Who has the Salvation? Christianity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dobson does NOT advocate "beating" children.
Ummm, yes he does. This isn't about a hippy freelover who is against spanking.... (I got spanked when I was young....and I am OK with it in moderation) but he DOES advocate beating your child. (beating your child means with an instrument)
"The gay movement" refers to the social/political movement; it does NOT mean ALL gay people.
Well first of all, name me a GLB organization (NOT NAMBLA, since NAMBLA is FILLED with nutters) that advocates pedophilla.
And yes, the gay movement is social-politcal......So what? MOST movements are social-politcial. Things are changing, and Focus on the Family and other Christian Coalition organizations, are fighting against it.....they want to take us back to the 1850's.
 
Reba said:
Yes, I believe that homosexual sex is sinful.

Assuming that you do not believe heterosexual sex is sinful (if you do, I suggest joining the Shakers), you do not believe sex in itself is sinful. Thus, it can be discerned that there is something other than the sexual nature of homosexual sex that you believe to be sinful. What this something is is typically the fact that it is occuring between two people of the same sex, that is, the homosexual nature of the practice. Logic dictates that if you think it is the homosexual nature of homosexual sex that you believe to be sinful, you would believe homosexuality to be sinful.

Sin is defined as "A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate." This of course would indicate that sin is entirely dependent on religion. Without religion, the concept of sin would not exist. As religion is for all intents and purposes mythology, that is, fundamentally impossible to prove scientifically but possibly valid ascientifically, regardless of any individual's convictions that a particular religion is "correct", the way in which scripture is interpreted is generally set by the religious scholars and priests. Now, there is a great degree of interpretation to be done. What you read in a holy book might be read entirely differently from someone else. The notion that one will generally interpret something which is ambiguous to fit their personal opinions is well understood to be true in the field of psychology.

Thus, the problem of interpreting anything strikes in the field of linguistic theory. It is impossible to understand exactly what an author meant in a particular writing if the author is no longer living. If the author was alive, you could of course request clarification in order to gain a better understanding. The immediate family may understand a lot also, but we, thousands of years later reading the Bible, are several orders of magnitude removed from the original authors. It follows, then, that we cannot even possibly comprehend the precise meaning of what any particular part of the Bible was intended to mean, as colloquial definitions of words, and indeed the languages at large change at a reasonably fast pace (Compare Old English or even Middle English to Modern English, for example). Additionally, many words that were understood to mean a certain thing in specific contexts are no longer used or have been replaced with less ambiguous vocabulary.

It can be said, thus, that your belief that homosexuality is sinful is not actually grounded in scripture (because if it was, then the knowledge that there is nothing in the Bible stating homosexuality is sinful should logically cause you to disenfranchise yourself with that belief) but instead grounded in your own personal biases and predispositions. You do not actually believe homosexuality is sinful, you believe homsexuality is wrong, which has an entirely different meaning.

"Wrong" is an adjective which means "Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous." It follows that if you believe homosexuality to be this way, that you see something fundamentally incorrect with homosexuality. This is the reason you would not support the advancement of freedom for gays and lesbians--you believe their existance to be wrong. You do not actually believe it is sinful, as the nature of sin, by direct correlation to religion, is utterly arbitrary, rather, you believe that it is wrong.

Now, to state the existence of a person is incorrect is to state that for some reason, the person is not a "correct" human. A correct human would logically be one which constitutes the definition of human properly. You do not see gay people as fully fulfilling this definition. This is the core of all homophobic arguments, and it is also the core of the arguments for racism, sexism, transphobia, ageism, audism, et al. Refusal to acknowledge the status of another human being as being principally equal to yourself. This translates very cleanly into animosity... Which in turn causes hate.

Thus, I say, regardless of whether or not you have the strength to come out of the closet and admit that you hate gay people, you do hate gay people. I cannot change your belief here, nor do I have any intent. I merely believe that you should accept your reality, and the fact that you are not the ideal Christian you would make yourself out to be. Examining the darker parts of yourself will give you a better understanding of yourself and a broader perspective of the world around you, and through it, God.
 
Teresh, PRECISELY! Excellent post! I'm not going to be explict, BUT hetrosexuals do a lot of the same sex acts that homosexuals do....as a matter of fact, I'd say that hetrosexuals probloly do ALL of the same sex acts as homosexuals. I know that Catholics have a prohibition on certain sexual posistions.....but what about other Christians? Do they believe that anything outside of the missionary posistion is sinful and anti-God?
 
deafdyke said:
Teresh, PRECISELY! Excellent post! I'm not going to be explict, BUT hetrosexuals do a lot of the same sex acts that homosexuals do....as a matter of fact, I'd say that hetrosexuals probloly do ALL of the same sex acts as homosexuals. I know that Catholics have a prohibition on certain sexual posistions.....but what about other Christians? Do they believe that anything outside of the missionary posistion is sinful and anti-God?

Homosexuality is attracted to ones own sex (male and male or female and female), this is not even close to referring to the sex act. Go back and reread what Reba said. :roll:
 
Crazymanw00t said:
I need to speak this out.
You are wrong with this one.

John MacArthur and the Calvinist people believes in Jesus Christ through his blood and the cross.

Please review and do not put your mind on the lock with the "Calvinism is wrong!"
Noooo! Sorry, you are wrong again. I already learned that the calvinism is wrong and unscriptural. Please click the links:

http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl070010.htm

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/warning-johnmacarthur.html

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's Corner/macarthur_heresy_on_the_blood.htm

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/macarthur/general.htm


Read what John MacArthur said.

John said:

"Obviously, it was not the blood of Jesus that saves or He could have bled for us without dying. It was His death for sin that saves. When Romans 3:25 speaks of 'faith in His blood' everyone understands that to be a reference to His death -- not the blood running through His body. In Romans 5:9, being 'justified by His blood' also refers to His death, as verse 10 makes clear in saying 'we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.' In fact, the careful explanation of salvation in Romans 6 omits any reference to His blood at all. The point is that the shedding of blood was just the visible indication of His death, His life being poured out. ... I admit that because of some traditional hymns there is an emotional attachment to the blood -- but that should not pose a problem when one is dealing with theological or textual specificity. I can sing hymns about the blood and rejoice with them -- but I understand that reference to be a metonym for His death."

Romans 3:25 talks about Jesus' blood for the remission of sins.

Romans 5:9 talks about Jesus blood that saves us from the wrath of God.

Romans 5:10 did not say that Jesus' death can save us from the wrath of God, but only brings us to God by being reconciled by Jesus Christ, our Lord Savior.

Romans 6 talks about the death, not blood -- For example of verse 3-5, what did the Scriptures say? Baptism? Yes, does the baptism do with the blood?

The Scriptures shows that John MacArthur is wrong.

John said: it was not the blood of Jesus that saves

Hebrews 9:22 said: And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

John said: It was His death for sin that saves

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (This verse did not say that the death makes the atonement for our soul!!!!!)

One point is very OBVIOUS to prove: God's law demands death AND the shedding of blood for remission of sin. See Romans 5:9-10 -- This verses shows very obviously -- the two together!!!

Let's us glory the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior.

Your brother in Christ
 
I did read what she wrote! Christians say that they simply don't like the sin of homosexuality......that is the sex act itself. Even many churches that disapprove of homosexuality, accept GLB folks as long as they are celibate.I know this from my first girlfriend who was Catholic and REALLY struggled with stuff like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top