Would Jesus have hated on gays?

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”


-Gandhi

www.goodreads.com...

Then again according to Westboro Gandhi is going to hell anyways.
edit on 7-7-2014 by intrepid because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Many do.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

But when politics and religion meet?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: KaelemJames




Fact is fact. Truth is truth. Homosexuality is a sin for the Christian. Like it or not.


According to who?

If God is the Alpha, and the Omega, we are created in his image, or hers. He encompasses all things, all possibilities. There for, he created straights, and gays, and everything under the vault of heaven.

Homosexuality is a sin...? According to who?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
God doesn't hate but doesn't like the demonic sin that we open ourselves up too. True Christians will be convicted of of sin in our lives.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
On second thought, I think He would heal them, then He would tell them to go and sin no more, and that's only if they believed that He could.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

All I can think to say is that their were gay people then, and he never mentioned it in his teachings that we have record of. While other parts of the bible mention it as wrong, Christ himself, doesn't touch the subject.

I find it interesting to say the least.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I know he would not hate the individual people, but he would hate the aggressive agenda the LBGT collective community has going. Why, it makes it that much harder for people to change. Remember Jesus did get mad at the collective in the past as when he made a whip and drove the money changes out of the temple area. Did he hate those guys individually, no. But he was going to stop what they were doing as a group.

He hated the ideology, not the people....he hasn't changed.
edit on 8-7-2014 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
I sure haven't been on ATS much.. But your thread title caught my attention. I have not read any other posts except your original op..

I just felt like saying ... I feel.. Jesus would fill everyone with love and give his love and not hate at all. Jesus was turn the cheek kind of guy.. At least from my understanding.

If all we did was love and love more and give and not take ...gee.. I just feel things would be more lovely.. But I know in my heart so many people are full of hate and bitterness...

All we need is love.... Love love love ...

-nat



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Dear seagull,

It seems you're running a bit of a risk here.


If God is the Alpha, and the Omega, we are created in his image, or hers. He encompasses all things, all possibilities. There for, he created straights, and gays, and everything under the vault of heaven.


Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you seem to be saying that god created Evil (by that I mean moral evil). I hope I'm mistaken. First, as Holiness Himself, he can not create the unholy. Second, Evil is not a thing that can be created, therefore God didn't create it.


If a person is asked, “Does cold exist?” the answer would likely be “yes.” However, this is incorrect. Cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly, darkness does not exist; it is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good, or better, evil is the absence of God. God did not have to create evil, but rather only allow for the absence of good.


It has been suggested that pure evil is the complete absence of god and any goodness. One possible suggestion, although I haven't thought about it very much, is that pure evil might be similar to a sensory deprivation tank where all that is real, true, and loving is shut out. Insanity follows quickly.

You are concerned with the question of who has declared homosexuality a sin. When you use the word "sin," I assume you are using it in a religious sense. If that is the case, what will you accept as an authoritative source? Jesus' words? The Bible? Consistent Church teaching?

Let's assume you will only accept Jesus' words, and will claim that he never specifically condemned homosexuality. A problem arises. Jesus did not address child-molestation either; neither is it one of the Ten Commandments. Neither did Jesus address drug abuse, nor pornography, spousal abuse, or torture. I don't think you believe that if Jesus didn't condemn it, then it is all right.

Will you accept the Bible? If so, would you accept the entire Bible, or just the New Testament? I don't think you would accept the consistent teaching of the Church over hundreds and hundreds of years.

If all you will accept is the New Testament, will you accept the writings of Paul as authoritative? Our esteemed and dear friend, Akragon will not, he's made that plain over and over. Will you accept only the Gospels?

I hope I misunderstand you, but I also hope you are not saying that you need an authoritative source for calling homosexuality a sin, but deny that there is any authoritative source to be considered.

With respect,
Charles1952



According to who?

If God is the Alpha, and the Omega, we are created in his image, or hers. He encompasses all things, all possibilities. There for, he created straights, and gays, and everything under the vault of heaven.

Homosexuality is a sin...? According to who?



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

I'm not, as you may surmise, what you'd consider a catholic/christian. I believe in a Supreme Being. One who encompasses all things. I respect some of the teachings of Christianity. Just as I respect some of the teachings of other belief systems...

Where I part ways with many of you, is that I challenge any ones ability to understand the mind of God. I certainly don't make that claim. He is omniscient, quite literally the Alpha and the Omega.

As for creating evil? By allowing, in the creation, mortals free will, he does allow for its presence. Perhaps as a test? I don't know, nor will I ever know, this side of death. Any one who claims to is practicing hubris on a grand scale.

That's the problem with dogma. Dogma, unless I'm badly mistaken (and I allow for the possibility, trust me...), allows for only one true way. ...and I doubt that that is the reality of it. Dogma, of whatever system, says "I have the answers to all things, for everyone." That's not faith, faith is believing there are answers, but that we have to look for them. Faith is believing that we will find our answers.

Homosexuality is not a sin. Because it's just another label of love that some find uncomfortable. How is love a sin?

I am, of course, speaking of consenting adults. Man to man. Woman to woman. There is nothing of sin there.

I can not quote scripture, because I'm not a biblical scholar, nor am I well read in Scriptural matters. They are, quite frankly, beyond my ken.

As always, my beliefs are my own. I ask no one to share, or even in certain circumstances, understand them. Our paths are our own.

Pretty rambling, I know. ...and I probably didn't even answer your questions.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull





Text According to who? If God is the Alpha, and the Omega, we are created in his image, or hers. He encompasses all things, all possibilities. There for, he created straights, and gays, and everything under the vault of heaven. Homosexuality is a sin...? According to who?

According to who? Depends on what bible you read. Have no idea of your bible but mine says that it is a sin which prevents that one who practices that sin and dies in that sin will not be in the kingdom of Jesus. I won't argue with you but that is what my bible teaches.

God did create Adam in His image and after His likeness and when He did it was His perfect will. Then Adam sinned and introduced choice and this perfect will became a permissive will. God did not create sin in His image nor did He create you as a sinner in His image. Actually God only created Adam and Eve and we are all procreated from them. You and I both chose sin because of our own pleasure but as we were procreated by sin and then we became a product of our own choice to sin. We cannot put the blame on God when we choose our own sins. There is also a choice to repent which is covered by God's permissive will. There are many avenues of sin which physical perversions are just one and if not pardoned will result in the spirit being cast into hell and hell cast into the lake of fire. Love has many meanings for many things and along with love comes hate which is repeatedly shown in most bibles. God is love but God is not only love. Big difference.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Dear Seagull,

Thank you for bothering to respond. Sometimes I just despair. Not of you, of course, but of the English language. You ask:

Homosexuality is not a sin. Because it's just another label of love that some find uncomfortable. How is love a sin?

If the conversation hasn't gotten so hot and heavy that it has been reduced to slogans, any thoughtful Christian will tell you that homosexuality (the sexual attraction to members of the same sex) is not a sin. I don't think it's a sin either. But here's the first place that English gets us into trouble.

For some, "homosexuality" means an attraction to members of the same sex, for others it means, forgive the vulgarity, screwing members of the same sex. The difference is crucial, but usually glossed over. For Christians, the attraction is no sin. For homosexual activists, the screwing is no sin. That's one of the reasons why conversations on the subject turn fruitless very quickly.

The concept that homosexuality is only a label for a love that some find uncomfortable, may also be applied to necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia. (Here, I am assuming that we're referring to the sex act.) It seems that you would argue that the objects of sex in these cases are not consenting adult humans, but I see no reason to think that's the last word on the subject.

There was a time when sex outside of marriage was not only considered a sin, but a violation of law. I believe it still is in many parts of the Mid-east. Then the law was changed to say that sex outside of marriage was not illegal, but if it was with a member of the same sex, we had a violation of sodomy laws. It moved further to say sex without marriage with anyone over a certain age who consented, was fine and dandy. Yet now you seem to assure us that the requirement that the sex partner be an adult is set in stone and immutable? I don't believe it for a second.

There are groups within and without the psychological community pressing for sex with minors to be considered normal. Just as, after considerable outside influence, the American Psychological Association changed it's diagnosis of homosexuality.

Can you guarantee, that Muslims won't go to American courts claiming that their culture allows for child marriages, so they should have that privilege here? Can you assure me they will never find a sympathetic judge to allow it? Finally, can you guarantee that American pedophile groups wont go the Courts and argue that if Muslims have the right, they should, too? Of course, you can't and I wouldn't expect it.

I believe you to be a man of honor, and at this point you would begin to protest, but to what avail? You would become just one more protester who will be rolled over and ignored. What authority could you rely on at that point to say that sex with children is wrong? Especially since the "sex with children" group would bring up doctor after doctor to testify that it does the child no harm if it isn't forced. We have been there, seen it, and watched protests fail, time after time.

How about polygamy and Sister Wives? Will polygamy become acceptable before sex with minors does, or after?

And we return to

How is love a sin?


No Christian thinks it is. Love everybody, good on ya. But having sex with anybody and everybody? You're asking how that can be a sin? That question can be answered without a lot of research.


Where I part ways with many of you, is that I challenge any ones ability to understand the mind of God.
You don't part ways with me, or any thoughtful Christian. The claim isn't that the mind of God is known, but that what He left us in His Word can be known.


As for creating evil? By allowing, in the creation, mortals free will, he does allow for its presence. Perhaps as a test? I don't know, nor will I ever know, this side of death. Any one who claims to is practicing hubris on a grand scale.
Know with 100% certainty? No. But I have a very good idea, shared by many, many others. Creatures without free will can't love in any meaningful sense of the word, they are robots. By giving us free will, God gave us the opportunity to love and be loved. That includes being free to love or hate Him. (I don't think that answers condemns me as possessing inordinate hubris.)


That's the problem with dogma. Dogma, unless I'm badly mistaken (and I allow for the possibility, trust me...), allows for only one true way. ...and I doubt that that is the reality of it. Dogma, of whatever system, says "I have the answers to all things, for everyone." That's not faith, faith is believing there are answers, but that we have to look for them. Faith is believing that we will find our answers.


This paragraph provides so much material for discussion, that I think I'll pass for now. It should suffice for me to say that I think it's exactly backwards. The idea that we can't know the mind of God, and that faith is that we will eventually find out what our answers are, is the one belief that claims to provide the answer to every question. It's the same answer, in fact, to every question: "Spend your life looking and believe that some day you will find the answer."

Even the Catholic Church isn't as dogmatic.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Trew



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Would it be safe to say that your more pragmatic concerns regarding homosexuality are oriented around an hypothetical and escalating decline in sexual morality? That's what I got from your post.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join