WN: Obama declares support for gay marriage - AP

[other one]

I watched that, it was interesting and brought up some good points but I think there were also some pretty weak arguments

1) The issue with the man talking about being threatened with jail... he didn't say he went to jail he just said long story short he was threatened with jail. He didn't say what happened but I'm guessing he threatened to pull his child from school.

2) The 'ex-gay' testimonials were interesting but there are many others who assert the other side (that they cannot change their sexual preferences).

3) There was so much focus on children being exposed to same sex couples. Frankly I don't see how this is any different from them being exposed to opposite sex couples. You don't consider Beauty & the Beast as "pro heterosexual marriage" just because a prince and princess fall in love. Stories about same sex couples aren't necessarily promoting homosexual marriage, they are making children aware of the fact that some people do have same sex relationships... and that's the truth, regardless of whether you approve of it or not.

I have a counter-video if you will Shorter but it's entertaining. LINK REMOVED BY CANDICE. PLEASE DON'T POST EWW TUBE VIDEOS

.... and I know people who tell me that they "just can't quit smoking" or they "just can't quit drinking". Just because someone says they "just can't" do something doesn't mean that they can't.

God has told us in his word that samesex, sex is not a good thing regardless of whether you approve of it or not.

[jasoncran]

And here is why I oppose both. I don't believe the government has any business forcing people to accept gay marriage as equal to marriage between a man and a woman through the use of anti-descrimination laws. That is the main reason I voted for the marriage amendment in North Carolina, along with 61 percent of the people in this state.

If the government were more philosophically libertarian, then it wouldn't have anti-discrimination laws to begin with. Government barges its way into all kinds of things that it shouldn't be in. And most of what the government does IS un-Constitutional.

I believe - and this is consistent with Scripture - that God wants us to come to Him NOT from an EXTERNAL imposition (through secular law), but from WITHIN. At the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

As for sin, the issue to me isn't habitual sin. Jesus taught us to forgive, 70 x 7 if necessary. The question is over the defense of a sinful practice, one that is condemned in scripture. When a real Christian sins, they are sorry, and try to do better. A person that is in a gay marriage isn't even acknowledging they are doing anything wrong. This isn't a grey area in scripture. The OT calls it an abomination, and Romans chapter 1 of the New Testament calls those involved reprobates. I oppose homosexual marriage and civil unions because I don't want the government forcing people to accept it at the risk of lawsuits because they don't provide insurance or other benefits. I don't want the government saying a home owner must rent to two homosexual men or women. It is none of the government's business.

Let me reiterate that I personally find the homosexual lifestyle abhorrent - and have nothing but pity for those involved in it. That's one reason you will never see me refer to anything about it as "gay."

So in no way am I defending the practice. But at the same time, I cannot justify a SECULAR government saying that two-consenting adults cannot enter into a mutual contract (although like I said earlier, I would prefer it not be called a marriage)

Consider - when we say the goverment should ban a sinful practice just because it IS sinful, are we not giving it more "power" that we give to God?

Going all the way back to the Garden, did not God create Man with free will? The answer is - He did. And the truth is, we may not always like or agree with the results of man's free will, but we have to live with it.

And ultimately let God deal with the one who exercised his free will - if his free will has caused him to conflict with God's will.

Blessings!

-Ed

I have a question for you Ed. Let's look at your comment about a secular government saying two conscenting adults can enter into a mutual contract. Are you ok with allowing civil unions for Mormon polygamists? I have no problem with that or civil unions for gays, so long as the secular government doesn't have the authority to make anyone accept those unions, at the risk of lawsuits. I don't believe this desire for recognition is just for general acceptance. I believe it is to force people to grant homosexuals the same rights afforded heterosexual couples, and I can't go along with that. Make it a meaningless document, and who cares? Give it teeth, and I will continue to oppose it.

It was during the Clarence Thomas hearings back in the early 90s that I first became aware of the term "Natural Rights". The knock against Thomas (from all democrats as well as some republicans) was that he was an advocate for those.

Another term for "natural rights" is "God-given" rights. In other words, it's a belief that all rights come from God; not government. It was what the writers of the Declaration of Independence meant when they wrote "endowed by their Creator."

Now, I've taken a somewhat roundabout way to answer your question, but my point is this: If one is a believer in "natural rights" (as I am); then he should realize that it is one's "right" to enter into any kind of a contract with another; as he chooses - as long as no one is harmed.

Ah, there's the rub. I may have libertarian leanings, but I'm not an anarchist. Governments (secular) DO have a role. So of course, two people cannot enter into a contract to kill someone - that would be conspiracy to murder. And if they carry it out, then it IS murder.

But back to the subject at hand - civil unions. If two people (or more, to respond to the Mormon component of your question!) want to enter into a civil union, who does it harm? (other than their own eternal souls, but they and God must deal with that)

Also in your question, you mentioned being "forced" to accept their "civil union" at the risk of a lawsuit. I don't know if you had a specific example in mind, but I'll supply one here.

What about a Christian landlord who does not want to rent to a homosexual couple?

Well, I'll go back to my original contention that government already does way too much. In my "libertarian" (or better term - Constitutional) government, the right to do with one's own private property will not be infringed. So, the Christian landlord can rent to - or choose not to rent to - whomever he pleases.

I will admit there is a tougher example, and that would be homosexual couples that wish to adopt children. While a libertarian society would likely permit Church or religious run adoption agencies or orphanages to discriminate, any government run institution would likely not be allowed to do the same.

So all that to say this: There is no perfect form of government - this side of heaven. That's why I've always said I'm a believer in a Benevolent Dictatorship (as long as Our Lord and Savior is the Dictator, that is)

The government "allowing" (or better yet, remaining silent on) civil unions is not a "perfect" solution. But to go back to a point I made earlier - giving the government power to limit people from committing one sin (which we might favor) will lead to the government having too much power. And it will surely use it in ways we DON'T favor)

Blessings!

-Ed

I am not sure I really disagree with you, except perhaps in one small point. I would require that we do away with anti-descrimination laws before allowing homosexual unions, and it seems like you would allow the civil unions without those laws first being repealed? I don't believe in anti-descrimination laws, period, even if that descrimination works against me. If someone is a hard core atheist, and doesn't want to rent a room to a Christian, if it is his business, purchased with his money, that is his right, in a truly free society. On the other hand, if it is a tax supported school trying to descriminate, that is another story, because all tax payers helped finance the institution. You would have similar issues with a private owned bus verses a city bus. If it was a private owned company, they have every right to descriminate against anyone. It could be a black owned bus company that makes whites go to the back of the bus. At the same time, if it is a city bus, they shouldn't be able to descriminate. So again, if we do away with all anti-descrimination laws, I am ok with homosexual unions, though I wouldn't personally accept those couples as married.

my problem here is that i from the south. i used to work at a church where A CHRISTIAN BLACK WOMAN WAS told that she being black could only serve in the soup kitchen while being paid to work for this white baptist church. she complained and finally sued them for her rights.sad aint it.

that however, was long before i came to work with her. it was about 1980 when they finally told her ok you can work elsewhere within the church grounds. sad still. a believer treated like that.

[other one]

And here is why I oppose both. I don't believe the government has any business forcing people to accept gay marriage as equal to marriage between a man and a woman through the use of anti-descrimination laws. That is the main reason I voted for the marriage amendment in North Carolina, along with 61 percent of the people in this state.

If the government were more philosophically libertarian, then it wouldn't have anti-discrimination laws to begin with. Government barges its way into all kinds of things that it shouldn't be in. And most of what the government does IS un-Constitutional.

I believe - and this is consistent with Scripture - that God wants us to come to Him NOT from an EXTERNAL imposition (through secular law), but from WITHIN. At the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

As for sin, the issue to me isn't habitual sin. Jesus taught us to forgive, 70 x 7 if necessary. The question is over the defense of a sinful practice, one that is condemned in scripture. When a real Christian sins, they are sorry, and try to do better. A person that is in a gay marriage isn't even acknowledging they are doing anything wrong. This isn't a grey area in scripture. The OT calls it an abomination, and Romans chapter 1 of the New Testament calls those involved reprobates. I oppose homosexual marriage and civil unions because I don't want the government forcing people to accept it at the risk of lawsuits because they don't provide insurance or other benefits. I don't want the government saying a home owner must rent to two homosexual men or women. It is none of the government's business.

Let me reiterate that I personally find the homosexual lifestyle abhorrent - and have nothing but pity for those involved in it. That's one reason you will never see me refer to anything about it as "gay."

So in no way am I defending the practice. But at the same time, I cannot justify a SECULAR government saying that two-consenting adults cannot enter into a mutual contract (although like I said earlier, I would prefer it not be called a marriage)

Consider - when we say the goverment should ban a sinful practice just because it IS sinful, are we not giving it more "power" that we give to God?

Going all the way back to the Garden, did not God create Man with free will? The answer is - He did. And the truth is, we may not always like or agree with the results of man's free will, but we have to live with it.

And ultimately let God deal with the one who exercised his free will - if his free will has caused him to conflict with God's will.

Blessings!

-Ed

I have a question for you Ed. Let's look at your comment about a secular government saying two conscenting adults can enter into a mutual contract. Are you ok with allowing civil unions for Mormon polygamists? I have no problem with that or civil unions for gays, so long as the secular government doesn't have the authority to make anyone accept those unions, at the risk of lawsuits. I don't believe this desire for recognition is just for general acceptance. I believe it is to force people to grant homosexuals the same rights afforded heterosexual couples, and I can't go along with that. Make it a meaningless document, and who cares? Give it teeth, and I will continue to oppose it.

It was during the Clarence Thomas hearings back in the early 90s that I first became aware of the term "Natural Rights". The knock against Thomas (from all democrats as well as some republicans) was that he was an advocate for those.

Another term for "natural rights" is "God-given" rights. In other words, it's a belief that all rights come from God; not government. It was what the writers of the Declaration of Independence meant when they wrote "endowed by their Creator."

Now, I've taken a somewhat roundabout way to answer your question, but my point is this: If one is a believer in "natural rights" (as I am); then he should realize that it is one's "right" to enter into any kind of a contract with another; as he chooses - as long as no one is harmed.

Ah, there's the rub. I may have libertarian leanings, but I'm not an anarchist. Governments (secular) DO have a role. So of course, two people cannot enter into a contract to kill someone - that would be conspiracy to murder. And if they carry it out, then it IS murder.

But back to the subject at hand - civil unions. If two people (or more, to respond to the Mormon component of your question!) want to enter into a civil union, who does it harm? (other than their own eternal souls, but they and God must deal with that)

Also in your question, you mentioned being "forced" to accept their "civil union" at the risk of a lawsuit. I don't know if you had a specific example in mind, but I'll supply one here.

What about a Christian landlord who does not want to rent to a homosexual couple?

Well, I'll go back to my original contention that government already does way too much. In my "libertarian" (or better term - Constitutional) government, the right to do with one's own private property will not be infringed. So, the Christian landlord can rent to - or choose not to rent to - whomever he pleases.

I will admit there is a tougher example, and that would be homosexual couples that wish to adopt children. While a libertarian society would likely permit Church or religious run adoption agencies or orphanages to discriminate, any government run institution would likely not be allowed to do the same.

So all that to say this: There is no perfect form of government - this side of heaven. That's why I've always said I'm a believer in a Benevolent Dictatorship (as long as Our Lord and Savior is the Dictator, that is)

The government "allowing" (or better yet, remaining silent on) civil unions is not a "perfect" solution. But to go back to a point I made earlier - giving the government power to limit people from committing one sin (which we might favor) will lead to the government having too much power. And it will surely use it in ways we DON'T favor)

Blessings!

-Ed

I am not sure I really disagree with you, except perhaps in one small point. I would require that we do away with anti-descrimination laws before allowing homosexual unions, and it seems like you would allow the civil unions without those laws first being repealed? I don't believe in anti-descrimination laws, period, even if that descrimination works against me. If someone is a hard core atheist, and doesn't want to rent a room to a Christian, if it is his business, purchased with his money, that is his right, in a truly free society. On the other hand, if it is a tax supported school trying to descriminate, that is another story, because all tax payers helped finance the institution. You would have similar issues with a private owned bus verses a city bus. If it was a private owned company, they have every right to descriminate against anyone. It could be a black owned bus company that makes whites go to the back of the bus. At the same time, if it is a city bus, they shouldn't be able to descriminate. So again, if we do away with all anti-descrimination laws, I am ok with homosexual unions, though I wouldn't personally accept those couples as married.

my problem here is that i from the south. i used to work at a church where A CHRISTIAN BLACK WOMAN WAS told that she being black could only serve in the soup kitchen while being paid to work for this white baptist church. she complained and finally sued them for her rights.sad aint it.

that however, was long before i came to work with her. it was about 1980 when they finally told her ok you can work elsewhere within the church grounds. sad still. a believer treated like that.

Problem you have in that comparison is that i've never read anywhere that God says that there is anything wrong with being black. He has said there is something wrong with gay sex. So using that comparison is weak at best and deceptive at worst.

[jasoncran]

And here is why I oppose both. I don't believe the government has any business forcing people to accept gay marriage as equal to marriage between a man and a woman through the use of anti-descrimination laws. That is the main reason I voted for the marriage amendment in North Carolina, along with 61 percent of the people in this state.

If the government were more philosophically libertarian, then it wouldn't have anti-discrimination laws to begin with. Government barges its way into all kinds of things that it shouldn't be in. And most of what the government does IS un-Constitutional.

I believe - and this is consistent with Scripture - that God wants us to come to Him NOT from an EXTERNAL imposition (through secular law), but from WITHIN. At the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

As for sin, the issue to me isn't habitual sin. Jesus taught us to forgive, 70 x 7 if necessary. The question is over the defense of a sinful practice, one that is condemned in scripture. When a real Christian sins, they are sorry, and try to do better. A person that is in a gay marriage isn't even acknowledging they are doing anything wrong. This isn't a grey area in scripture. The OT calls it an abomination, and Romans chapter 1 of the New Testament calls those involved reprobates. I oppose homosexual marriage and civil unions because I don't want the government forcing people to accept it at the risk of lawsuits because they don't provide insurance or other benefits. I don't want the government saying a home owner must rent to two homosexual men or women. It is none of the government's business.

Let me reiterate that I personally find the homosexual lifestyle abhorrent - and have nothing but pity for those involved in it. That's one reason you will never see me refer to anything about it as "gay."

So in no way am I defending the practice. But at the same time, I cannot justify a SECULAR government saying that two-consenting adults cannot enter into a mutual contract (although like I said earlier, I would prefer it not be called a marriage)

Consider - when we say the goverment should ban a sinful practice just because it IS sinful, are we not giving it more "power" that we give to God?

Going all the way back to the Garden, did not God create Man with free will? The answer is - He did. And the truth is, we may not always like or agree with the results of man's free will, but we have to live with it.

And ultimately let God deal with the one who exercised his free will - if his free will has caused him to conflict with God's will.

Blessings!

-Ed

I have a question for you Ed. Let's look at your comment about a secular government saying two conscenting adults can enter into a mutual contract. Are you ok with allowing civil unions for Mormon polygamists? I have no problem with that or civil unions for gays, so long as the secular government doesn't have the authority to make anyone accept those unions, at the risk of lawsuits. I don't believe this desire for recognition is just for general acceptance. I believe it is to force people to grant homosexuals the same rights afforded heterosexual couples, and I can't go along with that. Make it a meaningless document, and who cares? Give it teeth, and I will continue to oppose it.

It was during the Clarence Thomas hearings back in the early 90s that I first became aware of the term "Natural Rights". The knock against Thomas (from all democrats as well as some republicans) was that he was an advocate for those.

Another term for "natural rights" is "God-given" rights. In other words, it's a belief that all rights come from God; not government. It was what the writers of the Declaration of Independence meant when they wrote "endowed by their Creator."

Now, I've taken a somewhat roundabout way to answer your question, but my point is this: If one is a believer in "natural rights" (as I am); then he should realize that it is one's "right" to enter into any kind of a contract with another; as he chooses - as long as no one is harmed.

Ah, there's the rub. I may have libertarian leanings, but I'm not an anarchist. Governments (secular) DO have a role. So of course, two people cannot enter into a contract to kill someone - that would be conspiracy to murder. And if they carry it out, then it IS murder.

But back to the subject at hand - civil unions. If two people (or more, to respond to the Mormon component of your question!) want to enter into a civil union, who does it harm? (other than their own eternal souls, but they and God must deal with that)

Also in your question, you mentioned being "forced" to accept their "civil union" at the risk of a lawsuit. I don't know if you had a specific example in mind, but I'll supply one here.

What about a Christian landlord who does not want to rent to a homosexual couple?

Well, I'll go back to my original contention that government already does way too much. In my "libertarian" (or better term - Constitutional) government, the right to do with one's own private property will not be infringed. So, the Christian landlord can rent to - or choose not to rent to - whomever he pleases.

I will admit there is a tougher example, and that would be homosexual couples that wish to adopt children. While a libertarian society would likely permit Church or religious run adoption agencies or orphanages to discriminate, any government run institution would likely not be allowed to do the same.

So all that to say this: There is no perfect form of government - this side of heaven. That's why I've always said I'm a believer in a Benevolent Dictatorship (as long as Our Lord and Savior is the Dictator, that is)

The government "allowing" (or better yet, remaining silent on) civil unions is not a "perfect" solution. But to go back to a point I made earlier - giving the government power to limit people from committing one sin (which we might favor) will lead to the government having too much power. And it will surely use it in ways we DON'T favor)

Blessings!

-Ed

I am not sure I really disagree with you, except perhaps in one small point. I would require that we do away with anti-descrimination laws before allowing homosexual unions, and it seems like you would allow the civil unions without those laws first being repealed? I don't believe in anti-descrimination laws, period, even if that descrimination works against me. If someone is a hard core atheist, and doesn't want to rent a room to a Christian, if it is his business, purchased with his money, that is his right, in a truly free society. On the other hand, if it is a tax supported school trying to descriminate, that is another story, because all tax payers helped finance the institution. You would have similar issues with a private owned bus verses a city bus. If it was a private owned company, they have every right to descriminate against anyone. It could be a black owned bus company that makes whites go to the back of the bus. At the same time, if it is a city bus, they shouldn't be able to descriminate. So again, if we do away with all anti-descrimination laws, I am ok with homosexual unions, though I wouldn't personally accept those couples as married.

my problem here is that i from the south. i used to work at a church where A CHRISTIAN BLACK WOMAN WAS told that she being black could only serve in the soup kitchen while being paid to work for this white baptist church. she complained and finally sued them for her rights.sad aint it.

that however, was long before i came to work with her. it was about 1980 when they finally told her ok you can work elsewhere within the church grounds. sad still. a believer treated like that.

Problem you have in that comparison is that i've never read anywhere that God says that there is anything wrong with being black. He has said there is something wrong with gay sex. So using that comparison is weak at best and deceptive at worst.

he said that he wants to do away with anti-discrimination laws thats why.

that said when i was with that church they never asked me if i was saved inorder to work for them. i went to that church and i did make it known but do we want to ask and have the pastor and the elders in our lives that much? i dont. i wont work for the church like that again. i will volunteer but i have learned how pharisiticals churches can be

let me ask you all these things?

would you stop listening to christian music(ccm) if i told you that there gay musicians in that industry? and im sure some are in their recording the songs. making the cds etc. and by recording i mean sound enginneer. i have heard it from a freind whose daughter went to the dove awards as she wanted to sing. she say a gay section and was appaled at how carnal that whole thing is and from that day i have seen it too with the christian versions of talent shows etc.

would you go to a gay doctor if he was the only one who could cure you? would hire one to work on your car? these i ask because we all can see their sin ast its obvious but what about that nice man that says all the right things and has porn in his life. we dont ask for this level of accountability when we go to stores or rent do we?

so if a couple is in sin and they offend you dont then rent but then also if you go to any sinner for a product then dont buy from them. when its all said and done lets withdrawal from the world into our little cubby holes and bubbles.

THAT ISNT THE GOSPEL

[Guest shiloh357]

Suppose you have a neighbor that for all purposes appears to be an upstanding Christian. Without reason to think otherwise you assume he's genuinely Christian.

Now suppose a year later you learn that he is arrested for being a serial child molester or whatever. Now he doesn't look like a Christian anymore does he?

Yet suppose after an extensive trial he is found to be innocent of all charges, wrongfully accused.

You or I might have several shifts in our view of this person being Christian or not, but God knew all along he was innocent.

My point this entire time (yet again) has been that we make snap judgments of people, but rarely have all the facts. God on the other hand always knows the truth.

The problem is, again, is that you don't understand the nature of fruit. Lot's of people can act "religious" but that is no reason to assume they are genuine Christian. In fact, the more "religious" a person acts, the less genuine they are. Fruit is evident because fruit goes to character. In fact, some of the most abusive households are typically very religious with domineering personalities. They might even serve as deacons or whatever and be "upstanding" in their church and all of that. Anyone can put on a religious mask and pretend to be a Christian.

But "fruit" of Christian character is altogether different. It is the anti-thesis of religion. It is one thing to wear all of the religious trappings and carry a bible and appear to be Christian. You can fool people for a while, but that facade is very difficult to maintain. Most "religious" people are eventually exposed for what they are because religion is not a deterrant for living in sin. Religious people tend to do all they can to hide their sin, in order to keep up the facade. Genuine beleivers know they are sinners and they repent and come to Jesus for forgiveness. They don't live in a lifestyle of sin. When they sin, they don't run from Jesus, they run to Him. They don't try to hide it behind the mask of pretense. A religious person can't keep that up forever. It takes a lot of energy and a lot of planning to make sure you are keeping up the act.

Secondly, "religious" people like what you describe are generaly biblically illiterate. They might be able to cite a few verses of Scripture from Sunday School, but they generally produce no fruit. And no, appearing religious is not "fruit." I am not talking about people who appear to be "good" Christians. i am talking about people who produce genuine fruit. I am talking about people who live out what they believe and make a genuine impact for the Kingdom of God. I have talked to "religious" people and they can throw around a lot of terminology, but they don't know how to use it, and they typically reveal their true character not in how they act, but in how they react. You can plan your actions, but you can't plan your reactions.

Making judgments based on observations is a natural part of this world, you have no debate from me there. But judging someone's immortal soul requires intimate knowledge of someone's entire life, something only God knows and something I think we would be wise to leave to Him lest we falsely brand someone a nonbeliever or consider someone a true believer when they are really evil at heart.

I have heard that excuse used by many people who simply don't want to be accountable for their actions. You need to understand that the Bible has alreadly laid out the criteria. I am not judging anyone's immortal soul, as you call it. I am simply aligining myself with that the Bible has already said. Every person who has been born again bears certain birthmarks that will stand as visible evidence of salvation. They are birthmarks that are the natural outflow of the new birth, not something that can be faked or used by religious people to put up appearances.

I realize that you are not equipped either intellectually or spiritually to understand that, but that is just the reality of the matter. The fact is that knowing who is and is not a true believer is very scriptural. In fact, the books of I, II, and III John are all about knowing who is and is not a genuine believer. The Bible teaches us to how to know the differences, so the bottom line is that you don't know the Bible and are not fit to really even debate on this issue due to your relatively high degree of personal ignorance of the matter.

And who determines how many questions need to be answered correctly to be considered a true Christian?

Who makes that judgment call?

Who drafts the questions and how are they selected?

The questions are centered around your relationship with Christ. Let's say you claim to be friends with a certain celebrity, and I begin asking you questions about that celebrity and the questions I ask only pertain to what a person who has a friendship with that celebrity would know. By the answers you give, I can tell if your claim is true, or if you were making a false claim. It is the same with being a Christian. We claim to be in relationship with Jesus, so it makes sense that I can frame questions that only a genuine Christian could answer.

This whole idea that mankind can make a 'true Christian' litmus test is absurd to me, I think we're going to hit a dead end in this debate discussing it further because I simply refuse to believe that a handful of people can determine who is and who isn't a "true Christian" with 100% accuracy. Not ever.

Of course you can't. You have a liberal agenda to prove that Christians get divorced as much as nonChristians and in order to suppoort that agenda, you have broaden the definition of "Christian" to include anyone who simply claims to be a Christian regardless of any other practical consideration. You want to avoid the practical, commonsense issues relating to whether a person is really what they claim to be, because your opinion might not hold any water. So I can see why you would have to abandon reason and pragmatic considerations. Typical of liberals.

What about Gandhi? What about Mother Teresa? (I know there are many on these boards who do not consider Catholicism the true path) There are MANY people who have lived lives that produce good fruit who wouldn't qualify as "true Christians" using your definition. If both Christians and non-Christians can produce a life of good fruit then good fruit is not a good way to distinguish someone as being Christian now does it?

Good deeds are not the same as good fruit. The apostle Paul talks about doing great things, even to giving up every thing you own and giving it to the poor and yet having done nothing at all.

Ghandi and Mother Teresa were good people but for all their goodness, they were no closer at bridging the gap between them and God than worst person you can think of. The gap between them and God is as wide as the gap between God and Hitler. Good deeds won't get you any closer to God at all. The difference between good fruit and good deeds, is that good fruit is only produced in our lives when we are connected to Jesus. And when your good fruit is the product of a relationship with Jesus, your "fruit" is what is used to build the Kingdom of God and to impact and engage the world on that basis.

Lot's people do good deeds, movie stars, rock starts, politicians, humanitarians, philanthropists, etc. But their good deeds are meaningless ultimately if they are not an outgrowth of a relationship with Christ. What's more, they will not find eternal life through their good works. It is a shame to spend all of your life and expend all of your wealth to do good deeds, only to step out into eternity and hear Jesus say, "I'm sorry, I never knew you. Depart from me..." Many deluded people go to hell, not because they were prostitutes, or thieves or muderers, but because they never were. There are many good people who strutting right into hell who think they are on their way to heaven because of their personal goodness. Very sad...

If you choose to believe the world is black and white/good and evil then by definition non-Christians would bear evil fruit on the whole, but time and time again that is proven false.

Also wouldn't this thief have been a habitual thief aka sinner in your eyes? You would have considered this man to not be a true Christian (as would I). That's why it's wrong to judge someone on fruit alone.

But that doesn't really fit our discussion. We are talking about people claiming to be followers of Jesus AND living in a lifestyle of sin. That isn't the case with the thief. He was not claiming to be a follower of Jesus while living as a thief. He became a follower of Jesus on the cross. The man wasn't a believer at all when he was a thief. But that changed when he encountered Jesus.

Isn't someone who is a nonChristian and someone who falsely claims to be a true Christian one and the same? People get saved, then become lost, and vice versa all the time. I'm don't really understand the distinction you are trying to make.

I am exactly saying that they are one and the same. I am drawing a distinction between people who simply claim to a be a Christian and yet have no evidence of such, and those who profess to be Christians and reflect the character of Christ in how they live (good fruit). A genuine Christian is more than simply a "good person." They are a person who works produce positive fruit for the Kingdom of God.

Quote

But people who had interracial marriages were at the time viewed as nonChristian, just as you are viewing homosexuals as nonChristian. That's kinda my whole point, you consider this to be a moral issue just as interracial marriage was considered to be a moral issue in the past. There really are a lot of similarities.

You have chosen to resort to the tired old liberal comparison of inter-racial marrriage and gay marriage. I was wondering how long it would take you to drudge that silly arguement up.

You cannot draw any comparison between gender and race. There are no differences between races, but we naturally separate genders. That's why we have men's and women's bathrooms. Men and women are naturally different whereas races are not not. You can receive a kidney from a person of a different ethnicity. You can recive a blood transfusion from someone of a different ethnicity. Separation on the basis of gender can be morally desirable. Separate bathrooms for men and women is rational and necessary. Separate bathrooms for whites and African Americans is not. There are no differences between races but there are significant differencences between the sexes and these differences are meant to compliment each other. To opppose interracial marriage is bigotry, but to oppose gay marriage is simply in keeping with the wisdom of the Creator who made man and woman for each other other and designed their differences to be complimentary. God designed marriage to be between man and woman.

Yes, there were those who opposed interracial marrage but they opposed all Christian and secular norms in the process. They represented a limited social abberation relegated to a certain group, nolt the whole of Christianity in America. Even today, the same people still oppose inter-ratical marriage, but they are still in the minority. The Bible forbids marrying people of different religions not different races. So I can oppose gay marriage on biblical grounds without committing the same error as those who opposed inter-racial marriage.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Hamburgers - is it Constitutional what was being done?

The point the ex-gays were making is that they were told by the system that there is no cure, that they are bound forever to being gay. Their point is that they were lied to.

It's funny that you wrote ex-gays in quotes. You don't believe they are ex-gays, do you?

There are also many gay people who are told they are unnatural and need to change yet say they are unable to. Both sides have their gays or ex-gays who feel that they can/can't change.

I will say if you watch minute 19-20 that couple looks extremely sad... just seeing that wife discuss how happy they are while her eyes... ugh.

Embedded videos outside of the video forums will be deleted. If you wish to present a video, do so in the Video Forum, and once accepted, you can link to it from here.

Edited May 21, 2012 by OneLight
Embedded video outside of the video forum

[nebula]

Hamburgers - please respect the Board rules. You cannot post videos in any section of the Board other than the section designated for videos.

[nebula]

Hamburgers - is it Constitutional what was being done?

The point the ex-gays were making is that they were told by the system that there is no cure, that they are bound forever to being gay. Their point is that they were lied to.

It's funny that you wrote ex-gays in quotes. You don't believe they are ex-gays, do you?

There are also many gay people who are told they are unnatural and need to change yet say they are unable to. Both sides have their gays or ex-gays who feel that they can/can't change.

I will say if you watch minute 19-20 ... that couple looks extremely sad... just seeing that wife discuss how happy they are while her eyes... ugh.

You are deliberately missing the point, Hamburgers. People are told they cannot change when they can. Is this righteous?

I am naturally prone to depression. I developed Clinical depression at a very young age and have been working on overcoming it for over 10 years. Will you tell me that because I am genetically predisposed towards depression that I will never become delivered from it? That I will always be battling depression my entire life? Or why fight it? If it is natural and God-made, then give in to it?

The video presents the danger of not enabling children to discern the difference between friendship love and romantic love. It's bad enough that boys and girls cannot tell the difference in their relationships to each other; now girls and boys have to figure out if their friendship "like" is actually sexual "like"? Is this righteous?

As for the couple - are you judging their case based on the look in her eyes? Are you discriminating against them because there is pain in her eyes? Do you know her heart enough to judge what is behind that pain? Is this righteous?

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Pedophiles claim they can't quit molesting children. Drunkards claim they can't quit drinking. Adulterers claim they are sex addicts and can't quit doing it. That is irrelivant to whether or not those lifestyles are sinful.

Isn't lust itself a sin? An alcoholic gets drunk by physically drinking, but can physically stop/be stopped even if they crave it.

Yet to have homosexual thoughts is to lust, and isn't that sinful? Some of the "ex-gays" in that video were continuously battling their innate desires, ie in an internal struggle with issues of homosexual lust. Is that not still sinful/are they not still sinners in your eyes?

[Oh Hamburgers!]

First off I'm at a work conference and have been busy most of the time, so my apologies to anyone who's asked me questions that I haven't gotten around to yet.

Also apologies on posting a link directly instead of the video forum - I see Nebula had posted the video in videos -> general and originally mistook that for general discussion so I thought it was ok.

You are deliberately missing the point, Hamburgers. People are told they cannot change when they can. Is this righteous?

Well for starters I think the "they can" bit is contentious. The jury is still out there whether people can truly change their sexual preferences or not. Maybe they can maybe they can't, I don't know because I've never been interested in other men so I don't have a good reference point and have never been tempted to engage in a homosexual relationship.

However I think the issue of it being righteous or not is moot: you'll find just as many people (if not more) who are told that they CAN change their sexual preferences when they believe they can't, compared to people who are told they can't change their preferences when they believe they can. Ex-gay camps and what not that attempt to change the sexual preference of people.

I think at the very least we can come to an agreement that some people are prep-disposed to having homosexual preferences? That at least seems clear to me that the original desire is something that some people have and some people don't.

I am naturally prone to depression. I developed Clinical depression at a very young age and have been working on overcoming it for over 10 years. Will you tell me that because I am genetically predisposed towards depression that I will never become delivered from it? That I will always be battling depression my entire life? Or why fight it? If it is natural and God-made, then give in to it?

I have never been diagnosed with depression, and I don't presume to know nearly enough about it/your experience with it to tell you how you should handle it.

The video presents the danger of not enabling children to discern the difference between friendship love and romantic love. It's bad enough that boys and girls cannot tell the difference in their relationships to each other; now girls and boys have to figure out if their friendship "like" is actually sexual "like"? Is this righteous?

I'm sorry, what is the perceived danger being presented? I honestly don't know what the concern is here. Kids always bumble through learning how relationships work when they are younger; it's when they start hitting puberty when things start clearing up.

As for the couple - are you judging their case based on the look in her eyes? Are you discriminating against them because there is pain in her eyes? Do you know her heart enough to judge what is behind that pain? Is this righteous?

I'm saying that that section in the video did not seem genuine. The couple did not seem like a happy couple to me even though the reason they were in the video was to show that ex-gay people can have happy lasting hetero relationships. I don't know how that couple interacts away from the camera and I certainly could be wrong, but that was my first impression.