Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you know that? Have you engaged in that behavior?
If you're oh, so worried about behavior negatively affecting people I look forward to your next threads:
Obesity - Christians, Overeating and Heart Disease
Child Abuse - 10 Things Christians Need to Do to Stop It
Divorce - Are YOU on Your Second Marriage? What Jesus Said
Gossip - Explain the Validity of Gossiping During the Church Potluck
Matthew 7:5
Last edited by DewDropInn; 10-10-2014 at 09:29 AM..
Sources includes studies from New England Journal of Medicine, The Atlantic Monthly, Journal of Adolescents Health Care, National Institutes of Health (NIH), British Journal of Surgery, Journal of the American Medical Association, etc.
What a group of propagandists.
You don't want to acknowledge truth - that's not my problem.
And how many of those 'sources' did you actually check yourself to see if the claims the author made about those studies and other information were valid? I would say ZERO. It appears you just blindly accepted how 'impressive' those sources "looked".
It's not 'the truth'. It's propaganda by anti-gay crusader Paul Cameron (the one who was deregistered as a psychologist for unethical behaviour, his junk pseudoscience, and spreading deliberate misinformation about homosexuality.) That nonsense has long been debunked. I'm not surprised you had to go to the Internet Wayback Machine to find it.
"it’s accompanied by an impressive thirty-three footnotes, most of them citing articles in professional journals, which lend his claims a scholarly credence. So while Medical Consequences isn’t subject to peer review (a critical step in the publication of any article aimed at a professional audience), he documents exactly where he gets his information so that anybody who wants to review his work can do so. Unfortunately, very few of his critics have bothered to do this.C
And very few lay readers are able to do this either. The average reader, when confronted with a pamphlet citing thirty-three references as this one does, is likely to conclude that Dr. Cameron’s claims are backed by solid scientific evidence. Few are willing to spend countless hours pouring over highly technical articles in professional journals to verify these claims."
Go to this link below to read a detailed expose of 'the truth' behind the propaganda in your link. It's in 12 parts and checks every one of Cameron's claims and sources.
And exactly how does that take away from the factual point that homosexual behavior is much more dangerous and spreads diseases a lot more?
Besides, the odds of a Christian couple (married as virgins and remaining faithful) contracting a STD is very very low.
I'm gay and have been in a monogamous relationship (now married) for over 18 years. No STDs... see? The same is true for gay couples. If all Christians truly cared about gay men, maybe they would be more helpful by promoting monogamy and marriage to gay men
Adumbrate the content of it for us, and more specifically for those who could not be bothered to read it, or will refuse to.
It talks about the harm done to LGBT people by some Christians. How love was the true message of Jesus. By demeaning and isolating LGBT people Christians are causing them undue pain and suffering.
It is a very well written piece, and as an atheist, and a lesbian, THIS is the type of Christian I can respect.
Sounds like you simply choose to negate and ignore the evidence.
Regardless of whether it's God's law, or actual medical research - you will choose what you want to believe.
As the Bible says...
John 3:19 - "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
This will be my last day on this thread. I have got what I wanted from this.
As the Bible says:
Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
Starting threads like this and spreading "smear and fear" lies by anti-gay crusader Paul Cameron, fits that ^^^ rather well.
That's like saying the baker is hypocritical if he services any person who ever commited ANY sin past or present. Even ignoring the fact that the Bible totally excuses divorce in cases of adultery and sexual immorality, the key difference is the couple are not actively engaging in a sinful lifestyle unlike homosexuals. The divorce sin is in the past and can be forgiven.
Actually it depends on which verses of Jesus you believe as the scripture is contradictory on the idea that there is an "out" for adultery of one's partner. That was a Jewish concept not recorded in Mark or Luke. In addition, divorce and remarriage involves CONTINUOUS living in sin. Because the scripture clearly indicates that sexual union is the joining of two flesh into one.
In Luke 16:18 Jesus says:
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
No outs, no exception. Luke apparently thought that he omitted nothing central to the issue when he quoted Jesus on the issue of divorce. If he thought that Jesus taught that adultery was an exception, why would Luke leave that out? In Luke Jesus is quite clear in teaching that whoever marries someone divorced is an adulterer.
Mark 10:2-12:
2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
Jesus, when speaking in Mark, is more elaborate than in Luke, but is just as condemnatory of divorce and remarriage as he was in Luke. Notice that he gives absolutely no exceptions. In fact in the gospel of Mark, more elaboration is given to why divorce and remarriage is unacceptable in God’s eyes. He says in neither Luke nor Mark that it would be OK to remarry if someone commits adultery. Or that it is Ok to remarry even if you get abandoned. The question here is not law, per se, but what did Jesus command. As followers of Christ, we are commanded to keep his commandments (Jn. 14:15). Apparently, neither Mark or Luke, who were speaking to both Jewish and Gentile audiences felt that they were leaving anything important out when they recorded these sayings of Jesus. If they thought there were the outs that people will use to justify divorcing and remarrying, Mark and Luke would have been deliberately distorting Jesus teaching on the issue. In fact neither writer distorted Jesus teaching, as he taught the absolute indissolubility of marriage. Jesus’ teachings in Mark and Luke are consistent and true, that there are no exceptions for divorce of a marriage.
People ignore the passages in Mark and Luke, and then think they can come up with an exception as found in Matthew 19:9 or Mat. 5:32. First, if there is indeed an exception for adultery, it would deliberately contradict Jesus’ clear teaching in Mark and Luke, where there are absolutely no grounds given for divorce and remarriage. People will often ignore these very relevant passages and focus on some supposed exception. This would show Scripture to be contradictory.
In the book of Matthew, remember that Matthew’s core audience is Jews. This would be something specific that Jews would know. Now, with that in the background let us examine what Jesus teaches in Matthew 19:3-10 (the critical text, v. 9, here is similar to that which is found in Matt. 5:32):
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" 8 He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." 10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry."
It is clear that the Pharisees were trying to bait Jesus, to get him to take sides in a dispute. The school of Rabbi Shammai regarded adultery and moral misconduct as the only acceptable grounds for divorce (similar to some who say divorce and remarriage is OK if there is adultery) but the school of Rabbi Hillel held that all kinds of reasons, even quite trivial ones, were sufficient grounds for legal divorce and it was this second interpretation of the law which was in fact practiced.
(Shillebeeckx, O.P. Marriage: Human Reality and Saving Mystery (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965) 143.
So you are practicing the thought of the Jews of old--there is always an excuse that is acceptable in the eyes of God.
Malachi 2:16 --"For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."
Living with another woman or man after divorce is living continuously in sin. Just like you say homosexuals are doing--but because divorce is so much more prominent excuses are found to justify it. And because homosexuality is in such a minority--the fingers point in that direction.
I have not had too much direct interaction with you - but I can see why some have doubts on which side of the fence you reside... this is right out of the handbook of the accuser of the brethren.
Someone lumped you in with unbelievers earlier this week and I made a point to exclude you from that group... recalculating...
I don't neglect hetero adultery. I have said so in this thread on numerous occasions.
Re-read the OT and take note of why Sodom was judged... why the wanderers in the desert were judged... why the nation of Israel was judged... it's sin - not a lack of forgiveness, or a lack of love.
Sounds like you have heard that before. God does speak through other believers at times. Maybe God is trying to tell you something and your spiritual ears are off.
Who cares that you were a preacher? Looking at the red above - maybe God removed you from preaching for a reason. It's not your job to straighten people out... that God's job... that's Christ's job. Interesting... God has something for you if turn back to Him.
Yeah, well you haven't heard Him speaking to you either, because he would have you refrain from spouting off about others' sins and concentrate on your own.
If you understand your feet are in the same mud as any other sinner--homosexual, murderer, rapist, pornographer, thief, etc., then you don't stand praying, "Thank God, I am not the kind of sinner as this guy standing next to me." Instead you live a life that shows God's love to everyone--and I mean EVERYONE, and let God and that person deal with their sin.
And I'm quite happy not to be included in your godless, loveless, condemning religion. It involves hypocrisy beyond what the Pharisees practiced. I'm not arguing about what is sinful and what is not--I'm arguing that you have no grounds to make charges. In so many words Jesus said to those wanting to stone the woman caught in adultery---you need to be sinless before you pick up any stones.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
That's like saying the baker is hypocritical if he services any person who ever commited ANY sin past or present. Even ignoring the fact that the Bible totally excuses divorce in cases of adultery and sexual immorality, the key difference is the couple are not actively engaging in a sinful lifestyle unlike homosexuals. The divorce sin is in the past and can be forgiven.
So you are absolutely sure the baker knew that the two homosexuals were participating in sex prior to marriage? What if they were practicing abstinence, waiting to get married?
So now, what is their sin? Being homosexual? Wanting to be married to consummate their relationship? If it is the first, do you think the baker was being judgmental?
If it was the second, no sin, in your definition, had been committed, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
