Do You See a definite satanic Inluence In Strident Homosexuality?

[righteousdude2]

You NAILED It....

Are you on a crusade to condemn Christians who condemn homos*xuality? Is that your "ministry"?

It certainly appears to be.

That certainly jumps off the page and bites each of us! He is trolling with the self-appointed mission to put down brothers and sisters who see homose#ulity for what it is, and UNNATURAL sin. And he has no real answer or response to these acussations! Great catch canadyjd...:applause:

 

[canadyjd]

It's not. God speaks to specific acts as the sin. He NEVER says that identifying as someone who is attracted to the same sex is a sin any more than He identifies being attracted to the opposite sex as sinful. He ALWAYS speaks to specific acts as sinful....Depends on what you're defining "being homosexual" as. If you're talking about someone who has sex with someone of the same sex, then it ABSOLUTELY is not natural.

But you already defined it, didn't you? As an "orientation"?

But if you're talking about someone simply having an attraction, God created man and woman with an attraction for each other that was more than just a desire to have sex. So people's attraction to other things in other people's personalities have always been there......Attraction that doesn't involve sinful lust is natural.

But the "orientation" is a se*ual attraction, isn't it? Men and women have friends of the same s*x that fit all your definition as a "simple" attraction....personalities and so on...

You cannot distinguish a person who "is homos*xually oriented" from someone who is not without including the " same s*x se*ual attraction" can you?

So, again I ask you....and you seem to be saying... that same s*x se*ual attraction is a natural part of God's creation, and therefore not sinful, unless and until that person acts upon those natural, God-given desires.... is that your argument?

 

[Zaac]

But you already defined it, didn't you? As an "orientation"? But the "orientation" is a se*ual attraction, isn't it?

Nope. Folks just assume its a sexual attraction. There are many levels to this thing we call orientation. Attractions are just part of it.

Men and women have friends of the same s*x that fit all your definition as a "simple" attraction....personalities and so on...

That's the point. You can be attracted to folks of the same sex and it have nothing to do with sex. That's how friendships are formed. You see something in another person to which you are attracted.

You cannot distinguish a person who "is homos*xually oriented" from someone who is not without including the " same s*x se*ual attraction" can you?

Sure you can. Folks identify as heterosexual or homosexual all the time without having had sex with anyone.

So, again I ask you....and you seem to be saying... that same s*x se*ual attraction is a natural part of God's creation, and therefore not sinful, unless and until that person acts upon those natural, God-given desires.... is that your argument?

No arguments. I'm just saying when God created mankind, He created us with the capacity to be attracted to others and it doesn't have to have anything to do with sex.

 

[Zaac]

That certainly jumps off the page and bites each of us! He is trolling with the self-appointed mission to put down brothers and sisters who see homose#ulity for what it is, and UNNATURAL sin. And he has no real answer or response to these acussations! Great catch canadyjd...:applause:

Looks like somebody is still pulling me off IGNORE in order to read my posts. Naughty, naughty. Crawl back into your IGNORE cave and keep your mind off me.:thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

In my experience when people like Zaac spend so much time accusing Christians of mistreatment of homosexuals and in at least on aspect defends it then there is something about that issue that is personal to them. What that is here we do not know but if I were a betting man I would bet a paycheck.

[vile accusation removed]

 

[righteousdude2]

That has been the "Burning" question.....

In my experience when people like Zaac spend so much time accusing Christians of mistreatment of homosexuals and in at least on aspect defends it then there is something about that issue that is personal to them. What that is here we do not know but if I were a betting man I would bet a paycheck.


Zaac are you now or have you ever been a homosexual? Or is someone close to you one?

....all along, and I think you would definitely double your paycheck, if it weren't a sin to bet, and you were, in fact, a "Betting" man! LOL :smilewinkgrin:

I'd bet my check too [if, like you Reverend "M"], that he is the first of your two guesses! That is the most likely scenario for his aggressive attacks on all of us nice folk on the board!

I can't help but wonder if he'd be LESS miserable on a homosexual forum! In fact, maybe he can convince the powers that be to start a separate talk line on the board for homosexual believers, family of homosexuals, and pot puri? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[canadyjd]

Nope. Folks just assume its a sexual attraction. There are many levels to this thing we call orientation. Attractions are just part of it.....That's the point. You can be attracted to folks of the same sex and it have nothing to do with sex. That's how friendships are formed. You see something in another person to which you are attracted.
...Sure you can. Folks identify as heterosexual or homosexual all the time without having had sex with anyone....

So let me summarize the argument that you are making...let me know if I get it wrong somewhere...

1. "Being" homose*ual is a natural, God-given condition... just like "being" heterose*ual and is not sinful.

2. "Being" homose*ual does not mean you have se*ual desires for people of the same s*x.

3. Christians who condemn homose*uality are sinful, hypocritical children of the devil.

Really?

 

[Zaac]

So let me summarize the argument that you are making...let me know if I get it wrong somewhere...

1. "Being" homose*ual is a natural, God-given condition... just like "being" heterose*ual and is not sinful.

2. "Being" homose*ual does not mean you have se*ual desires for people of the same s*x.

3. Christians who condemn homose*uality are sinful, hypocritical children of the devil.

Really?

That's your summary so what are you asking me really for?

 

[Zaac]

....all along, and I think you would definitely double your paycheck, if it weren't a sin to bet, and you were, in fact, a "Betting" man! LOL :smilewinkgrin:

I'd bet my check too [if, like you Reverend "M"], that he is the first of your two guesses! That is the most likely scenario for his aggressive attacks on all of us nice folk on the board!

I can't help but wonder if he'd be LESS miserable on a homosexual forum! In fact, maybe he can convince the powers that be to start a separate talk line on the board for homosexual believers, family of homosexuals, and pot puri? :smilewinkgrin:

And one might guess by the anti-homosexual attitudes of you two and a lot in the church that a lot of you are gay and into gay porn. Classic cases of folks complaining about something so much because thats what they secretly desire.

So shame the devil and tell the truth. Come on out those closets.

 

[Zaac]

In my experience when people like Zaac spend so much time accusing Christians of mistreatment of homosexuals and in at least on aspect defends it then there is something about that issue that is personal to them. What that is here we do not know but if I were a betting man I would bet a paycheck.

Sure is personal. I personally love every one of them and don't want to see them go to hell just because selfish, hypocritical folks in the church continue to push them away from God by treating them as outcasts and the worst of the worst.

Zaac are you now or have you ever been a homosexual? Or is someone close to you one?

Rev are you and righteousdude secretly gay or were either of you molested by someone who was gay?

It's pure foolishness to think that in order to just love people that you've got to be doing the same things that they are doing.

But nothing less should probably be expected from folks who day in and day out express little or no love for anything that doesn't act or look like them.

 

[ShagNappy]

And one might guess by the anti-homosexual attitudes of you two and a lot in the church that a lot of you are gay and into gay porn. Classic cases of folks complaining about something so much because thats what they secretly desire.

So shame the devil and tell the truth. Come on out those closets.

Exactly. Ted Haggard, George Rekkers, Richard Curtis, Roy Ashburn, Mark Foley, Christopher Lee, Eddie Long, Jim West, Larry Craig, etc., etc., would all agree with the statement that those who argue against it the loudest tend to end up being drug out of the closet in the end. Unlike the disgusting mess implied above by the two yahoo's, which has been proven an absolute pile of hooey.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So let me summarize the argument that you are making...let me know if I get it wrong somewhere...

1. "Being" homose*ual is a natural, God-given condition... just like "being" heterose*ual and is not sinful.

2. "Being" homose*ual does not mean you have se*ual desires for people of the same s*x.

3. Christians who condemn homose*uality are sinful, hypocritical children of the devil.

Really?

And now you know why we post this sign when discussions with this guy start going this direction ...

 

[Zaac]

And now you know why we post this sign when discussions with this guy start going this direction ...

And now you know why I post

when dealing with the lot of ya.

Somewhere along the road, yall have established that if you surround yourself with folks who pat you on the back and affirm your lack of loving your neighbor as yourself, that it suddenly becomes Godly to act that way.

I'd rather be known as a troll who just loves people ANY DAY than as a hypocrite who shows nothing of love for anything that doesn't look and act just like it.

 

[Zaac]

Exactly. Ted Haggard, George Rekkers, Richard Curtis, Roy Ashburn, Mark Foley, Christopher Lee, Eddie Long, Jim West, Larry Craig, etc., etc., would all agree with the statement that those who argue against it the loudest tend to end up being drug out of the closet in the end. Unlike the disgusting mess implied above by the two yahoo's, which has been proven an absolute pile of hooey.

:applause::applause: