of the strong hold on their lives. The great news is Jesus can saved them and set them free . AS HE has done for so many who have been bound by the list of things I have pointed out including hoosexuality.

 

[Machiavelli]

finding someone attractive is not sin. Noticing other who are attractive to you other than you husband or wife is not sin. I have seen many very attractive women and do so each day , however I am married so I do not let my attraction rule my mind to an area that would be sinful. I think my daughter are pretty and attractive I do not have ill thoughts of them.
Lust is what the sinful nature produces to pervert the good things God has made . Like attraction, marriage, sex, and many other things.

Completely agree brother. I was trying to discuss this with Kayla but I'm unable to convince her that attraction isn't lust or adultery.

Thank you for the post.

 

[Machiavelli]

Right. One is the sin nature, the other is a deliberate act of sin.

I was trying so hard to remember the term to describe it yesterday. lol Thank you. Great post.

 

[Utah]

Today I walked by two gay men who were talking with each other. As I passed they stopped talking for a few seconds and took a glance my way. My exact thought was, dream on, girls.

 

[CS1]

Today I walked by two gay men who were talking with each other. As I passed they stopped talking for a few seconds and took a glance my way. My exact thought was, dream on, girls.

I do not know what this has to do with the thread just saying .

 

[Sirk]

Today I walked by two gay men who were talking with each other. As I passed they stopped talking for a few seconds and took a glance my way. My exact thought was, dream on, girls.

You're such a stud Utah.

 

[LiJo]

I do not know what this has to do with the thread just saying .

Just Utah being Utah!!!

 

[blue_ladybug]

I do not know what this has to do with the thread just saying .

In other words, the 2 gay guys were checking Utah out. He's not gay, so hence the comment "dream on, girls". lol..

 

[CS1]

In other words, the 2 gay guys were checking Utah out. He's not gay, so hence the comment "dream on, girls". lol..

oh I see ty

 

[Mitspa]

So anyone that don't go along with these sexual deviants and their agenda to pervert our society...wants to burn people to death? So if we don't want open prostitution or reject adultery ..then we want to burn folks too I guess?

 

[kenthomas27]

This is a better argument than the rest, probably the only one worth addressing. You need to understand what nature is. Nature encompasses the entirety of our material world as it pertains to life cycles, water cycles, gravity, right down to physical laws and the theories that explain them.

It's totally misnomic to say "homosexuality isn't part of nature". Nature is what governs homosexuality. And it was never a problem until Jewish value systems came about. Just like serial monogamy was never a problem (it's actually the "natural", majority relationship type. All humans are serial monogomers).

It's also misleading to argue that because something used to be treated medically (by chemical castration, I might add), that it ought still to be "treated" medically. Homosexuality doesn't actually pose a health risk in and of itself, either psychologically or physically.In fact, it only was ever considered to be harmful to society because of the JudeoChristian values embedded in the social psyche, that deemed it so. Now, those values are becoming more and more a minority opinion on how society should look. That's something Christians have to concede. You live in a uniquely secular constitutional democracy.

This is not a fact. Homosexuality was long condemned by many civilizations. Ancient Rome, many parts of northern Africa and Asia have histories of law and punishment against homosexuality. Islam's history is rich with homosexual condemnation.

As for the natural benefit of homosexuality: it would have heloed naturally limit population expansion. The population expansion problem we have can actually be traced back to Abrahamic religion: giving women no authority over their sex lives. Middle Eastern Islam, many foreign Christian interpretations, and many Jewish traditions, and the Catholic church in many African states and in South America, allow or at the very least promote marital rape, contraception bans, divorce as a man's right only, the sexual and legal authority of man over woman, and the idea that more children is better than less children. This leads to population expansion, and subsequent scarcity of resources and the violence and poverty that inevitably come with it. Secular countries that allow homosexuality, allow females to divorce, allow women to have power over their own sexuality, and promote safe sex, have sustainable populations.

This is theory espoused by LBGT advocates because no one can think of any other attribute for homosexuality. Your argument here is actually a scientific paradox because there is no GENE or any other identifiable difference in either homo or heterosexual tendency. In order for this premise to be true nature would have had to present a distinguishable difference in human species in order to fulfill its purpose of controlling populations. No such difference exists which means that somehow, nature would have to rely on humans committing themselves to homosexuality in order to fulfill nature's goal of reducing populations. And that's just crazy.

Homosexuality specifically, evolved in nature to deal with excessive populations. During any population boom, the percentage of homosexual people seems to increase. It's thought this was to provide extra help with childcare, since humans for many years were raised in communal settings. There are also genetic and neurological tells for homosexuality. It's not simply something that people just "decide" to be. With all the religious damnation and subsequent stigma, the threat of violence or even death in some countries, who would ever decide to be gay if they had a choice?

I will agree that it probably doesn't much FEEL like a choice but will submit and and agree with the post concerning sin addiction.

I should also point out that the founding father's were mostly enlightenment deists, not Christians, and morality is and always has been a phenomenon the specifics of which are relative to the population's majority. The very existence of different moralities between cultures professing the same religion is surely evidence of this.

And the FAR MAJORITY of the U.S. founding fathers were Christian. Sorry. (I'm including 1 of the founders who was Catholic and, thus, also Christian but I'm biased) Here's a rundown.. First Amendment Religion Clauses: Signers of the Declaration of Independence - Christian Background

ten characters

 

[Ingerlund]

See the fa-afafine tribal members of the Samoan community, and the tratiya prakriti in ancient India and the Vedic cultures. Also revisit Ancient Rome and Greece: homosexuality was not always punished there.

But more importantly: homosexuality, whether punished or not (a matter of social perspective and penal code) does not remove the fact that homosexuality exists in nature, and always has. The argument "homosexuality has been punished in many cultures", as justification for such punishment is a circular argument. And to use that argument to then attempt to support statements like "so you see, it is not part of nature", is downright silly.

Cannibis is illegal therefore it is not part of nature. Nakedness in public is illegal therefore it is not part of nature. You see how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[CS1]

See the fa-afafine tribal members of the Samoan community, and the tratiya prakriti in ancient India and the Vedic cultures. Also revisit Ancient Rome and Greece: homosexuality was not always punished there.

But more importantly: homosexuality, whether punished or not (a matter of social perspective and penal code) does not remove the fact that homosexuality exists in nature, and always has. The argument "homosexuality has been punished in many cultures", as justification for such punishment is a circular argument. And to use that argument to then attempt to support statements like "so you see, it is not part of nature", is downright silly.

Cannibis is illegal therefore it is not part of nature. Nakedness in public is illegal therefore it is not part of nature. You see how ridiculous that sounds?

your argument is missing sound understanding of the word "Nature". Homosexuality only happen when the abnormal order of nature is abandon . there is no Life there without re reproduction of one male of female species . to suggest that "Cannibis is illegal therefore is not part of nature " ; has nothing to do with the context that Canibis is still a plant, that can be used in a way that is not good for you. as the human body to can be misused as it was not intended to be used.

Just because certain people don't see homosexuality as wrong doesn't mean that is is ok and FYI Tribal Samoans were food for another group of people known as Tongans that eat them. was that ok ? the logic I'm hearing here is ridiculous .

 

[Ingerlund]

your argument is missing sound understanding of the word "Nature". Homosexuality only happen when the abnormal order of nature is abandon . there is no Life there without re reproduction of one male of female species . to suggest that "Cannibis is illegal therefore is not part of nature " ; has nothing to do with the context that Canibis is still a plant, that can be used in a way that is not good for you. as the human body to can be misused as it was not intended to be used.

Just because certain people don't see homosexuality as wrong doesn't mean that is is ok and FYI Tribal Samoans were food for another group of people known as Tongans that eat them. was that ok ? the logic I'm hearing here is ridiculous . .

In a cheery Indian accent: "You are grossly wrong about many incorrect things, mister".

corrected it for you

 

[jennymae]

I don't think any of us know that much about homosexuality and why some people are homosexual. We can be bickering about this for hours, days and years, but it is getting us nowhere. To my best knowledge, which isn't much, I have to admit to that, it is very difficult to grasp the idea of people deliberately choosing to become homosexuals. I am not saying this is the truth, because I don't know what is true and what is not. I'm just saying it is difficult to understand. Now, I'm not convinced that the sole reason for people picking up sins, is because they want to sin. I do not believe that a drug addict wants to do drugs, nor do I believe that a homosexual wants to be living his or her life a homosexual. So why then, why are some people choosing sins that are very easy for others to bash? I don't think living like a drug addict, gay or whatnot is amusing. Those poor people with their parades, pride and other desperate expressions of how bad their lives are...and they are choosing it...incomprehensible...

 

[kenthomas27]

.your argument is missing sound understanding of the word "Nature". Homosexuality only happen when the abnormal order of nature is abandon . there is no Life there without re reproduction of one male of female species . to suggest that "Cannibis is illegal therefore is not part of nature " ; has nothing to do with the context that Canibis is still a plant, that can be used in a way that is not good for you. as the human body to can be misused as it was not intended to be used.

Just because certain people don't see homosexuality as wrong doesn't mean that is is ok and FYI Tribal Samoans were food for another group of people known as Tongans that eat them. was that ok ? the logic I'm hearing here is ridiculous .

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but here is what I was and am disputing. You said "...In fact, (homosexuality) only was ever considered to be harmful to society because of the JudeoChristian values embedded in the social psyche, that deemed it so". This is simply not true. It was condemned (therefore considered harmful) by many civilizations for about as far back as history allows. The condemnation of homosexuality did not begin with nor was peculiar to Judeo/Christian values.

I corrected it for you sorry