Guy hates himself for being Gay

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#21
Your second mistake David was in falsely asserting that sinners can't receive mercy from God and other people like Christians. You're really out there with these obviously false statements of yours David.
 
Jan 6, 2014
991
27
0
#22
It's pretty plain and simple, unless one wants to justify sexual sin. Married sex is the only sex God is okay with. Can sex be for mere intimacy and pleasure? Answer this: is sex pleasurable? Why do you think that is? God made sex for two things: procreation and intimacy. I am not here to answer for the failings of teaching on sex in marriage by pastors I do not know and am not accountable for. I am here to say, as I did, quite plainly, that sex is for marriage. End of story.

And, sorry to disappoint you, but I will not jump on your bandwagon to make divorced and remarried Christians feel like second class citizens just so you can soothe your conscious on sexual sin you want to permit for others or yourself.
First off I am not soothing my conscious , I was attempting to have an intelligent discussion on human sexuality. I am sorry that you are threatened by my comments. You want to make homosexuals second class citizens while embracing adulterers. You do not want to discuss the acceptance of slavery by the apostles, because you can not defend it.
Do not worry I won't ask you anymore questions. I got the answers I expected.

Christ be with you always.
 

mystdancer50

Senior Member
Feb 26, 2012
2,522
50
48
#23
First off I am not soothing my conscious , I was attempting to have an intelligent discussion on human sexuality. I am sorry that you are threatened by my comments. You want to make homosexuals second class citizens while embracing adulterers. You do not want to discuss the acceptance of slavery by the apostles, because you can not defend it.
Do not worry I won't ask you anymore questions. I got the answers I expected.

Christ be with you always.
If you read my other post, you'd see why slavery is a non-issue here.

As for an intelligent conversation, nope. You're trying to get into a judgemental debate over divorced people and their reasoning. This is a thread about homosexuality, which is sexual immorality and sin. Period. Accept it or not, it's black and white. The only sex permitted is between a husband and wife. We are not here to debate if it's a second, third or tenth marriage, or to pick apart believers based on your interpretations and biases.

So, returning to the POINT of the thread: sex is only permitted between one man and one woman joined together as husband and wife and no, homosexuals are not born that way, it is a choice.
 
Jan 6, 2014
991
27
0
#24
Why is it that when people want to justify sexual sin, especially the sin of homosexuality, they bring up two things that have NOTHING to do with sexual immorality: stoning disobedient children (OT) and slavery? Seriously. Apples and oranges, folks. If you want a legitimate standing argument, you must compare apples to apples, which means you must show a time when sexual sin is condoned by Christ or the apostles in order to excuse sexual sin for you.
My apple says sex without spiritual union is anathema. Your apple says sex without spiritual union is anathema. Our definition and understanding of spiritual union may be where we differ, but I suspect we differ on many more things than that.

Christ be with you always.
 

mystdancer50

Senior Member
Feb 26, 2012
2,522
50
48
#25
My apple says sex without spiritual union is anathema. Your apple says sex without spiritual union is anathema. Our definition and understanding of spiritual union may be where we differ, but I suspect we differ on many more things than that.

Christ be with you always.
Once again, you miss the point, but I am not surprised. The apple would be justifying fornication in order to fornicate, not trying to put fornication against slavery in order to justify fornication, which is what you did by bringing slavery into the mix. And, again, not the point of the thread, which is if one is born homosexual and how they can be judged for being that way when they can't help it. Maybe you can start a new thread to discuss these things elsewhere, rather than derailing and distracting from the issue at hand. Just saying...
 
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#26