hepatocyte

You still haven't quoted any Scripture verses. But are you saying God created some men with same-sex attraction? "But are you saying God created some men with same-sex attraction?" - Umm...when did I say that? Does God create some men with no sexual attraction? So you're saying God couldn't possibly have created people with same-sex attraction because He forbid same-sex relation and in your interpretation of God's nature, He wouldn't do something that's seemingly contradictory. There are six verses that relate to homosexuality. Look them all up.

Unnatural refers to the unnatural purpose of sex, not the underlying cause. I'm sorry, but that did not answer the question. Umm...yes I did...unnatural. OK, wait, I guess we have different definitions of 'homosexual'. You define it as behavior, whereas I define it as attraction. Well, obviously, you can control behavior. But I wasn't talking about same-sex relationships. Being gay is having same-sex attraction, not necessarily engaging in it.

Hepatocyte (I still get a kick out of your name, by the way ) - What do the Scriptures say about male-male and female-female sexual relationships? Unnatural refers to the unnatural purpose of sex, not the underlying cause.

hepatocyte, nobody here (despite your accusations) has EVER compared homosexuals to pedophiles. you are confusing the sin with the sinner. we frequently compare the SIN of homosexuality to the sin of a pedophile. homosexuals claim they are born that way, that it's somehow genetic. it is not, and that is where the comparison lies. pedophiles can't control who they lust after. they believe that they are incapable of controlling their actions. the same comparison can be made to ANY sexual sin and those who act on their impulses... and it frequently is. you're choosing to zoom in on pedophilia as what we compare the sin of homosexuality to, but the truth is that we ALSO compare it to the sin of adultery, the sin of shacking up, the sin of heterosexual promiscuity, and everything else. such comparisons have been made continually in every thread ever posted on the subject. Someone suggested that they shouldn't compare homosexuals to child rapists, and they replied by saying that's watering down the Gospel, thereby condoning the comparison. "we frequently compare the SIN of homosexuality to the sin of a pedophile." - Clever. "homosexuals claim they are born that way, that it's somehow genetic. it is not, and that is where the comparison lies." - And you have proof? How do you know it's not due to prenatal hormonal influences or the interplay of BOTH genes and the environment? How do you know it doesn't have multiple causes? "you're choosing to zoom in on pedophilia as what we compare the sin of homosexuality to" - Because the comparison to pedophilia is meant to draw an especially heinous distinction that is not normally used for heterosexual sins.

Yes, but the point is that if we want to bring people into the Church, then you got to clean up the pollution. If we compare gays to child rapists, then we deserve most of the blame for gays not coming to our churches. Welcome to the biggest problem in the church today. Let's water down the gospel so it doesn't hurt anyones feelings. Homosexuality is a sin. It is fornication. The Word condemns all of these sins equally. I think the gay issue gets the most noise because it is the squeaky wheel. They are trying to make society accept it as normal behaviour. How is not comparing homosexuals to child rapists watering down the Gospel? "Let's water down the gospel so it doesn't hurt anyones feelings." - I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't call the prostitute a (edit). He simply told her to sin no more. It was an act of love and compassion, not a visceral, atavistic reaction. From our TOS: The use of profanity will not be tolerated. This includes sexually explicit, vulgar, or other profane language or usernames as well as any any signs or symbols that suggests such. Do not post sexually explicit, vulgar or offensive website addresses (URL's) to the forum. (Eph. 4: 29)

That wasn't the point... The point was our speech should be guarded.

You seem like a liberal to me, but I have only seen you give your opinion in a couple of areas. You say you don't consider yourself liberal? Who did you vote for in the last 4 Presidential elections? That should give us some idea if you are a liberal or not? Ha, last 4 presidential elections. I just turned 22. Abortion. Wrong. Illegal immigration. Tighten up the border. Helping the needy. Of course. Environmental conservation. Reduce pollution. Hate crime laws. Agree with. Based on these positions, you are conservative on abortion, and immigration if you opposed the recent amnesty bill. You are liberal when it comes to government sponsored welfare. While it is thought to be a liberal view to want clean water and air, that is nonsence. Everyone wants that, but the defining questions come when one looks at how far we go in achieving it? I am going to guess you are liberal on this issue, but don't have enough to go by. Hate crimes laws are liberal to the core. They make it a more serious crime to harm someone because of race or sexual orientation than if they committed the same crime against someone who is of the same skin color and heterosexual. That is to me an abomination, and flies in the face of equal justice under the law. Out of 5 things you mentioned, you are conservative on 2 and liberal on 3. As a conservative, I am for outlawing abortion, securing the border, against anymore government welfare programs, against more unnecessary environmental regulations, and opposed to hate crime laws. The reason why it's a more serious crime if you harm someone because of race (or sexual orientation, though not all places include it, to my knowledge) is that it's meant to threaten that entire group. If you think that's an abomination, then all power to you. But then again, you don't really mind living under segregation. As bad as segregation is, it is better than some of the things we have today, like the legalized slaughter of innocent unborn children. Given the choice, I will take a society that protected the unborn and allowed segregation. And yes, I do consider hate crimes laws an abomination. Then I bid you farewell to the 50's! Much less hate crime laws, environmental regulations, and welfare programs! It's almost like heaven for you! Write a memoir for us to read in the next millennium.

Is this appropriate for a Christian forum? If one has a sense of humor. I see...so making someone's head bloody is humorous... We're advised not to engage in coarse talk. What if a passerbyer hears this on the street and you're carrying a Bible or wearing a cross? To me, this was an obvious attempt at humor, and nobody would take it seriously. It is merely stating that in the person's opinion that wrote it, a liberal is extremely close minded, and they gave a pretty good word picture to show just how close minded they believe liberals are. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. - Ephesians 5:4 "they gave a pretty good word picture to show just how close minded they believe liberals are." - And they chose to use the imagery of someone cutting open another person's scalp to convey their "humor"? This type of humor does not belong among believers. I didn't see anything wrong with the joke, but you are entitled to your opinion. By the way, be sure and check out Another Political Survey in the general discussion section and post the results. I am curious as to where you will come out. It is pretty short, and I found it gave a very accurate assessment about my political views under the category of enterpriser. I've taken surveys like that before. I'm conservative on some issues and liberals on others, so I always come out moderate. Doesn't tell me much. What does my political affiliation have anything to do with anything?

You seem like a liberal to me, but I have only seen you give your opinion in a couple of areas. You say you don't consider yourself liberal? Who did you vote for in the last 4 Presidential elections? That should give us some idea if you are a liberal or not? Ha, last 4 presidential elections. I just turned 22. Abortion. Wrong. Illegal immigration. Tighten up the border. Helping the needy. Of course. Environmental conservation. Reduce pollution. Hate crime laws. Agree with. Based on these positions, you are conservative on abortion, and immigration if you opposed the recent amnesty bill. You are liberal when it comes to government sponsored welfare. While it is thought to be a liberal view to want clean water and air, that is nonsence. Everyone wants that, but the defining questions come when one looks at how far we go in achieving it? I am going to guess you are liberal on this issue, but don't have enough to go by. Hate crimes laws are liberal to the core. They make it a more serious crime to harm someone because of race or sexual orientation than if they committed the same crime against someone who is of the same skin color and heterosexual. That is to me an abomination, and flies in the face of equal justice under the law. Out of 5 things you mentioned, you are conservative on 2 and liberal on 3. As a conservative, I am for outlawing abortion, securing the border, against anymore government welfare programs, against more unnecessary environmental regulations, and opposed to hate crime laws. The reason why it's a more serious crime if you harm someone because of race (or sexual orientation, though not all places include it, to my knowledge) is that it's meant to threaten that entire group. If you think that's an abomination, then all power to you. But then again, you don't really mind living under segregation.

Is this appropriate for a Christian forum? If one has a sense of humor. I see...so making someone's head bloody is humorous... We're advised not to engage in coarse talk. What if a passerbyer hears this on the street and you're carrying a Bible or wearing a cross? To me, this was an obvious attempt at humor, and nobody would take it seriously. It is merely stating that in the person's opinion that wrote it, a liberal is extremely close minded, and they gave a pretty good word picture to show just how close minded they believe liberals are. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. - Ephesians 5:4 "they gave a pretty good word picture to show just how close minded they believe liberals are." - And they chose to use the imagery of someone cutting open another person's scalp to convey their "humor"? This type of humor does not belong among believers.

Is this appropriate for a Christian forum? If one has a sense of humor. I see...so making someone's head bloody is humorous... We're advised not to engage in coarse talk. What if a passerbyer hears this on the street and you're carrying a Bible or wearing a cross?

You seem like a liberal to me, but I have only seen you give your opinion in a couple of areas. You say you don't consider yourself liberal? Who did you vote for in the last 4 Presidential elections? That should give us some idea if you are a liberal or not? Ha, last 4 presidential elections. I just turned 22. Abortion. Wrong. Illegal immigration. Tighten up the border. Helping the needy. Of course. Environmental conservation. Reduce pollution. Hate crime laws. Agree with. When you say abortion is wrong, does that mean you support making it illegal? Who did you vote for in the last Presidential election, and are you a registered Democrat, Republican, or Independent? What candidate are you leaning toward in 2008? Yes, make it illegal. I won't say who I voted for. It wasn't Kerry. I am also registered with none of the above. Eh, maybe switch over to McCain?

You seem like a liberal to me, but I have only seen you give your opinion in a couple of areas. You say you don't consider yourself liberal? Who did you vote for in the last 4 Presidential elections? That should give us some idea if you are a liberal or not? Ha, last 4 presidential elections. I just turned 22. Abortion. Wrong. Illegal immigration. Tighten up the border. Helping the needy. Of course. Environmental conservation. Reduce pollution. Hate crime laws. Agree with.

Oh definitely they should work and not sit on the couch all day expecting handouts. But some people simply can't afford health care even if they do work. And I believe that's the group of people we should help.

Can another conservative join this thread, please? I have said all I wanted to say. Tell me if I'm a crazy "liberal" or not. (I don't consider myself liberal, but I most certainly feel like one on WB.)

Is this appropriate for a Christian forum?

As far as charities go, I am all for helping the poor, but only as much as people are willing to help on a voluntary basis. I am opposed to the government playing Robin Hood with other people's money. When the government proposes some new welfare program, they fail to tell the public the actual cost to them personally. If the people of this country were actually told the amount it will cost them in additional taxes, and they still want a particular program, more power to them, but that is not how liberals do things. They simply ask a question like in a recent poll stating that a certain percentage of children are currently being helped by the government. Should we help the rest that are not insured? Of course, an overwhelming majority said yes, but if you asked them instead, the governement wants to take x number of dollars more out of your paycheck to insure the rest, do you support that plan, I would imagine the numbers would change drastically. That is the strategy I would use to kill any additional welfare spending and turn public opinion against it. So you don't mind paying taxes to fix the highway on the other side of the state, but you have a problem with having your taxes help the poor? We're not talking about fiscal accountability - I agree that the efficacy of a welfare program should be made transparent to the public. We're talking about the idea of using taxpayer money to provide health care for those who can't afford it. "If you asked them instead, the governement wants to take x number of dollars more out of your paycheck to insure the rest, do you support that plan, I would imagine the numbers would change drastically." - That's great if they want to play the ostrich game and pretend that there are no needy people out there. "turn public opinion against it." - Turn the public against helping the needy???

Well, it would help if we got the government out of health care entirely, so costs could come down. You'd be surprised how generous people would be, if they could be. Again, would doing it the way Jesus said not work? Read my reply. How generous? How about giving everything in your possession to church? How many people are willing to do that? How many are willing to give half? A third? A quarter? How many are willing to give their money for STD treatment and AIDS anti-retrovirals? How many will actually give alms to those that are ostracized by society? Prostitutes that are living in sin? It is really none of your business if we decide to support those people or not. We go out and earn the money we have, and we should have the right to decide how to spend it. God decided to intrust a certain amount of wealth to each individual, and he allows us the opportunity to be generous or stingy, and blesses us accordingly. Exactly. That's why charity will not be an alternative to providing health care using taxpayers' money. Some needy people will inevitably be left out in the cold. So what? Some needy people will be left out in the cold no matter what government initiatives are passed. That is just reality. If needy people are just reality, then why even bother attempting to help them? The government initiatives at least attempt to address the issue.

Well, it would help if we got the government out of health care entirely, so costs could come down. You'd be surprised how generous people would be, if they could be. Again, would doing it the way Jesus said not work? Read my reply. How generous? How about giving everything in your possession to church? How many people are willing to do that? How many are willing to give half? A third? A quarter? How many are willing to give their money for STD treatment and AIDS anti-retrovirals? How many will actually give alms to those that are ostracized by society? Prostitutes that are living in sin? It is really none of your business if we decide to support those people or not. We go out and earn the money we have, and we should have the right to decide how to spend it. God decided to intrust a certain amount of wealth to each individual, and he allows us the opportunity to be generous or stingy, and blesses us accordingly. Exactly. That's why charity will not be an alternative to providing health care using taxpayers' money. Some needy people will inevitably be left out in the cold.

Life expectancies were lower and the elderly made up the largest demographic in America living in poverty. What a great world it would be to back to that huh. Everything done in the public sector is not bad and Medicare is certainly not a bad idea considering the alternative. How much lower was life expectancy in the 1960s compared to today? As for the conditions then as opposed to now, I would much rather live in 1950s America as opposed to America today with regard to the laws that were in place. Long live segregation!

Well, it would help if we got the government out of health care entirely, so costs could come down. You'd be surprised how generous people would be, if they could be. Again, would doing it the way Jesus said not work? Read my reply. How generous? How about giving everything in your possession to church? How many people are willing to do that? How many are willing to give half? A third? A quarter? How many are willing to give their money for STD treatment and AIDS anti-retrovirals? How many will actually give alms to those that are ostracized by society? Prostitutes that are living in sin?

Why won't charity work? If people didn't have such a huge chunk taken out of their checks to be redistributed, they would have a lot more to give to charity. Why not do it the way Jesus said to? Are you saying His way wouldn't work? So you're saying people are so generous as to donate enough money to provide health care to everyone that needs it? His way would work if people were willing to give money. "If people didn't have such a huge chunk taken out of their checks to be redistributed, they would have a lot more to give to charity." - Yea...because people are just so charitable these days.

I'm not a liberal/Democrat, but these are horribly vindictive words that have no merit at all.

Did you say a small part of your wealth?? Especially if we are to continue to pay for free health care for illegals?? I beg your pardon, but I am a Christian, and I definitely don't support Universal Health Care, and I am definitely not in the minority, I dare say. So what's your plan? What do you do with people who can't afford health care? Charity will not work.

The issue concerning health care is who is going to pay for it? If you want to donate money to help the uninsured, or start a charity for that purpose, I have no problem with it. What I don't like is having the government forcing me to pay for someone else's health insurance. What Jesus taught was the voluntary giving of alms to help the poor, not the government confiscation of one man's wealth to give to someone else. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. The problem is people are greedy. A charity to help pay the health insurance of some stranger? Not going to happen. The "confiscation of one man's wealth" is going to help save someone's life, not buy a car for them. If Caesar saw fit that tax money would be used to provide health care to those in need, would Jesus have opposed it?