What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Should Homosexuals Adopt Children ?

And then Paul makes his point in romans 2:1

(Rom 2:1 EMTV) Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, everyone who judges, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself, for you who judge are practicing the same things.

Paul was not talking about homosexuals he was talking about heterosexuals who dabbled in homosexual sex. How can a GAY person give up a natural affection for women IF THEY HAVE NEVER FELT IT?

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International
 
kiwimac said:
And then Paul makes his point in romans 2:1

(Rom 2:1 EMTV) Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, everyone who judges, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself, for you who judge are practicing the same things.

Paul was not talking about homosexuals he was talking about heterosexuals who dabbled in homosexual sex. How can a GAY person give up a natural affection for women IF THEY HAVE NEVER FELT IT?

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International
Click to expand...

How can I be held responsible for adultery IF I'VE NEVER HAD THE INCLINATION TO BE FAITHFUL?

I can use that logic just about anywhere with anything.
shrug.gif
 
kiwimac said:
Oscar3

Please show me where I or any other Anglican cleric say beastiality is ok. If you cannot, I give you 24 hours to retract this statement and remove it or I will take legal action against both you personally and this site.

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International
Click to expand...
Have you lost it. What legal action, this is America, freedom of speech. There is nothing and I mean nothing that you can do to us. We don't like some of the things that you say. But we are not going to take legal action against you.
 
kiwimac said:
And then Paul makes his point in romans 2:1

(Rom 2:1 EMTV) Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, everyone who judges, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself, for you who judge are practicing the same things.

Paul was not talking about homosexuals he was talking about heterosexuals who dabbled in homosexual sex. How can a GAY person give up a natural affection for women IF THEY HAVE NEVER FELT IT?

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International
Click to expand...

When the Bible declares that homosexual practices are “contrary to nature†(Rom. 1:26 kjv) it is referring to biological, not sociological nature. This passage cannot be used to justify homosexuality.
Sexuality and sexual expression are defined biologically in Scripture from the beginning. In Genesis 1 God created “male and female†and then told them to “be fruitful and increase in number†(Gen. 1:27–28). This reproduction was only possible if he was referring to a biological male and female. Sexual orientation is understood biologically, not sociologically, when God said “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh†(Gen. 2:24 niv). Only a biological father and mother can produce children, and the reference to “one flesh†simply cannot be understood in any relationship except heterosexual physical marriage.
The Romans passage says that “men committed indecent acts with other men.†This clearly indicates that the class of sinful act condemned was homosexual in nature (Rom. 1:27). What they did was not natural to them but was “exchanged†for “natural relations†(v. 26). So the homosexual acts were pronounced unnatural for homosexuals too. Homosexual desires are also called “shameful lusts†(v. 26). So it is evident that God is condemning sexual sins between those of the same biological sex. Homosexual acts are contrary to human nature as such, not just to a heterosexual’s sexual orientation.
 
kiwimac said:
And then Paul makes his point in romans 2:1

(Rom 2:1 EMTV) Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, everyone who judges, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself, for you who judge are practicing the same things.

Paul was not talking about homosexuals he was talking about heterosexuals who dabbled in homosexual sex. How can a GAY person give up a natural affection for women IF THEY HAVE NEVER FELT IT?

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International
Click to expand...
wait a minute man' Paul was saying that you can't judge someone if you are doing the same thing. Just like Jesus was saying in Matthew 7 how can you judge a brother and you have a beam in your own eye. In other words you can't be doing the same thing. Or unless you have repented of it. First Corinthians 6 says that we will judge angels and the world.
 
Lewis W said:
Have you lost it. What legal action, this is America, freedom of speech. There is nothing and I mean nothing that you can do to us. We don't like some of the things that you say. But we are not going to take legal action against you.
Click to expand...

LOL: you're site limits people's right of freedom of expression. You cannot both do that and then claim that because you have freedom of expression you can say anything you like. More to the point 'freedom of expression' is NOT considered a defence in Slander / Libel cases.

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International
 
kiwimac said:
How can a GAY person give up a natural affection for women IF THEY HAVE NEVER FELT IT?
Click to expand...

THIS is what I've been saying since day one. I will also repeat something ELSE that I've been saying since day one. NOWHERE does the Bible address the issue of genetic homosexual orientation ...NOWHERE!

And, quite frankly I don't care what some of the self-made 'experts' on this forum say about homosexuality not being a genetic issue. While I can't speak for every person who claims to be homosexual I DO know or know of several such people who have had 'gay feelings' from as far back as they remember. MANY HOMOSEXUALS HAVE BEEN DRIVEN TO TAKING THEIR OWN LIVES BECAUSE OF THE CONDEMNATION OF THEM BY SANCTIMONIOUS CHRISTIANS AND OTHERS!! DOES THIS EXTREME AND FINAL MEASURE INDICATE THAT THEY HAD A CHOICE IN THEIR 'ORIENTATION'??

Also, how about this tag-team trio of bully mods on this thread giving kiwimac a break ...? And, for what it's worth, if Atonement once more defends Oscar for his abominable behavior on this forum I'm going to make a formal complaint to the board administration. I think I speak for a number of others on this forum who are sick and tired of this mollycoddling of Oscar by the mods! Guys ...how about 1. acting like mods instead of thugs and, more importantly, 2. BEHAVING like the Christians you profess to be ...?
 
Also, how about this tag-team trio of bully mods on this thread giving kiwimac a break ...? And, for what it's worth, if Atonement once more defends Oscar for his abominable behavior on this forum I'm going to make a formal complaint to the board administration. I think I speak for a number of others on this forum who are sick and tired of this mollycoddling of Oscar by the mods! Guys ...how about 1. acting like mods instead of thugs and, more importantly, 2. BEHAVING like the Christians you profess to be ...?
Click to expand...

SputnikBoy,

Lewis W, jgredline and Atonement are Christians first mod's second. They are in titled to defend their faith and in titled to join in the debates here. Now if mod action is to take place in a debate I would hope that they (the mod's involved in the debate) would ask another mod or admin to referee.
I can tell you that I am not going to ask anyone of my mod's here to sit aside their belief and faith to accommodate anything that goes against God's word.
You are in titled to your opinion that they are acting like thugs or not behaving like Christians.
All that goes against God and His Word are destine for hell.. I believe that Lewis, Jgredline, and Atonement in their ways are trying to spread the Word of God and not water it down so as not to offend anyone. Then we have some like Lovely and Nikki who are sweet in their approach. In my opinion both approaches are needed and I believe that both approaches are done with the eternal interest of the other person.
 
Judy:

Do you really think that suggesting that a poster is mentally challenged, affirming anoher poster's claim that a third poster has murderous inclinations, and calling a priest a "yo-yo" are acceptable behaviours for a moderator? All these have been done receently by the same moderator.

Please - don't push your "they are defending the faith argument" - how dumb do you think we are?

I am sorry for the directness, but this nonsense has to stop if the leaderhsip of this forum is to retain any semblence of respectability.
 
Drew said:
Judy:

Do you really think that suggesting that a poster is mentally challenged, affirming anoher poster's claim that a third poster has murderous inclinations, and calling a priest a "yo-yo" are acceptable behaviours for a moderator? All these have been done receently by the same moderator.

Please - don't push your "they are defending the faith argument" - how dumb do you think we are?

I am sorry for the directness, but this nonsense has to stop if the leaderhsip of this forum is to retain any semblence of respectability.
Click to expand...

Listen, I am addressing this topic right now!

Thank you for your opinion and concerns.
 
kiwimac said:
Lewis,

Please point me to one thing that Jesus said about homosexuality.

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International
Click to expand...

I'm not Lewis, Kiwi, but perhaps this will help. Jesus said...

Revelation 22:11 (KJV) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

And he which is filthy, let him be filthy still. The word filthy here is, of course, used with reference to moral defilement or pollution. It refers to the sensual, the corrupt, the profane; and the meaning is, that their condition will be fixed, and that they will remain in this state of pollution for ever. There is nothing more awful than the idea that a polluted soul will be always polluted; that a heart corrupt will be always corrupt; that the defiled will be put for ever beyond the possibility of being cleansed from sin.

(From Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible)

My suggestion to you is this. If you don't like this forum or what's being said, just don't come here! If I were that offended I sure wouldn't.
 
A Debated Passage Through The Ages

I have heard all kinds of people try and explain verse 4 and 6 of Hebrews the 6th chapter. Now I want to hear it from you guy's. Now remember pay close attenstion to verse 4 and 6 because that word (impossible) is scary. and this statement in verse 6 (If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance) But read it from verse 1.

Hebrews 6 (King James Version)

Hebrews 6

1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3And this will we do, if God permit.

4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
 
D46
This goes nicely with what you said......


ALEXANDRIA, La. (BP)--“I am bi-sexual and I practice polyamory†[group marriage]," the man told me. “I am your worst nightmare.â€Â

I thought for a moment. “No sir,†I said. “You are not my worst nightmare; you are my best illustration against the redefinition of marriage.â€Â

For the rest of the story click on link

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23492
 
Re: A Debated Passage Through The Ages

Lewis W said:
I have heard all kinds of people try and explain verse 4 and 6 of Hebrews the 6th chapter. Now I want to hear it from you guy's. Now remember pay close attenstion to verse 4 and 6 because that word (impossible) is scary. and this statement in verse 6 (If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance) But read it from verse 1.

Hebrews 6 (King James Version)

Hebrews 6

1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3And this will we do, if God permit.

4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting something?

Rev. Ray McIntyre,
Priest
Anglican Church International
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top