Gay candidate Pete Buttigieg tells Pence:

This is just another instance of people muddling the person with the behavior. Christianity does not condemn homosexuals, it considers the act of homosexuality to be a sin.

Note also, it is a sin to engage in heterosexual pre-marital sex and heterosexual adultery.

It is not our Creator who makes us follow a behavior, we choose those through our own free will. Performing either of the heterosexual activities above will not automatically lead to condemnation, and is up to the heterosexuals to seek sincere forgiveness and work to avoid the behavior in the future. The same goes for the homosexual who engages in sinful behavior, but nothing prohibits them from joining a Christian church.

If a gay person wants to profess to be a true Christian, they will avoid such behaviors. Mayor Buttigieg should see to his own life before attacking someone else.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Except one can choose adultery or premarital sex. Homosexuals have always claimed that they were born gay without a choice...

a reply to: Bloodworth

Except we aren't robots. We are emotional beings who are not only governeed by reason, but also feelings.

To pretend something like sex is just about reproduction is to throw out all of humanity as creatures of emotion. That is to pretend that one can live a life as spock from star trek and remove all emotion from one's body. Or to say that we are only here for reproduction and survival. Another gloom depiction of humanity as nothing more than objects or numbers.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Except one can choose adultery or premarital sex. Homosexuals have always claimed that they were born gay without a choice...

Heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex just like Homosexuals claim to be attracted to the same sex.

What matters is how they act on those attractions.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Bloodworth

Except we aren't robots. We are emotional beings who are not only governeed by reason, but also feelings.

To pretend something like sex is just about reproduction is to throw out all of humanity as creatures of emotion. That is to pretend that one can live a life as spock from star trek and remove all emotion from one's body. Or to say that we are only here for reproduction and survival. Another gloom depiction of humanity as nothing more than objects or numbers.

Humans aren't rutting animals constantly in heat, either. We have a higher order of intellect which allows us to control our feelings, instincts and primal desires.

We also have a sense of responsibility. Mature adult humans do, anyways.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: LSU2018

Hope you're not wearing mixed fabric and eating a whole host of forbidden things. In fact many of the things the bible say you should do are against the law. Do you do them? How strictly do you follow the bible? Well enough to be throwing this first stone?

If you read it you would know that those passages do not refer to the general population but only the jews in the old covenant. I am sure we misinterpret the reasons for many things and we try to judge the maker of those laws.

Jesus fulfilled the law of the prophets and those old things are not needed any longer, but the new testiment gives the law for us today.

Romans 1:26-27 New International Version (NIV)
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 English Standard Version (ESV)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 New International Version (NIV)
9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Jude 1:5-7
5 Although you are fully aware of this, I want to remind you that after Jesus had delivered His people out of the land of Egypt, He destroyed those who did not believe.
6 And the angels who did not stay within their own domain, but abandoned their proper dwelling, He keeps under darkness, in eternal chains for judgment on that great day.
7In like manner, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire.…

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Theophorus

No, actually, the Bible doesn't strictly condemn homosexuality. In fact, many religious scholars have made a case to the contrary.

For historical context, you may want to look up Adelphopoiesis. Just for starters. If you want to know the whole truth.

But more important, our nation was founded by those Christians fleeing the persecution of other Christians, and our natural and Constitutional rights to religious freedom precludes anyone making such decisions for anyone else.

You can believe what you will. I can believe what I will. There is no room within the law for our beliefs to be mandated or forced upon anyone else.

Christ himself was probably gay. He was thin, neat, had a hipster beard, and was always hanging around with twelve guys. Mary Magdaline was just a beard.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Christ himself was probably gay. He was thin, neat, had a hipster beard, and was always hanging around with twelve guys. Mary Magdaline was just a beard.

LOL! Well, you aren't the first to suggest this. I tend to believe that Jesus was asexual -- not just celibate, as in having sexual desires but just not acting on them. I do believe he simply was not a sexual being.

There is an ancient manuscript -- Ethiopian? Or maybe Syrian? -- which tells a story that the Magdalene was a temple prostitute, and that Jesus was sent to her for ritual sex. But instead Jesus spent the night teaching the Magdalene the true ways of the Lord, and she left the temple and became one of his first disciples.

And you've probably also heard the stories that Jesus and the Magdalene were married, and she gave birth to a daughter -- "Sarah" -- who was taken to France with the Magdalene and Mother Mary on the "boat without oars."

However, just out of curiosity, why would he think homosexual rather bisexual? I've never seen the suggestion that Jesus was bisexual, which surprises me, because it seems to me a very good argument could be made that Jesus would have to be bisexual rather than play favorites!

a reply to: Theophorus
July 6, 2019

OMG...Buttigag has plummeted to only being liked by 4% of Democrat voters.

theconservativetreehouse.com...-165939

a reply to: Boadicea

In order for Him to experience and live the full range of human existence, He also had to have the full range of human desires and temptations. If God had born Himself into an existence where He did not have to live the full life of a human being subject to every whim and temptation, just like you or I, then He was sort of cheating to live a perfect, sinless existence wasn't He?

Choosing to believe that He didn't have to struggle against the desires of His own flesh just like we do, sort of means you don't think He went through what we go through. You don't think He could hack it. And that kind of means you're giving yourself and others an excuse for when you stumble.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

In order for Him to experience and live the full range of human existence, He also had to have the full range of human desires and temptations. If God had born Himself into an existence where He did not have to live the full life of a human being subject to every whim and temptation, just like you or I, then He was sort of cheating to live a perfect, sinless existence wasn't He?

If that was the intention, then yes, that makes sense. But I really don't know that.

Choosing to believe that He didn't have to struggle against the desires of His own flesh just like we do, sort of means you don't think He went through what we go through.

I don't choose to believe anything about Jesus' sexuality. But I do know that Jesus went through far more than we ever will -- with or without sexual desires!

You don't think He could hack it. And that kind of means you're giving yourself and others an excuse for when you stumble.

Not even close! I think Jesus could do and did do exactly what He set out to do, and did it far better than I could ever do anything. What Jesus can and did do is not determined by what I can and do.

a reply to: Theophorus

7.23.2019

Pressure is getting to Pete Buttiplug. All Trump supporters are "Committed Racists".

bigleaguepolitics.com...

He should drop out and send the funds raised to Michelle Obama. She's expected to enter the Presidential race in a few months.