Believer or not god loves you. God loves all, he does not hate anyone!

amen good buddy

Amen! Love this journal.

Where's the favorite button for journals?

ikr!

They should make one.

Well said. :)

This is afar I truly desire to help spread. It's hard sure, but God never said it'd bd easy. XD

Yea so many people accuse Christians hating people who are not Christians but really it's more along the lines of Christians hating the sin that people commit because in some cases does destroy person. You know phrase "don't hate the player, hate the game"? well it's pretty much don't the person sinning, but hate the sin itself

"I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

A few red letters from John 6. Our own salvation is not in our own hands. Neither is anybody else's. We sow the seed... but God prepares the soil to make it grow, or not, as He sees fit.

I think you're oversimplifying things. Christians aren't split into good, loving Christians who love hated minorities and Westboro Baptist Church. There is a lot of grey area.

WBC is incredibly tiny, and largely condemned by everyone all over the theological spectrum. All this hateful stuff against LGBT people, Muslims, and other minorities has to be coming from somewhere, and a majority of it is coming from, yes, Christians. If such Christians were a tiny minority, then this wouldn't be such a problem.

However, you're completely right: Most Christians are truly trying to act out God's love as best they can, and aren't mustache-twirling, white hood-wearing villains.

So how can this be? How can most Christians have loving hearts yet there be a powerful movement of hate coming predominantly from Christians? It's really quite simple: You don't have to be an evil person to do evil. Sin has infected every last human (except for one, or two depending on your denomination), so even "good Christians" are vulnerable to moral failures. As such, well-meaning Christians will often be misguided into "love" that is, in actuality, very hateful. Is it because they're evil people? Nah. But it's evil all the same. I don't think it's a good idea to downplay the evil Christians have done just to save face. That just makes us look dishonest. Rather, we should use it as an opportunity to emphasize that all have sinned and fallen short of God. Including us. And when we fall into hate, that's us sinning, for which we need to repent. After all, repentance and forgiveness for sins is pretty close to the central message of the entire Gospel! This can be used as a learning experience.

-twirls his mustache-

In all serious, I think an undertone that has been missed in OP's journal is that Christians aren't going around hating on people, but they're certainly going around saying 'this stuff is wrong'. That's the 'we're concerned about your souls' bit in OP's post.

Like, for example, if I told you that I love you as a human brother, Sleet, but your past and (I assume) present involvement in the homosexual community, as well as any homosexual acts you may have committed, are sins that are condemned by scripture and hated by God, and thus I informed you that to get right with God you needed to give them up and seek forgiveness from the Lord for those sins, I feel like you'd get upset about it. If not you, many of the associates you have in that community would. I know this from direct experience, as I've had plenty of your associates even tell me that I'm a horrible person and that I push people to suicidal thoughts because of statements like the above.

LGBTQ as a group has official backing from mainstream society, including the US Goverment, who is pushing that agenda worldwide. Foreign aid has been used to pressure African countries to drop anti-sodomy laws and anti-abortion laws, for example. Pretending the LGBTQ group is a victimized group is contrary to reality.

Making these sorts of generalized claims of 'Homophobia', calling the mere fact that Christians preach against this stuff 'hate', that's also contrary to reality.

So when Christian parents physically and mentally abuse, ridicule, disown, and throw their gay children onto the street simply by virtue of what they are, that doesn't constitute hatred? When Christian employers fire otherwise good employees simply because they are gay, that is not an act of hatred? When pastors or clergymen excommunicate members simply for being gay and the tremendous damage to their psyche that results from it, that is not act of hatred? When Christians in Uganda (and until recently in this country) use the law to imprison and murder gay people in ways similar to what the governments do in Islamic countries, that is not hatred?

I'm sorry Geoffrey but to say that Christians are acting out in hatred towards sexual minorities and are simply doing nothing more than telling them their "lifestyle" is wrong is contrary to reality. This is especially true of sexual minority youth who are under the authority of adults and do not have the resources to assert their own autonomy, hence making them the most vulnerable.

Alas, there is nothing I can do to convey to you how even what you consider to be "gentle" condemnation can be so damaging to people. The gentle presentation of harsh and brutal ideas do nothing to render them less harsh and brutal. To tell someone that, at worst, they are condemned to eternal torment for something they had no control over, and at best, sentenced to a entire life denied of some of the greatest personality and health-building earthly pleasures known to human beings and filled with loneliness is a cruelty perhaps worse than death. Hence, the despair of such a view in conjunction with the loss of human value that it implies is what drives people to consider suicide.

How are you btw? Haven't heard from you for some time :P

Please keep in mind there are many evangelical christians like myself and my parents who would never disown and throw their own gay children into the streets. My mother made it clear to many that she wouldn't hurt them and throw them out if she have any. There is a gay Lutheran poster serving the lord, however he actually believes that marriage is for between man and woman only. He doesn't do gay things with guys.

There are many, many gray areas in the humanity out there. Even among many evangelical christians. Do not judge based on certain actions of many that is not what all of the evangelical christians like myself would do.

I'm not judging anyone. I am contradicting Geoffrey's rather absurd claim that homophobia doesn't exist and that Christians never act with gratuitous hatred (or gross carelessness and ignorance) toward sexual minorities.

Ah I see. Yeah, homophobia does exist. I will not deny that. However, There are also many non-christians does it worse with it than many christians out there. However, many people need to understood that many christians are trying to do it with love, and only trying to help them by hating the sin. That at times it can get confusing for many, because of the weird mix between love and hate to them. That, is what I call it gray area. It's, not that easy for many.

I was only trying to point it out in my last post that the fact not all "hardcore" christians throw them out on the street. I always hate it when there news make it sounds like all "crazy" christians do it.

I'm curious, how would you tell someone that homosexual activities are a sin? I can understand that blunt reality can be scary and most people seem to thrive on being blunt. Is there another way a Christian can gently help the person away from the sinful act?

If it's your belief that same-sex love and intimacy is a sin, the way that you would express that would depend on the person. If you don't know the person well enough that you'd know the kinds of approaches they respond to, then you shouldn't even bother. Gay people know how (many) Christians feel about us, and we don't need to be told again, nor are we particularly inclined to random strangers telling us we're going to hell. If you feel it's a conversation worth having with a close friend or family member, then it would take a personalized approach. If there was some one-size-fits-all magical "best" way to tell somebody that message, the argument wouldn't be as largely rejected as it is by people who don't already believe it.

I'm doing really well. I'm glad to hear from you too. You haven't been answering my texts. We should meet up at Furlandia this year or elsewhere if you're not going this year. How are you?

---


If you don't mind, I'm going to indulge my habit of breaking the discussion into topics:

1.) On the abuse of children with homosexual tendencies by their Christian parents.

With complete sincerity, I have heard a lot of claims about this but never seen a specific case of this happening. On the contrary, I have seen abuse of Christians by the LGBTQ community, or their 'allies'. I'll explain what I mean by examples.

1.a.) Examples of my experience of Christians interacting with homosexually-inclined family members.

1.a.1) Personally, I have two family members who have same-sex attractions. One of them is my aunt on my dad's side. We've had a bit of a rocky relationship, in part because said aunt is manic-depressive, but also because of this issue. My aunt has tried to impress on my family that homosexual behavior is acceptable. She's talked to us about groups she's been a part of deliberately made to mock Catholic orders (The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence) and promote alternative sexual behavior, and tried to encourage my sister in sexual activity mixed with Hindu-Buddhist spirituality. When my family and I have expressed that we don't believe that sort of behavior is morally good, even while expressing that we love her as a person, she has taken such to an extreme of saying that we hate gays (note the switch from disapproving behavior to hating people) and that even we hate her for 'being gay'. As such she has declined even being in the same room as us. This seems more like her throwing us out than us throwing her out.

1.a.2) My other family member is on my wife's side of the family, and he is clearly interested in other men. Granted that my wife's side of the family can be a bit nervous about conflict, but that (Catholic) side of the family completely refuses to discuss the issue at all. He doesn't bring it up, and nobody else does. This is, from my understanding, because the family is afraid that even mentioning it will cause the individual in question to take offense and abandon the family as 'bigots'.

1.a.3.) I listen to a lot of Catholic radio. A lot of it. I have never once heard anyone say anything hateful of 'gays', except that has been shut down and corrected by the hosts of the radio shows. The stance is always, always, to love those who are experiencing homosexual attractions, but to recognize those attractions as disordered, and to recognize any action on those attractions as sinful. This is in accord with the Catechism, paragraphs 2357-2359.

What I have heard are many Catholics (and Protestants) asking pastoral questions of how to approach things like same-sex attempts at weddings, how to navigate family dinners where the issue is likely to be brought up, etc. The answer is always to love the person, and to calmly and lovingly state the Catholic position when it's brought up, and to allow the person who's bringing it up to decide if he wants to respond in a calm, loving, and rational way or not. Christians are specifically told not to shove this teaching down people's throats because the Catholic community has noticed a tendency to take these things personally and act on emotion rather than on reason when one's sexual activity is called into question.

1.a.4.) I live in Portland, Oregon, on of the most liberal cities in America. As such, a large number of Christian churches and denominations have capitulated to the LGBTQ community and preach a pro-gay gospel. This is a flawed, but real example of Christian communities decidedly not 'hating' homosexuals.

1.b.) Examples of abuse of Christians by LGBTQ community members.

1.b.1.) I have made this point before, but I have personally been accused of hatred and malice by members of the community when expressing the traditional Christian principles regarding homosexuality.

1.b.2.) I have seen homosexual people physically attack peaceful protesters at 'Gay Pride' parades, such as what happened in Seattle, Wa. in 2013.

1.b.3.) In my home city, churches have been vandalized by groups like the "Angry Queers", who vandalized Mars Hill Church in 2012. http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blog.....y-rights-group

1.b.4.) The infamous Memories Pizza incident shows that Christian businesses have been put out of business for stating they would not participate in something against their beliefs, even before they had an actual chance. In fact, in this case, the reporter who 'broke' the story sought out a Christian business and brought this question to them before it even became an issue, then drug them through the mud over it.

1.b.5.) Other Christian businesses, such as Sweet Cakes in Oregon, have been driven out of business because they refused to violate their consciences in like manner to Memories Pizza.

1.b.6.) Christian leaders (and followers) have been vilified for their refusal to conform to the homosexual community's view of Christianity. one concrete example is the vilification of Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. This was done in an ad that claimed that his stand with the 2000+ years of Catholic tradition was intolerant and unjustly discriminatory, and the ad called for his replacement.

1.b.7.) Lastly, there is the issue of slander and misrepresentation. My prime example is that of the Holy Father, Pope Francis, who has been falsely characterized as being sympathetic to the LGBTQ communities' goals, which is false. He is sympathetic to the people, in that he loves them very much. In order to love them better, he has time and again, even before becoming Pope, upheld Catholic teaching on homosexual actions.

1.c.) As a necessary addendum to (1.), I do not believe that because of (1.b.) the LGBTQ community or even a majority of its members hate the Christian community. I believe that it's more likely that they hate what they perceive as intolerance, and that if Christians stopped preaching against them they wouldn't give a rip about those churches. Refer to (1.a.4.).

2.) On Christian employers firing 'otherwise good employees' on the basis of 'being gay'.

2.a.) I have not seen this happen, to be honest. I have seen Catholic schools fire teachers who publicly violate the morality clause in their contract and the ethos of their school by staging a public wedding ceremony with someone of the same sex. Those 'otherwise good employees' were retained as faculty, even though the administration knew their orientation, until such a public act made this impossible. Much like how a Christian school would of necessity fire someone who publicly protested against Christianity. The orientation was not the issue, but the public action against the values of the school. This distinction is both important and routinely disregarded.

2.b.) I have never been presented with evidence of this happening outside of any business or non-profit that wasn't specifically geared to teach and uphold traditional Christian values. If, for example, a Christian-owned bakery or bookseller that wasn't geared towards specifically Christian baked goods or books were to fire a person for publicly attempting a same-sex marriage, or worse, for simply having homosexual tendencies, then I would be incensed right along side you.

3.) The excommunication of of active homosexuals.

3.a.) As far as I know, excommunication is something limited to Catholics and Orthodox. In the Catholic tradition, nobody's been excommunicated for some years. This is different from excommunicating oneself, which is something Catholics may do to themselves, but the Church is making it extremely easy to return to communion.

3.b.) What I assume you refer to by excommunication is the inability of unrepentant sinners, including active homosexuals and their supporters, to receive the Sacraments. This is something that is applied equally to all those who commit mortal sin, not just active homosexuals. A thief, a vandal, a polygamist, a liar, etc., cannot receive the Sacraments until they have a firm purpose of amendment and confess their sins. This is in no way an unjust discrimination, nor is it targeted at homosexuals.

3.c.) Should excommunication happen, or should the homosexual be refused the Sacraments, this is not 'simply because they are gay'. Instead, it is a caring response to those who, by virtue of mortal sin and/or public scandal (rightly understood as leading others into sin), have killed the grace in their soul. To partake in the Sacraments without first repenting from those sins and seeking absolution for them is understood as something harmful to the soul of the active homosexual. (Ref. 1 Cor. 11:29). Mortal sin is something that must be done, it is a thing willfully and knowningly acted out with the mind or body, and as such, even if we were to concede that a person 'is gay', that 'being gay' would not constitute mortal sin, nor receive any penalty from at least the Catholic Church. It is only what one does in regards to those attractions that can be judged as moral or immoral, and thus incur penalty of excommunication or the natural consequences of mortal sin.

4.) On the Christians in Uganda using capital punishment on homosexual persons.

4.a.) Your own news sources, such as Pink News (linked below) state that the maximum punishment for sodomy is life imprisonment, not the death penalty.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/09/1.....not-necessary/

4.b.) The traditional defense of anti-sodomy laws is that, as marriage is an institution of compelling civil interest, the defense of marriage as one man and one woman bound to each other for life, and to the children which arise from their union is to be protected by law. Actions which undermine such marriages, such as sodomy, polygamy, divorce, etc., then threaten to destabilize the society. As I have not personally studied these arguments, I let that case rest here.

4.c.) As traditional Christians are obviously not in control of American lawmaking at this time, this sort of question is moot when we're talking about my peers persecuting LGBTQ folks. If anything, a case could be made much more easily that the U.S. law favors homosexual interests and actually discriminates against Christians and their values. I will not defend that latter assertion at this time, but merely mention it to make a point.

4.d.) It is valid to say that Sharia Law persecutes homosexuals. In this, Christians have unanimously (as far as I'm aware) been against those excesses. A man should not be murdered for his orientation, that's draconian and ranks of the Holocaust. As such, this is another reason why IS needs to be stopped and Muslims converted.

5.) On the damage caused by 'gentle condemnation'.

5.a.) As I have never condemned anyone, nor used the language to refer to to homosexuality active persons, I'm not sure what you're referring to as 'gentle condemnation'.

5.b.) If you're referring to statements like the example I gave to Sleet above, then such is not condemnation but instead rebuke.

5.c.) Rebuke is not damaging unless done in a vicious way without love. Even stern rebuke is a merciful act.

5.c.1.) As an example, I have been called out by at least one priest in the confessional. I have a tendency to a certain sin in certain occasions, and I said I'd stay away from that occasion for a short time. The priest said "bullshit" to me, and explained to me that if I didn't commit to serious reform of my life, I'd go right back to the sin. I thank that priest very much for his courage and mercy in turning me from that occasion of sin.

5.d.) I have observed that those sorts of rebukes are often appreciated by some people, but that those who seek to defend and justify actions such as homosexuality call these rebukes intolerant and damaging.

5.e.) Our Lord Jesus Christ was often known to rebuke. St. Peter, for example, was rebuked many times. Rather than being damaged, he seems to have been changed from a cowardly and brash person into a martyr and stalwart leader of the early Church.

5.f.) Our Lord's rebukes, like the modern day rebukes, were rebukes of actions, not of persons. Even the rebuke of St. Peter when Christ called Peter Satan, Christ was not condemning Peter as Satanic but rather referring to Peter's attempt to persuade Jesus not to get Crucified.

5.g.) I have never told anyone that they are condemned to eternal torment, for something they did or for something they are. Please don't strawman me.

5.h.) To equate the inability to marry and have sexual relations with a member of one's own sex with 'sentencing a person to an entire life denied of some of the greatest personality and health-building pleasures known to human beings and filled with loneliness' is fallacious. I can think of many examples of people who live incredibly rich and fulfilling lives without sexual intercourse or marriage.

5.h.1.) Many, or rather most, Catholic clergy and religious are celibate. By and large many will tell you it's hard, though not all, but they are as a group extremely happy and fulfilled people.

5.h.2.) There are many people who live and die without being married, but are completely fulfilled and even achieve sainthood. My personal patron, St. Joan of Arc, is just such an individual. Another person of the same kind was Bl. Bartolo Longo, who after years as a Satanic High Priest reverted to his Catholic faith and after that lived a life of complete celibacy.

5.h.3.) All unmarried persons, especially those who are underage, are morally required to live without sex. While many children nowadays chafe at this, the best-adjusted that I've seen have been the ones that maintain their chastity.

5.h.4.) Those who have committed sexual sins, myself included, often find those things to be damaging and isolating. It damages the ability to have and maintain marital intimacy, as well as fidelity, and becomes addictive.

5.i.) Those who derive despair from the rebuke of passions, and a loss of human value from the same, have identified themselves with their passions to a dangerous degree. If this identification and the despair resulting from it leads one to suicide, then this self-identification with one's passions is deadly. This is not the fault of the person who rebukes, but a disordering of the passions and intellect that, in at least some, is a matter of choice and or habit. In others, it constitutes a dangerous mental disorder. To illustrate this, if someone was so wrapped up in their passion for work that when fired they started to be self-destructive, we'd provide them therapy. This drive for work could be a learned trait, or it could be a tendency based off of genetics or upbringing. Whether genetic, taught, or chosen, it is still a dangerous disorder and we treat it. This should illustrate why it's wrong to identify too closely with what one does.

Another very thorough and thoughtfully-written post. You deserve a better response than I have time to give you rightnow, but kudos. I especially appreciate that priest from 5.c.1.

At the risk of being accused of just appealing to the people who agree with me, I'd be remiss not to mention that I think this response was well-put. Loving and honest.

Hey thanks. God bless you.

One of the more honest and sagacious replies here.

If you thought I was downplaying WBO or other hategroups who drag the name of Christ through the mud, I think you misinterpreted my post. This wasnt meant to be a wax-theological call to arms so much as a window into the heart of the TRUE core ofthe faith, intended for the outsider whose only experience with Christians comes in the form of the screaming minority. (I do maintain that they are in the minority.)

The screaming is a minority, but the well-meaning wolves in sheep's clothing are not (or if they are, they're a much larger minority). Most people hurt by Christians aren't hurt by a few random extremists. They're hurt by large enough coalitions to vote and pass laws, not to mention their own families.

It's a much bigger problem than it sounds like you're making it. And you're right; nobody should judge all of Christianity by just the bad apples. But we also should, ourselves, be making sure our own house is clean, and that requires addressing problems.

We might need to define our terms because I might be in some of those "coalitions" you mention. :P But I whole-heartedly with the point about cleaning house.

Yes you might be.

The worse of all the westboro hates christians and is ant no lie is theres a YouTube video that shows a christian talking to the westboro and they told him about his long hair and everything I just had enough with these guys I don't agree with homosexuals but I sure hate the wbc, I remember about peter or paul that Jesus gave the dispicals to walk to the cities if they don't welcome they have to dust off the sand and go the other house. To me its like if some don't want to hear the message don't spend time with these folks just keep on going.

The verse John 15:18 (NLV)“If the world hates you, remember that it hated me first..."
Came to mind when I read this. I believe that it would be wrong to let the reputation of the worldly, unfaithful Christains to bog the faithful and good Christains down. And it always comes to mind whenever I'm nervous to speak against something that's wrong or distasteful. I do believe those that are active Christians should stand firm in what the Bible teaches in its wholesome, and not be afraid to speak out.

Thank you, and stay faithful good, Christain community.

I think the biggest contributor to Christians being perceived as "hateful" is non-Christians POSING as Christians. Case in point, Westboro. I will not call them "Baptist Church" because they are neither Baptists, nor in any way affiliated with an actual church. But these posers get all the media attention, spreading such unBiblical messages as "God hates fags." If they ever READ the Bible they'd know God is the very definition of love and that, as Romans 5:8 tells us, He loved us so greatly beyond our sin that Christ died for us WHILE we were still in sin. But angry, hateful "protesters" showing up at Robin Williams' funeral branding him a "homo-enabler" makes for a sensational news story, social media goes nuts, Twitter explodes, word spreads around the globe about the "hateful teachings of the Bible and all who follow it." A local pastor drives 30 miles out of his way every day to check on an elderly member of his congregation, or works a second full time job and uses all the money from that job to fund a soupkitchen on his own, or an entire congregation bands together to donate time, money, and labor building a "free to rent" apartment complex for the homeless and low-income families in their neighborhood...you don't hear about that. It's not "newsworthy." The Liberal media does not see fit to give such stories any coverage because there's no shock value, no sensationalism, no "buzz." Just Christians doing what Christians are supposed to be doing, nothing to see here.

But even outside of mass media, the LGBT issue brings all kinds to the table. You have the "militant/Old Testament" Christians who ignorantly throw their lot in with Westboro and their ilk and go into Hellfire and brimstone rants at the drop of a hat. On the other end of hte spectrum you have the "Hippie" Christians, who basically feel as long as you're not killing anybody or "spreading negativity" it doesn't matter what you do. They take "God loves everyone" to the extreme, to the point where practically nothing is ever "wrong." Somewhere towards the middle you have the true Christians, who understand that God DOES love us all, but God also HATES sin. But these true Christians are able to understand the disconnect between sin and sinner, that one is an an act, the other is a person God loves dearly.

The problem is, the world (and even many Christians) cannot wrap their minds around the idea that a person can hate what someone does but still love that person, even if/when they themselves have such a person in their lives. Just for example, maybe they know someone who drinks too much. It's a choice, a destructive one, and the Bible says drunkenness is a sin. But that person is not simply "just another alcoholic." That may also be their parent, their sibling, their child, or simply a close friend. They hate what this person does, but they still love him/her. It's the same with God and Christians, and the collective issues of the LGBT. What they do and what they believe is wrong, but these are still human beings, deserving of (or at the absolute very least needing) love and respect.

I think one of the key points towards accepting and understanding this concept is to understand what sin is. Sin is a term derived from archery, meaning "to miss or fall short of the target." Raise your hands if you've heard this one, "Oh yeah? The Bible says being gay is a sin? Well it also says it's a sin to eat shellfish, are you going to stand outside Red Lobster damning everyone as they come in and out and call them evil, too?" The Bible contains a long and varied list of sins, and people tend to lump them all together in very general terms of "evil," "wicked," or downright "Satanic." While it is certainly true all that is evil is sin, not all sin is inherently "evil," per se. To draw an analogy, jaywalking is a crime. So are rape, murder, and grand larceny. Nobody is pulling for a National Jaywalker Registry so they can run a check on their new neighbor and see if he's a convicted habitual street-crosser. Now, I'm not saying the LGBT lifestyles should be relegated to such "minor infractions" as crossing the street outside of a designated crosswalk, but at the same time Christians worldwide need to refrain from treating those in the LGBT lifestyles as though they were convicted murderers and/or child rapists. Take a more gentle approach, and meet them where they stand if you can; i.e. if they are completely closed to God but profess to rely solely on science for their world view, perhaps guide the discussion towards the biological programming that makes us heteroseual by nature, or the fact that there is no conclusive evidence linking homoseuality to any single factor (including but not limited to gender, age, environment, genetics, psychological trauma, etc.). If they're of the "evolutionary" crowd, perhaps remind them that the central key of evolution rests in the creation of offspring who will carry on your most beneficial genes to further the species, and that being in a relationship in which reproduction is impossible defies all evolutionary standards and to claim that it is "natural" or that they simply have no other alternative because "that's just the way we're made," they might need a gentle reminder that "natural selection" would only remove them from the gene pool if they had absolutely nothing of any value to contribute to it. Next to that, "My God says it's a sinful choice and He can deliver you out of that lifestyle" sounds a lot less cold and uncaring than "Mother nature decided you have nothing to offer, and as a consolation prize she shacked you up with someone equally useless."

But then again...maybe I'm not the person to be giving any kind of advice about how to approach such conversations. I have a tendency to be very blunt and, at times, quite tactless to the point of being harsh (logic is not known for bringing the warm fuzzies).

Well said. I agree with everything except eatting shellfish being a sin, if you meant to apply that to post-incarnation times. (I think it's in Acts 10 where the difference between moral law and the fulfilled ceremo ial law is established.) But to your main point, spot-on. Many people seem to feel a sense of disharmony within a God who is both all-loving and yet completely just. I think it just betrays their lack of understanding of the Scripture. Without exegeting all of the applicable passages here, it's going to be hard to convince anyone who WANTS to herald God's "love" over His justice, rather thsn balancing the two. Hence my call for people to try to stave off ignorance (Acts 17:11), but that rarely happens in practice. In other words, the opinion you came into the room with is almost always the one you leave with. No one wants to believe someone else just MIGHT know something they don't. Cue my long sabbaticals from posting here. What's the point? :P

The way I see it, personally, the dietary laws were more a temporary matter, mainly a "you do not have the means to properly clean and prepare these animals in a way that won't poison you." Most of the "forbidden animals" were bottom-feeders, or those like pigs who spent a great deal of their time wallowing in their own filth, and the people lacked the proper means to clean and cook them. Problem is non-Christians hear a passage out of context and go berserk with it.

Amen, brother.

personally as a Christian i try not to judge anyone for their actions or deeds easier said than done but we are not the ones to judge and for others to know that we wont and don't judge them as people and accept them then we can make progress through love this is probably very badly explained by myself but i know what i mean if anyone can work it out for others to understand that would be great thanks

There are atheists disguised as Christians and I remembered that one athiest got a YouTube channel called bible is the mark of the beast then his slogan it reads bible has 66 books and it says 666 in your hands and in his page he say that he was a atheist and I know this beforehand.

Oh my gosh! I wish this was a church service, because I would've said "Preach it pastor!" Lol, I just think people are gonna hate because people think we are goody-2-shoes all the time.

I don't understand completely why people have gays and stuff, they are just as normal and created as equally as everyone else. I don't understand how a gay Christian group exists either. Not against it, but hard to really understand.

"I don't understand how a gay Christian group exists either."

Some gay people are Christians. Why else?

But it doesn't make sense either....

It IS a bit like a vegan "Steak and leather" club.

They even made a group on gay Christians/gay dragons, etc.

A better comparison would be a vegetarian egg and milk club. Some vegetarians are vegans, and they may disagree with such a thing, but not all are.

Well, that's assuming that steaks are milk. Or at least that Paul didn't say what he did.

By my understanding vegans oppose the use/consumption of any animal and/or animal "byproduct," which would include meat, milk, eggs, cheese, and other such foods, as well as products made from leather (cow, goat, deer, etc.), alligator/croc/snake skin, ostrich skin, seal skin, fur, as well as teeth (and other bones), and most certainly those paper weights with full animal carcasses encased in clear acrylic (I had a yo-yo with a scorpion in it, that would also be a Vegan "no-no").

Ergo, a Vegan member of a club that promotes and encourages the purchase/consumption of steak and leather products would be analogous to a Christian homosexual, as the belief/principle/ethic/creed is in direct contention with the practice/lifestyle.

My point is not all Christians believe Christianity is incompatible with being gay. There are a number of different theological viewpoints on the subject, just like there are a number of views among vegetarians on whether or not eggs and milk are okay.

I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking you, Sleet, but I think you're giving undue deference to liberal theologians because you want to justify homosexuality, rather than coming from an unbiased position of exegesis. Please don't think I'm unsympathetic, as I struggled with questions of orientation myself for quite a while, but there is really no mystery on what Scripture has to say about the matter if you examine the Greek, especialy in its historical-grammatical context.

I don't have a dog in the fight. If I did, I'd rather believe God's okay with it because it would make my job SO MUCH easier on here. I've read the arguments from both sides... I'm sorry, man. There really isnt room for doubt if we're being academically-honest.

I recognize the diversity of Christian thought and don't pretend I have all the answers. Similar to how I mentioned earlier that some Christians believe two humans are the exception to sin, even though I persobally believe there was only one.

We can't afford to refuse to even acknowledge different types of Christianity, even if we disagree with them.

I'm not sure that I agree, at least in the sense that I believe you're using the term "acknowledge." For example, I will ackowledge that Mormons exist and believe they are Christian, but I don't give credence to their teachings because I believe it is a demonstrably fallacious heresy. But if by acknowledge you just mean "consider other points of view, and where uncertainly exists, acknowledge it" (such as pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, and amillenial thelogies), then I do agree with that.

I don't think it's particularly charitable to ignore pro-gay Christians as fundamentally invalid rather than, in your belief, incorrect.

I have no illusions of being charitable when it comes to theology. Just as you reference a so-called "medical consensus" when it comes to sexuality being biological, so to do I appeal to the scholarly consensus when it comes to the original and intended meaning of passages dealing with sexuality in the Bible.

However, I reiterate, that I don't have a dog in the fight - it would be much less stressful for me to be on the tolerant side of the fence here - but it's just not what the Koine Greeke says. It's not what the Masoretic Hebrew says. (I own interlinear physical copies of both majority texts, plus two different concordances.) Uninspired though it may be, the Talmud offers us added historical context and it too supports the conservative view of passages on sexuality (Chullin 92, is one example).

It's not an opinion, man... I'm sorry. I've tried to find good arguments against the conservative view, but I just can't accept them while being intellectually-honest. Only the English translations muddy up the passages at all, and even then, I really don't think they're that nebulous.

I realize I'm probably coming off a bit aggressive, but I'm not trying to be condescending. Please ask yourself sincerely, is there anything short of divine intervention that could convince you of the conservative view on this? Because if you're relying on experience or secular pop-science over logic, I have to say, you're risking intellectual-dishonesty with yourself as a Christian... and that's a dangerous gamble, brother.

Science has nothing to do with my theological views.

It would take better arguments, ideally coming from people who have demonstrated grace, kindness, understanding, and an authentically broken heart over what GSM people have been put through, as well as a desire to fix injustices rather than to just make gay people disappear.

It's a tall order.

The arguments are out there... and assuming no one is able to meet that standard of graceful discourse, is that sufficient reason to reject the truth? Again, this dips into pathos-centric reasoning, but look, I really feel like I've been beating up on you and that's not my intention. As someone who has gone through it, I am sympathetic to the battle of "I can't help how I feel" versus "what does the Bible say?"

If you HAD to make a choice, what would you choose... and are you sure you haven't already made that choice? Rhetorical, as I expect that by this point I'm coming off as just another hatemonger. But to the point of the original article, everything I've said IS meant with love, even if it wasn't exactly gentle. I still like you, Sleet.

I haven't seen them.

Nah, but I'm perfectly content as I am. I don't need anti-gay theology. I don't actively explore it just in case any more than I actively explore Islam just in case, that non-kosher diets are wrong just in case or that slavery is moral just in case. That doesn't mean I close my mind to changing should I be wrong, but that's up to the Holy Spirit at this point. If a fallible human thinks they've got some new anti-gay argument I need to hear, then I'm looking to be shown that they're going to be different from all the other "new" and "loving" arguments. Anti-gay Christians have been crying wolf for so long that I want to at least hear some howling.

I am fully capable of making the choice of celibacy. That is in my power as a being with free will and I feel I have the willpower for it, too. It's not that I can't turn down finding love and starting a family, it's that I authentically do not believe God demands that of me.

I'm not sure what you mean about making a choice. A choice between what?

And yes, I do think you're a well-meaning person with a good heart that's focused on God, FYI. Still frustrating sometimes though. :P

The first step is to stop thinking about it as "anti-gay." You're making it personal. God is anti-SIN. Yes, homsoexuality is a sin. One of many.

Secondly, you need to understand that love does NOT mean "you get to do whatever the hell you want." WHen I was little and my curiosity overcame me and I started reaching for the glowing heating element in the stove my mom grabbed me by the arm, yanked me a way, and yelled at me not to stick my hand in there. having my arm yanked hurt physically. Being yelled at hurt my feelings. But I tell you what, those two pains combined were nothing compared to what I felt when I was "clever" enough to wait until she wasn't in the room to stick my hand in there and burn my damn finger.

Take a look back at the original journal post, particularly the quote from Mr. Jillette. Tell me, is it more "loving" to keep my mouth shut, spare your "oh so fragile" feelings now, and let you keep doing what you want to do here in the moment at the cost of an eternity of torment beyond your darkest nightmares, or is it more "loving" for me to step on your toes here and now and maybe, just maybe, get you to think about changing your point of view and thus avoid the aforementioned utter torment?

I've got some advice for you, which I'm pretty confident you're not going to take. No fur off my back either way. Do what you want.

You just read my comment saying that if anything is going to convince me, it'will involve demonstrating an authentic kindness, humility, and gentleness not normally present in anti-gay messages. You then proceeded to right out the gate lecture and patronize me.

My advice is to show people the basic decency of meeting them where they're at. Otherwise nobody is going to want to hear what you have to say. The world doesn't owe you a receptive audience. Stop acting like you're entitled to one.

I'm sorry that this offends you, but my calling as a Christian is to spare people from HELL, not spare them fro having their feelings hurt. Perhaps you've heard the phrase "the first step to solving a problem is recognizing that there is one." If you believe being homsoexual is NOT in any way a hindrance nor contradiction to being a follower of Christ, there is definitely a problem.

You are confusing "loving" with "coddling." You are also failing to understand that there are various roles, various "parts of the body" and each person is called to a different area and/or task. If the gospel is like a garden, I am neither the watering can nor the fertilizer, or even the pruning sheers. I am the plow. I break ground. I tear apart the crusty, packed-down, sun-baked, dry, lifeless soil that is the world's ideologies and false prophecy. Does that mean shaking people up? Oh yes. Plowing a field, if you think about it, is a very aggressive, "violent," tumultuous act. Churning the earth, overturning stones, quite likely obliterating anthills and wiping out all the weeds and other sparse, non-edible vegetation along the way. People don't like it. People don't like having their world view rattled. People don't like haivng their preconceived notions challenged. People don't like being told that what they think is good is not good enough.

Do you know why most LGBTs REALLY turn to atheism? Because atheism says "do whatever you want. IF it feels good, it IS good." You know what? When I'm having a rough day and someone jukes in front of me at the store and grabs the last of ONE item I went all that way to get, it would feel really, really good to clock them upside the head and take it from them. It really would. But just because it would FEEL good doesn't mean it would BE good. Atheism is all about making yourself FEEL good, no matter the cost. Being a Christian means DOING good, no matter the cost.

I would have to pose one simple question: How many answers are there to the equation 2+2?

Now let's explore "other viewpoints." Aesthetically-minded groups would say the sum of a pair of numbers that have a straight line and a curve is a number with two straight lines and a more complex curve, therefore the answer to 2+2 is 5.

Abstract thinkers might say the sum of 2+2 is 3, because the straight lines are canceled out by the plus sign, leaving only the curved lines, and what has two curved lines? Why, 3 of course.

Those of us who actually understand math know that the one and only answer to 2+2 is 4.

Truth is truth, and when it comes to absolute right and absolute wrong, there can be only one correct answer. So, you see, I'm really not interested in the "Liberal Christian" view, or the "Nonpracticing Christian" view, or any other so-called "Christian" view that deviates from CHRIST'S view (because, you know, He's kind of a big deal).

You mistake Christ's view for your view. You are not perfect and neither am I. In our imperfection, we have come to different conclusions attempting to adopt Christ's views. One or both of us may be wrong. To claim that your human understanding of the Divine is indistinguishable from the Divine Z Itself is not only arrogant, it's Luciferesque blasphemous hubris.

Sorry for the typo; scratch that random Z.

When it comes to truth, "incorrect" is indistinguishable from "invalid." A person cannot live as both a homosexual and as a Christian. The two lifestyles are incompatible wit hone another. Again I go back to my "steak-eating, leather-wearing vegan" analogy. the Bible (God's Word) says that homosexuality is a sin, even going so far as to say it is a greater sin than most others because it is a lifestyle sin, committed with one's entire being as opposed to a simple, singular act (such as telling a lie). Jesus, God's Son, did NOT renounce the scriptures written before His time. He did NOT denounce God's law in any way. True, He told the pharisees that they had no right to stone the adulterous woman to death for her sin because they had sin of their own to answer for. But take note of how that encounter played out in the end. Jesus didn't send the religious leaders away and then tell the woman "hey, you just keep doing what you're doing, I know you're only human so you're going to screw up. No big." He said to her "Go, and sin no more." He did not damn her to Hell on the spot for her sinful act, but He DID acknowledge that it was sin and commanded her to never repeat that sin.

As for homosexuality and the direct teachings of Jesus, He repeated and reinforced the design and intention of His Father, "And for this reason a man will leave his mother and father to be joined to his wife." Not "spouse." Not "partner." There was nothing ambiguous or vague about it: one man, one woman. Period.

So yes, to profess to be a follower of Jesus while still actively living the homosexual lifestyle is hypocrisy, just as it would be for a "Christian" to sleep around, never get married, father a bunch of kids with as many different women and never taking care of any of them, and getting drunk every night.

That being said, a homosexual, in trying to leave the lifestyle, certainly could convert to Christianity. But I must point out something I firmly believe. 2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" What that means is the "old" lifestyles must go. If you truly believe that what this scripture says is true, then any excuse of "born this way" or "inherent traits" or "family history" or any other such shackles are irrelevant. You are reborn, a new creation. There's no reason to hold on to the old. So, again, a "gay Christian" makes no sense. "T'ain't no such critter" as they say.

"A person cannot live as both a homosexual and as a Christian. The two lifestyles are incompatible wit hone another."

And attitudes like yours are exactly why there are so many atheists among LGBT people. Because you say this stuff and then LGBT people believe you.

Leather-wearing vegan.

Beef-eating Hindu

Straight-edge drunkard.

Violent pacifist.

Seal-clubbing member of PETA.

Amish technophile.

Whale-hunting member of Greenpeace.

Homosexual Christian.

Do you know what all of these phrases have in common? They are all self-contradictory. In technical terms it's called an "oxymoron." You cannot profess to believe one way and live another way and be anything other than a hypocrite. I'm sorry if that offends you but that's the cold, hard truth of the matter. Pick up the Bible, go through it, find me even ONE scripture that shows God giving His blessing to homosexuals and their lifestyle and I will retract my statement.

In the meantime I will sit here, confident in my position, because I have studied what the Bible says about homosexuality, and there is NOTHING in there that even remotely suggests that God supports that lifestyle. There are, however, no less than three passages in which God, being directly quoted, states that "if a man lies with another man as he would a woman, both have committed an abominable act in My sight and shall be put to death. THeir blood is on their own hands." I'm pretty sure you don't need any special interpretation or mental gymnastics to figure out that God is NOT "ok" with homosexuality. Don't get me wrong, He loves the people, they're His children, but what they DO is unacceptable. Period.

Oh, and by the way, most LGBTs are atheist because they don't want ot be held accountable to anyone for their choice, and if they were to admit that there is a God, they must also accept His law, and His law says that their lifestyle is wrong. Also, His word says that they were not "born" that way, which means they'd have to accept that it is a personal choice, thus they have no excuse, no "blame-shifting," thus to keep themselves form any personal responsibility, they just say "eh, there's no God because I want to do what I'm doing and not feel guilty about it."

Yeah you've already said all that to me.

Sometimes the truth hurts. A bible believing Christian will try, kindly and with Christian love, to point out the truths in the bible to help bring a fellow Christian back to God's word. It is quite evident as written in the bible that the gay lifestyle is a sin. Most of us point this out because we are afraid that those who call themselves Gay Christians might be jeopardizing their salvation.

2 Thessalonians 3:15, Matthew 18:15-17

So I would have to say that it is an oxymoron to use the phrase "Gay Christian". We we did, then we would have to accept other phases such as "Murderer Christian" or "Adulterous Christian" or "Thief Christian". Sin is sin, and we should just see each of us as plain old "Christians".

Here's the thing though. We've heard it all before, and a stranger telling us the same thing again is not going to change anything. If you'd rather tell us the same thing over and over again before you even know us, then you're being insincere and needlessly cruel. Why should I listen to or even want to be around somebody who will do that? If you're actually kind and loving and authentically care about a gay person as a person, not just as an objective you can try to change, then perhaps you will become friends. And Christians who are friends often discuss theology!

Also, the theology is not nearly as clear-cut as you make it sound. The argument that same-sex love and family is evil is far shakier than it may seem at first blush. I can give you some resources if you would like to explore the subject more!

Please, let us have the biblical references. I always want to see all sides of an issue.

There is an excellent speech given by Evangelical Christian Matthew Vines that's posted on YouTube that's a good overview, if you have an hour to spare!

Careful not to dip into pathos; I don't think your premise warrants your conclusion. I would argue that these are dipping into argumentum ad hominem and slippery slope fallacies. Counterpoint: why would the Holy Spirit inspire His chosen witness to write something into the Bible that He didn't expect us to understand?

Everything I hear from anti-gay Christians is the exact same few things, each time dolled up to be presented differently. It's different packaging of the same few sentiments, but it's all hollow and I'm unconvinced. If someone wants to be taken seriously, it would help them to demonstrate authentic care and love and concern for the issues facing LGBT people. That's the quickest way to get my attention. Until then, I am under no obligation to humor people who want to subject me to yet another attempt at repackaging "Adam and Steve" and other greatest hits.

I'm looking for people to walk the walk, not talk the talk. So if you want your views to be heard by the people they hurt, then I recommend you take a lesson from that.

No, it isn't. To be a vegan or a meat-eater is entirely a voluntary choice. One's dietary lifestyle is not the byproduct of genetics or a complex, emergent property resulting from environmental influences on how genes express themselves. Sexual orientation in most cases is determined by factors that are entirely outside of one's control and, hence, outside of one's responsibility. Moreover, to identify oneself as either a vegan or a non-vegan really has no meaning outside of how one actually eats. Such terms exist and depend upon the volitional decision to eat certain foods. To put it another way, if you never ate foods that were not derived from animals or never ate anything at all, calling yourself a vegan would be immaterial and meaningless. The same is not true of sexual orientation, since sexual orientation and sexual identity simply refers to what someone is sexually and emotionally attracted to. That means to call someone gay or straight has meaning regardless of how that person actually behaves and acts since such terms refer to the inner characteristic of one's nature. Or to put it another way, the identity label "gay" tells you necessarily what someone desires, not necessarily how someone acts. The identity label "vegan" necessarily tells you how someone acts, not necessarily how someone desires. Therefore, your analogy is doubly flawed.

Of course, I'm not entirely sure what your objection is here, whether you are saying that gay Christians simply can't exist and form a group or that gay Christians who form a group around a positive view of their gay identity are somehow violating their Christian principles. The former is absurd and latter is debatable.

"Orientation" is a myth. Human beings, as a sexually-reproducing species, are biologically programmed to be heterosexual by nature. Top biologists, geneticists, psychologists, and behaviorists across the globe have tried, and FAILED, to conclusively prove the existence of any kind of homosexual "X factor." There is no singular aspect possessed solely by homosexuals with which anyone could say "if you have ___, you will be gay." We've proven common genetics for skin color, plain and simple "if you have ___ gene sequence, you will have pale skin. Period." Same for eye color, hair color, even one's potential for intelligence, muscle development, and yes, even certain psychological conditions have been linked to genetics.

The best the pro-LGBT can lean on is "influences." A man with Klinefelter's Syndrome, for example (that is, having the "normal" male XY chromosome pair, plus an additional X chromosome) is said to be "more inclined" to be gay not because Klinefelter's alters their orientation, but because it general manifests itself through 1) impotence, 2) infertility, 3) short stature, 4) slight frame/build, and 5) delicate features. To put it simply, it gives a man a stereotypically "feminine" figure while adversely affecting his "performance as a man." But this is only an "influence," as I said before. Considering I know a man with Klinefelter's and his compulsion to whistle at a woman passing by in a tight skirt could wake him out of a coma, it's safe to say it is absolutely NOT a "guarantee."

Furthermore if homosexuality is NOT a choice, well my friend you have a few MILLION former homosexuals to track down and tell them they've got it all wrong, that they CAN'T choose to walk away from the lifestyle.

Lastly, my "objection" is the hypocrisy of it all, or perhaps the proper term is "oxymoron." Being vegetarian would be limited to one's diet, yes. Vegans, at least every one I have ever heard of, encountered, or know of, do not simply abstain from eating animals and "animal byproducts" (i.e. cheese, milk, etc.), they also refrain from using ANYTHING that in any way comes from animals, including but not limited to hide, horns, hooves, teeth, etc. So a proclaimed Vegan who eats steak and actively supports the purchase of leather products (That is, products made from the hide of animals raised and slaughtered for said hide)..., well I'll leave it up to you. Would you call that an "oxymoron" (combining two terms that are contextually opposite )or would you call that out-and-out hypocrisy (claiming to adhere to one belief while actively practicing an opposing belief)?

The Bible clearly (and unquestionably) defines homosexuality as a sin. One thing that sets homosexuality apart from other sins is that it is a lifestyle sin. Telling a lie is a single act of sin. Lying so often even YOU don't know the truth any more is another matter entirely. To live the homosexual lifestyle is to be in constant rebellion and denial against God's expressed will and design for humanity, that woman was made for man, and man was made for woman. I don't see how you feel embracing the homosexual lifestyle coinciding with violating one's Christian beliefs is "debatable." Would you say it was "debatable" if I claimed a pacifist would compromise his beliefs by beating another person to a bloody pulp, even if it was done to keep that person from committing an even more severe act of violence?

If this post do have "like" button, I would totally press it! I would agreed that gay is a choice for many. Feelings are feelings, let's say it's might have been used by the devil to trick someone into many people being tricked in wanting to be gay?

Your analysis of the psychological and scientific literature on sexual orientation is entirely wrong. I'm not sure what discredited 1950's sources you're referring to but no credible scholar in the relevant fields would take your suggestion that sexual orientation is a myth seriously. You are correct that sexual orientation hasn't been pinned down to a single gene or even a set of genes. However, predominate hypothesis in the scientific community is that sexual orientation is an epigenetic phenomenon, an emergent property resulting of environmental influences acting on gene expression. The fact that scientists haven't pinned down a specific, formulaic natural cause for sexual orientation does not take away from the very clear empirical and phenomenological experience that strongly suggests sexual orientation is, for most people, not voluntary and is determined by forces that are not within one's power to control. Even if science determined without question that homosexuality has a specific natural cause, you would simply deny the scientific evidence in favor of your own interpretation of scripture as you have already proven with your denial of evolution (and if I remember correctly, you basically confessed as much). We do know quite confidently that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, even if we don't know the exact source for it, as it has been well documented in thousands of animal species. The notion that complex biological organisms are programmed to seek out exclusively heterosexual relations is demonstrably false. There are some species, such as giraffes, that actually engage in homosexual relations more often than heterosexual ones and bonobos and dolphins regularly engage in both homosexual sex and homosexual pair-bonding. God has clearly programmed homosexuality into nature. It's observable.

As for the so-called millions of homosexuals that have converted to normative heterosexuality, they don't exist. Investigations into the discredited reparative/conversion therapy show that most of the individuals who claim to have been turned or "healed" straight never lost their homosexual desires or inclinations. They have abandoned the lifestyle and forced themselves to pursue a straight life but their sexual orientation did not fundamentally change. And for every alleged "convert" to heterosexuality, there are a dozen more who tried as hard as they could to be "straight" and nothing changed. You of course will not acknowledge the existence of such people I'm sure. If God really hated the fact that people were gay, you would think the "pray the gay away" method would have a better success rate.

I do not agree that the Bible clearly and unquestionably defines homosexuality universally and in all circumstances and expressions as a sin. Moreover, I have never heard a compelling argument presented by a Christian that shows God has good reason to condemn it without making God's decision to do so arbitrary and unjust.

To be honest, we're humans. Not animals. All animals can get sick and die from being in the sinful world. So it makes sense for animals to have sins, but they cannot do reasons like humans do. They cannot speak human words. We humans have the power to control all of the animals on earth. With then power of knowledge and tools. It's very silly in trying to compare humans to animals. Animals cannot go to heaven or hell like so many humans do.

I would rather be careful with scientific stuff, because those are looking too deep into sinful human nature. Those are man made writings. Not written by the god himself. What if god never wanted us to use scientific proofs to prove that gay cannot be pray away, That cannot be "healed" in some ways? That god actually planted the "evolution" as a joke? To warn us of the psychological and scientific literature on homosexuals? Devil could be using "evolution", and the idea that gay should do gay things with the help from the science guys.

I'm sure god allowed those to test the faith. If god programmed homosexuality into nature and it is natural like many animals you said, it doesn't means that we should all act out on it. I'm guessing he only use them as trials, where many sinners have to learn to overcome it, work around it. Understanding we're not perfect. To become better christians and needing jesus to save us from it. But not to act out on it. All christians don't have to be straight, but it doesn't mean they can be gay as well too. It's how I see it.

Faith, are not meant to be based on science proof. It's for every person to make a choice, on what to believe with their own faith.

"To be honest, we're humans. Not animals."

In the biological, scientific sense of the word "animal" yes we are animals. We are descended from animals. We carry animal DNA and we bear the markers of our primal past. We have animal urges and needs. It is fair to say that we are not JUST animals but we are indeed animals. I would describe us as spiritual or rational animals.

"All animals can get sick and die from being in the sinful world. So it makes sense for animals to have sins, but they cannot do reasons like humans do."

You've contradicted yourself here. Sin requires the ability to rationally choose between right and wrong and the capacity for free will. Yet you say animals don't have this. If they don't they cannot sin. Either animals have free will and sin, or they do not have free will and do not sin. And as far as animals not having an afterlife, that is not a biblical viewpoint. The Bible is unclear as to what happens to souls of animals after they die (and yes the Bible does say that animals have souls) and I see nothing in Christian theology that precludes the possibility.

"I would rather be careful with scientific stuff, because those are looking too deep into sinful human nature. Those are man made writings. Not written by the god himself. What if god never wanted us to use scientific proofs to prove that gay cannot be pray away, That cannot be "healed" in some ways?"

This would imply that God has intentionally deceived us by making the entire physical world appear radically different than it actually is. Such deception is contrary to the nature of God and a violation of His goodness. Moreover, such a belief would lead to extreme skepticism and we would have no reason to trust anything or think that we have any knowledge whatever since our observational senses would be completely unreliable. This view would lead to the collapse of knowledge. You might say that we would have the Word of God still but the Word comes to us in a book. If our eyes and other senses are not instrumental in understanding the world around us, then that would including reading the Bible. We would have no reason to believe that the text on the pages wasn't an illusion or a lie by God or some other supernatural power.

"If god programmed homosexuality into nature and it is natural like many animals you said, it doesn't means that we should all act out on it."

That's true. However, such a fact destroys any argument against homosexuality that appeals to "nature" or natural order or natural teleology which is what Zaffy was appealing to. It also destroys the argument that homosexuality is nothing more than a chosen behavior rather than a natural component of one's immutable nature. However, once you have established that homosexuality is not fundamentally against God's biological plan, then it becomes increasingly difficult to find a basis for why homosexuality is bad.

Sorry for butting in.

Point 1: On the 'animality' of human beings.

Classic definitions of human beings have always recognized that we were of the genus 'animal', especially if you look at the Latin formulations. "Anima" means soul. "Animal" is used to refer to that which has a soul and isn't a plant. Plants have souls of a kind as well, but they're not called animals, and that intrigues me, but it's beside the point. The 'differentia' or 'specific difference' is that we human beings are rational. Reason is that part which makes us like God, in His image and likeness. What are commonly called 'animals' but are more accurately called 'brutes' or 'dumb beasts' (dumb referring to the fact they don't speak) do not have the ability to reason. They are, as St. Thomas said, driven by their appetites, not their reason. This is why man is called a 'rational animal', as it is in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (c. 350 B.C.), Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy (c. A.D. 524), and St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica (c. A.D. 1265).

Long story short, yes humans are animals, but the science of philosophy figured this out long before it's offshoot of Natural Philosophy (currently called Science, or at it's best Science!) said anything of the sort. Your point that humans are animals, then, is correct.

Point 2: On the ability of animals to sin.

As sin requires free will (Catechism of the Catholic Church or CCC 1732), and is characterized as an offense against "reason, truth, and right conscience" (CCC 1849), then animals cannot sin. this is because animals do not have free will, being ruled by their appetites, and because they do not have reason as mentioned above, and because they do not have the ability to apprehend truth, and neither do they have consciences.

Point 3: On whether animals survive death, or have an afterlife.

St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, argues against it. That said, it's open for debate. The common position is that as the soul of the non-rational animals are considered to be material, they do not survive the death of the body. The spiritual, rational soul of man does survive death.

Point 4: On whether 'science' is a legitimate means of understanding the state of the human soul, and it's betterment.

As Theology is classically understood as the 'Queen of the Sciences', and a specific branch of Theology called Ascetical Theology is the science of sanctification and thus perfection of the soul, science in the broad sense is a valid means of studying and improving the soul of man. If 'science' is taken in a narrow sense to mean 'natural sciences' or 'natural philosophy', then the sciences of psychology and biology can, rightly applied, tell us if there is a mental or genetic cause for same-sex attraction and if there is a means of correcting the disorder.

Point 5: On God's creation of those who experience homosexual tendencies.

God creates and sustains all things that are. If homosexual tendencies are, as is classically thought, a disorder rather than a positive experience, then God did not create the homosexual tendencies of a person but instead permitted or willed that the person be deprived of a properly-ordered sexuality. The reasons for God doing this are known to God alone, but this is not different from God permitting the disorder of a person's body or mind in some other capacity. If, then, God wills (either by permissive or active will) that a man or woman be attracted to someone of the same sex, which would be evident by the fact that the person does experience these feelings, this does not prove in any way that God approves of homosexual action or that the person 'is gay'. Rather, it can be just as rationally, if not more so, understood as a disorder. This was the position of the Church Fathers in the early centuries of the Christian Faith, as well as the entirety of Christianity until a very short time ago. It is still the position of those Christians who hold to the tradition passed on to them by the Church.

Really, really well said.

*Applause*

But if I may add about homosexuality, it may be a result of a glitch in the assimilation of body and soul, if you will. The body, being material, is inherently dirty anyway.

To reiterate, maybe the body of a homosexual man in really just inhabited by a homosexual/feminine soul/dæmon, hence the idea that it's not a choice, and hence they tend to experience these feelings during their childhood.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Still, I'd be careful about your premises. The material world isn't itself an evil or 'dirty', as you say. That's the problem Zoroastrianism, Manicheaism, and Gnosticism all had. God made the material world and declared it good. The body, therefore, is good. It can be used for evil purposes, but so can spirit. In fact, the supreme evil, Satan himself, is a purely spiritual creature with no body. Also, the Incarnation means that God the Son now has a body, and since nothing evil can be united to God, we can see that the body is not evil per se.

The idea that the a human male body may be inhabited by a 'homosexual', 'feminine', or 'daemonic' soul is a false, but it's a common error. The reasons for this are as follows:

1.) God, being the one who creates man, does not make mistakes or glitches. Thus there can be no mistake in assigning soul to body. We must understand that each soul is with the body proper to it.

2.) Classically understood, man is not a soul with a body. Instead, man is an embodied soul. Man is, in other words a body-soul composite. It's only when Decartes comes in that people started to think of man as a "soul in a machine". As an extension of this idea, the soul is the formal cause* of the body, which is why one can neither exchange their body for another nor can they change their gender simply by mutilating the body to look like the opposite sex.

3.) God does not create a soul, then a body, and unite them together. Rather, both soul and body come into existence at the same time, as a single unit. This means there is no opportunity for a scramble. Even Jesus Christ's human soul came into existence with his human body.

4.) Angels and Demons are creatures of pure spirit that were created before the material world. They do not have physical forms, nor are they able to attach themselves to human bodies in such a way as to replace the soul of a human. Thus there are no demons who are, mistakenly or otherwise, glitched into human bodies. Suggesting that homosexuals are actually demons in human form is also highly insulting to them. I don't think you mean that, so let's drop that idea.

5.) Again, homosexual attraction and action being against the Natural Law, which is the law that governs our nature as human beings, we cannot understand any soul to be itself homosexual. A man with homosexual tendencies suffers from a disorder of some sort, much as the one who suffers from bestiality or polyamory. This is why there are those who have gone from the natural erotic love between man and woman to the disordered erotic love between two people of the same gender, and visa versa.

*The term "Formal Cause" comes from Aristotle, and is one of the Four Causes in classical philosophy. A quick example would be the Four Causes of a cookie. The Formal Cause of a cookie is the recipe. The Material Cause, or stuff it's made out of, is the ingredients that make up the batter. The Efficient Cause, or person who made the thing, is the Baker. The Final Cause, or the final purpose of the cookie, is to be eaten.

Regarding point 4, when I refer to dæmons, (as opposed to demons), I use the term in it's classical sense (I guess outdated now :/), that is the spirit form, and not necessarily evil.

That being said, I do want to elaborate on this topic. If a demonic or pure spirit form cannot inhabit a human body, can they still have an effect on human behavior? I also want to know either your take on succubi or other sexually active demonic forces. You say God cannot err and that the soul and body are paired specifically, but still could there be an opposing force (Satan, if you will), which could interfere with this process?

Secondarily, God does not err, but these sexual disorders still come to be and contradict the law as it was written. If this is purely a problem with the material of the body, which God saw was good, how can this come to be? Considering that sex is a chemical impulse, like apatite, and that all material is mortal, this inherently makes material dirty and evil, but I guess this is advocating a Gnostic outlook.

I just want to ask you two more questions (I hope you could explain these ;) cause you're a very bright mind and I love your well researched words)

1. Do you believe in free will?
2. How can you explain the presence of evil in a world created by a good God?

I thank you graciously again for your kind words. I also thank you for cluing me in to the daemon tradition of the ancient Greeks. You learn something new every day. The classics are never outdated, just misunderstood or ignored.

To clear things up, there are no pure spirit forms except God and the Angels. The Angels are divided into those called Angels, and those who have chosen eternal enmity with God and become what we call demons. There are no neutral parties, and nobody can change sides anymore.

According to wiki the Greeks believed that humans could be driven to hysterics or suicide by evil daemons. Likewise the Church would say that both Angels and Demons can affect human behavior, even to the point of demonic possession as shown in The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Additionally, angels and demons can read human thought. The possession and telepathy are only possible, however, if the human in question allows it. An example of this is that when a Christian prays to his Guardian Angel (a good habit that should be done often) for help or guidance, the Angel does not need you to say it out loud. You're implicitly giving consent to the Angel to read your thoughts. Likewise, Exorcists in the Church have identified ways in which you open yourself up to demonic oppression. I won't go into those for the sake of not wanting too cause scandal.

As lust is a very powerful vice, one which has even stricken down holy souls, it's certain to be used by the Devil. Demons, like all Angels, have the ability to assume physical forms in some fashion, even human form, as Holy Writ attests. Many times these forms are to deceive or to terrify, but I don't doubt that they can be used to drag souls to Hell through a 'good lay'.

God cannot err, this is true. The soul and body are one unit that cannot be separated except temporarily by that unnatural thing called Death. Satan cannot interfere with the metaphysics of the matter, that the soul and body are one. Satan supposedly could, if allowed by God, interfere with the soul or body in such a way that it's disordered, but I should be doubtful if someone said 'I'm gay because the Devil made me that way.' More likely is the human condition of Original Sin and the very real brokenness that accompanies both body and soul because of it. So in that way, even if there were congenital mental or physical causes for, say, homosexual attractions, that doesn't prove homosexual actions are licit. It also means that even if there's some aspect of the mind that causes trangenderism in a person, they are still their genetic sex. Also, there's no way that Satan nor any other force could move replace a soul from creation, or swap souls between bodies at creation, or anything like that. Does that get at your meaning?

The disorder comes to be because both body and soul suffer the effects of Original Sin. Sexual disorders generally have a cause in the soul (which includes the intellect, the will, and the passions), and as such are spiritual and moral disorders. That means they wouldn't be material in the sense you're using the word. Those few sexual disorders which are caused by physical, material means can be split into two kinds: the congenital and the acquired. The acquired disorders may be because of some accident that damaged the brain, a drug addiction, a pornography addiction, etc. Congenital disorders may come about in the same way that Down's Syndrome or other congenital maladies that effect mind and/or body come about. Neither contradicts that the human person, body and soul, were made good. In Latin there's a phrase, abusus non tollit usus, which means "abuse doesn't negate legitimate use". In the same way, the fact that there is physical evil in the material world doesn't negate that the world is ontologically or metaphysically good. It certainly doesn't follow that the material world is morally evil.

Sex is far more than a physical appetite, sex is a divine gift from God that has vast spiritual and physiological effects. That sort of total unity of two selves naturally involves the body and soul of the couple, engaging both. However, even if we granted that it was merely chemical, and that material is mortal, it doesn't follow that material is dirty and evil. Those two premises don't lead to that conclusion.

I certainly do believe in Free Will, not merely because the Church teaches so, but because I chose to put on black socks this morning rather than white ones.

Theodicy is difficult. I can give a general principle or two. This question is valid because evil certainly exists, and so does God. I think it's made a little easier by Free Will. It at least gives us and the Angels the leeway to choose to do evil. But really, it comes down to why? I'd posit that it's because finite creatures like Angels and Humans tend to be insane and prideful. Why is that, if God made us morally and metaphysically good? I don't know. That's where the insanity comes in. God lovingly provided us with everything we need for an eternity of perfect satisfaction, but we blow it because we think we know better. Every day we choose to do something evil because we think it'll turn out okay. Why? We're nuts. This is why Chesterton, when asked "What's wrong with the World?" said "I am."

Already, kid, let's burst a few bubbles. First, we'll destroy your ignorance about "homosexual animals." Sorry, but no. Ignorant people (like you) try to force human attributes and mind-frames on animals to further their liberal agenda. But, for my own amusement, let's delve into the three basic scenarios that all "homosexual animal behavior" falls into.

Observe the whale. Males will travel together for companionship, sometimes for years. Many ignorant people call this a "homosexual partnership," but it is neither sexual nor permanent. When EITHER male finds a suitable female for a mate, the "bromance" ends. This is not homosexuality. This is a wingman. Sorry, bro, no homo.

Observe the monkeys. A communal unit living and traveling together. As with any such unit, there will be moments of tension, aggression, fighting within the group. After such fights there is a "make-up" ritual that may (or may not) include genital stroking and other such affections to help facilitate the easing of tensions. Ignorant people call this "homosexual behavior." They are wrong. The purpose is to ease tempers, not to arouse each other to sexual passion. To draw a proper (if unlikely) human-behavior analogy, it would be like frat boys having a circle-jerk after a fight broke out due to somebody telling a few too many "yo mama" jokes. This is not a "homosexual relationship," and quite frankly, passing around the bananas accomplishes the same task.

Third and final scenario: observe the wolf pack. One asserts their dominance and position in the pack by subjugating the lesser members. Many ignorant people refer to this as "homosexual behavior." Run it through the filter and view it in human terms and what we have here is the equivalent of prison rape. It's not about the sex, really. It's merely a matter of showing who is the "top dawg" in the most humiliating way possible.

So yea, there's your "gay animals" argument. Any of that crap sound like something you really want to emulate? Yea, didn't think so.

Oh, and by the way, I know several former homosexuals. Some have abstained from relationships entirely, it's true. Most are happily married, some even have families and they know that that is something they could NEVER have had with their "partners." Because, you know, biology.

Why doesn't that make sense?

Sure it does. Given that sexual orientation (which is at base just the preference and desire within one's nature for a certain kind of sexual partner) is non-volitional and usually determined by factors outside of one's control or responsibility, it should not be surprising that there Christians who also happen to be gay. There is no explicit contradiction between both terms, even if you believe that homosexuality is immoral or whatever. It is no more absurd for there to be gay Christians as there are to be male Christians, black Christians, Canadian Christians, blond Christians, tall Christians, etc.

Male, black, blonde, tall, all factors PROVEN by genetics (or in the case of Canadian, location of one's residence/birth). Homosexuality: absolutely ZERO conclusive evidence, much less PROOF, or it being linked to any single factor. Pure conjecture and strawman theories of what amounts to "well, this MIGHT, combined with several other inconclusive factors, possibly be an INFLUENCE that COULD lead a man to THINK he finds other men attractive."

The closest the LGBT community has to a "born this way" excuse is if they accept it as a psychological disorder which these behaviors were classified as. The full gamut of LGBT behavior was diagnosed as being a form of arrested development, or in some cases, full-blown delusions deemed to be no different than a grown man believing he's a refridgerator, or the woman who is utterly convinced she's actually a cat. That is, until the 70s, when a lesbian heard "psychological disorder" and, in her ignorance, translated it as "you're nutso, crazy,, a total mental case who should be locked away" and took it upon herself to petition for homosexuality to be removed from the APA's list of clinically diagnosed psychological disorders. You see, it was not a breakthrough in psychological diagnosis, no "new evidence," no contradictory test results, nothing substantial of any kind disproving the classification. It was purely a result of "political pressure" spurred by an offense born in ignorance.

None of that is relevant. The reason I compare sexual orientation to physical traits is to express the idea that sexual orientation is just as involuntary as one's physical traits. We have no more control over our sexual orientation than we do over the color of our skin or how tall we are. The precise source is not relevant. What is relevant is what kind of agency we have in relation to something. We can only be held morally responsible for decisions that we have control over and for consequences that we have willfully determined.

Your accusations about how homosexuality came to be excluded from the list of mental illnesses is also irrelevant and your argument here commits the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is the attempt to invalidate a belief or prove it false based on how it originated or how the person holding it came to believe it. Even if it's the case that the removal of homosexuality from the list of disorders was due to political agendas or whatever, the evidence since then has confirmed that decision as the right one. The questionable origins of homosexuality's clinical acceptance does nothing to show that such acceptance is wrong.

But that is exactly what I"m saying. Being homosexual is NOT involuntary. Again, millions of EX homosexuals. How many "ex-blacks" do you know? How many people, through prayer, counseling, or sheer willpower, purged themselves of their African genetic heritage? Skin color, facial features, etc.? None, that's how many. I reiterate, MILLIONS of FORMER homosexuals. Excuse my frustration but don't freakin' tell me it's not a choice.

Secondly, there is no fallacy in pointing out that there is NO genetic link to homosexuality. Hair color: genetic, literally EVERY FREAKING PERSON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD who has brown hair has the SAME EXACT GENETIC SEQUENCE that has determine that their hair will be brown. Eye color: genetic, literally EVERY PERSON IN THE ENTIRE FREAKING WORLD who has blue eyes has the EXACT SAME GENETIC SEQUENCE determining their eye color will be blue.

Homosexuals? Nothing. Zippo. Nada. Zero. Goose-egg. Absolutely NO common genetic link to even SUGGEST that homosexuality is an inherent trait. None. You following so far? There is NOTHING that says gays are "born that way" except for gays CLAIMING that they're "born that way" because it's a convenient excuse that removes all personal accountability.

So let's pull your head up out of the dirt and practice this little thing called "critical thinking." If THIS sexual orientation that you seem to be okay with is "purely involuntary" and they have no choice, they can't fight it, and thus we should all just accept it and let them live their lives their way. Problem: what about the orientations that you do NOT agree with? What about the people who are attracted to children? Animals? The dead? The woman who sued for the right to marry a ROLLER COASTER because she felt "sexually attracted" to "him." "Him" being an inanimate object. According to you, she should have that "right." And likewise grown men should be allowed to marry 8 year old girls, and women who want to marry their dogs should be allowed to do so, and while we're at it add polygamy, rape, and for argument's sake arsonists, murderers, kleptomaniacs, they're all "born that way" and "just can't help themselves" and you want to know something funny? All of THOSE "traits" have MORE evidence to suggest their inherent nature than homosexuality. Did you wrap your head around that? Take a moment. There is more GENETIC EVIDENCE to suggest someone is born a KILLER than to suggest they are born homosexual. So we should turn loose all the murderers from the prison system because "it's just in their DNA, it's purely involuntary."

The problem with your...well I can't even call it "logic" because it is illogical, the problem with your way of thinking is that there is ALWAYS a choice. Even if you put a gun to someone's head they still have the option to say "no." A so-called "inherent homosexual" still very much has the choice NOT to live that lifestyle. Just as an alcoholic (if you call it a "disease" you can just stop talking right now) has the choice NOT to go to a bar, NOT to pick up that bottle, NOT to accept that invitation for "a few beers while we watch the game." There is always a choice.

The flame war here really has gone far and beyond my vocabulary, but before I head off on my end, I just wanted to say a few things.

- Your comment on atheism, about it being a choice for many LGBT people to "do whatever you want. IF it feels good, it IS good" and Christianity "Being a Christian means DOING good, no matter the cost.".
For some reason I cannot wrap my head around this comment. Atheism more or less means "the lack of belief in a deity". So does the lack of fearing God suddenly make me as an person more irresponsible than an devout Christian? An society doesn't magically turn better when the belief in God is introduced. We as humans still have moralities, the fundamental basic ideas of what is good and bad. I don't have to believe in the Bible to know that killing a person generally is a very bad thing to do. On the same twist, Christianity is a gateway for many people to spout out their anger with the excuse of "Its written in the book. I am just enforcing the gospel of the loving God". That is their idea of DOING good, but its only harming people. What is needed is actual critical thinking on the matter when it comes to deciding whether an action will lead to good or bad.

- I will not contribute to the argument whether homosexuality is a choice or not, though I still wonder why I cannot suddenly start loving a roller coaster because I feel like it. Can a straight man suddenly start loving another man out of simple choice?
What I will note though that your comparison of homosexuality with people loving the dead, animals or children is terrible. Lets say all of them were proven to be "born that way". Its still should be the right for homosexuals to live their lives that way and be accepted in the society, because the differences with heterosexuality are minimal at best. Animals, children, dead or roller coasters are a very different thing, since its proclaiming love to something that more or less doesn't understand the meaning of it. Applying basic logic of "This love is alright when its between adults that understand the commitment" is not that difficult. A murderer or an rapist should be set free because "its purely involuntary"? Imprisonment is an act of punishment. Whether or not the person has the genetic background to commit murder more likely than another person, doesn't mean it should be used as an excuse for the act. An man born with psychopaths genes can live a life without ever committing evil.

Also, these"MILLIONS of FORMER" homosexuals could just be bi-sexual by birth, but have settled to the "straight lifestyle" after social pressure? I know gay people who never could turn "straight" or vice versa, no matter how hard you say to them that it is a choice. I do agree that explaining homosexual tendencies with genetics purely can be fishy, but at the same time calling it just a "choice"is an very narrow view. Homosexuals are still oppressed around the world because they cannot "choose not to be gay". If an society is naturally hostile towards homosexuals, then why do these cases still arise? Wouldnt it just be simple for the homosexuals of those places to just turn straight and avoid the social stigma?

- Quick question: apart from Godly principles, how does one define morality? Who says what is truly right and truly wrong? You? Me? And who the heck are we to decide? Murder. Forcefully ending the life of another human being against their will. It's absolutely wrong, correct? You might say killing any person is wrong. I might say if I kill that one man over there, I will save the lives of a family of five he was plotting to burn alive in their home. I might say if I kill that other man over there, the new legislation he was about to push through that would cause thousands to lose their homes will die with him. If I kill this woman, she'l never get another kid hooked on crack. If I kill these people, the lives of thousands of others will be improved. I could make a very compelling case for why killing one person is the path to moral superiority. Who is right? The law says it is wrong to steal. A mean takes scrap copper from an abandoned building being demolished to sell for scrap so he can feed his family. The police lock him away on a petty theft charge and his family is left to starve. But let's get back on topic. Homsoexuality. I say it's morally wrong, pure and simple. Others say it's perfectly acceptable, that it's not a moral issue at all. Who is right? If there is no "higher power," than morality itself is completely subjective. To put it simply, "what is right for me is right for me even if you think it's wrong." How far does that go? Where does it end? Who gets to say? The simple fact of the matter is our most fundamental concept of morality COMES from religious belief. Here in America what we have come to accept as "basic human morality" was handed down from our CHRISTIAN forefathers, who used the Bible as the starting point for writing our laws. Now, are there those who abuse that belief? The zealots who take ideas to ridiculous extremes? Certainly. That is true of anything. That is why I believe in and follow CHRIST, not other Christians. I judge my belief and my relative "goodness" (such as it is) according to Him, not those who claim to follow Him. Take God out of the equation (atheism), and who do you have to define morality? No one, that's who. Basic human morality? Have you LOOKED at the world lately?

- I will follow our question with a question of my own: why couldn't you, or that straight man in your hypothetical scenario, suddenly decide he's attracted to little 8-year old girls? You try to dance around it, but you can't really explain this "difference." There are 200+ countries in this world. Do you know how many definitions of a "legally competent, consenting adult" there are in THIS country alone? According to 11 states, you must be 18 to be considered a mature, sensible, competent adult. In 8 other states you only have to be 17. 31 states say you only have to be 16. Ohio, for example, is one of several states in which you are considered "old enough to understand this commitment" at age 16, UNLESS neither you nor your intended partner are OLDER than 18, in which case you are old enough to understand this commitment at age THIRTEEN. But if your intended partner is 19 and you're 13, suddenly you'e too young to understand this commitment and your partner goes to jail for statutory rape. Do a little "globe trotting" and the pattern continues. Some say 18, some say 16, many say 13, quite a few use the ambiguous "puberty" (which varies from individual to individual), some say you have to be married (but there are varying ideas of what "eligible age to marry" is, as well). But that's not the important detail here. The important detail here is that just FIVE years ago, the U.S. was unanimous that the age of consent is 18. The legal definition of "old enough to understand this commitment" CHANGED, and can change again, just as the legal definition of MARRIAGE changed.

- And Part B to that conversation, yes, imprisonment is a punishment. A punishment for what one group claims is wrong, whether another group agrees or not. Not that long ago it was illegal for gays to marry. Now it's legal. If the trend mentioned in "Part A" continues, what was once branded "pedophilia" would be considered legal. Actually, by technicality, it already is. There are a large number of people sitting in jail right now serving 15-30 years for sleeping with 16/17 year old "kids" a few years back. Today, depending on the state they live in, what was a "horrendous, despicable, heinous, monstrous act of depravity" is completely legal and acceptable now. There are many people, both as individuals and as collective organizations, petitioning for the legal age of consent to be lowered across the board and that those currently serving sentences for statutory offenses should be freed "because they're born this way and can't help themselves." And speaking of that phrase, pardon me, but you're being a hypocrite. Big time. Homosexuals can't help themselves because they're "born that way" so we should "let them be themselves" regardless of our moral opinion on their actions, "because they just can't help themselves," but people who actually have GENETIC PROOF that they actually ARE born that way, "well, they still have the choice not to commit these criminal/morally wrong acts." Which is it, because it cannot be both. Either they are ALL "born that way," "can't help themselves," and should be let to their own devices, OR, they have a choice, and must fall in line with proper moral principles. You can't have it both ways.

- So a "bisexual" person can be "pressured" to "turn" straight, but a "gay" person could not possibly be trapped in that lifestyle by similar pressure? And by your own logic, it has to be a choice. If a person born with genetic coding imbalances that MAKE them incapable of making rational, moral, compassionate decisions "can live a lie without ever committing evil," then no matter what, excuse me but BULLSHIT excuses you can come up with for why a person "is gay," they have absolutely no reason why they can't choose not to live that lifestyle.

Oh, and I'll give you a big tip right here: do NOT talk to a Christian about "if it was a choice, why would they choose the life that leads to oppression." Are you familiar with the Roman Empire? More specifically, are you aware of the history between Christians and the Roman Empire? Let me give you a brief recap: if you claimed to be Christian, would not deny being a Christian, or someone just happened to point a finger your way and said "Look, A Christian!" you got dragged off by Roman soldiers, locked in a cell in the Coliseum, and fed to lions for the amusement of the locals at their leisure. Do NOT fucking talk to ME, as a Christian, about how gays are so "oppressed" and how it could not possibly be a choice because "nobody would choose to be oppressed." Are you saying a Christian wouldn't have the choice to shake their head? To lie and say "no, I'm not a Christian?" To outright renounce their faith to spare their lives? Are you going to be that ignorant? Social stigma? Are you kidding me right now? THAT is a more dire consequence than being literally hunted down, arrested, and thrown, unarmed, into a LITERAL DEATHTRAP?! Yea...don't use that excuse. That's about as stupid as the whole "Gay is the new black" bullshit. NO ship captained and crewed by heterosexuals set sail to Rainbowqueertopia, shoved five hundred homosexuals into the hull of their ship like sardines, sailed back to Straightlandia and enslaved them for centuries and THEN, after fighting a civil war, set them free but still treated them like second-rate human beings for another hundred years.

Critical thinking. Maybe you should stop TALKING about it and try APPLYING it.

- Morality indeed is a tricky question that I have been pondering over with similar questions you wrote, hence I wont comment over it since the answer really is too diverse.
What I will say though is that the fundamental tenets of morality were written in the Bible but were not born from it. Even animals show moral choices between wrong and right. It might not be as sophisticated or "deep" as we perceive it, but choices still remain choices and are equally important.
Morals have always existed in human societies because they are learned behaviors from basic human influences. Morals hardly differ from different societies around the world.
I grew in a non-religious household and I hold equally much moral stance as you do. If you judge your morals according to His will, then good for you, if it steers you in the right path. But taking Him out of the equation shouldn't make you an less morally right being. The lack of morals doesnt come from the lack of religion, but rather the lack of empathy. If you are an asshole and a christian, it still makes you an asshole.

- Your long explanation over mature ages really baffles me with how long it is. You didn't even answer my question, but I can ask it again. Why I, a 20 year old man, cannot simply choose to start loving a 8 year old girl? Its equally easy as to why I love my boyfriend. Because I feel attracted to the man, but the 8 year old does not attract me at all. Its just basic instinct, of what triggers nerves in the brain to cause that feeling of attraction. Equally a gay man couldnt start loving a woman, because his mind rejects such an notion. Its simple chemistry really when you think about it. All love is chemistry, not that I choose to feel attracted towards someone because I made my mind so. If you think otherwise, then do go on and love that 8 year old girl "that way".

- Here a man got an worse judgement for killing a gerbil than a man who molested a child. I know, it is fucked up, but laws are hardly perfect and quite fucked up in all continents.
Cant all people be born "that way" and fall in line with proper moral principles? A man is diagnosed that he has an attraction towards young people, but that doesn't mean we should put him under surveillance because of this. Only if he does the morally wrong act of sodomizing the 8 year old girl, then he should be held accountable for his actions. Same with psychopaths. The woman who loves an roller coaster doesn't do anything morally wrong, but simply cannot marry the said roller coaster because the machine cannot sign an marriage contract. Funnily beastiality is something thats not extremely wrong if the animal in question is consenting with the person. Its just that our society has placed an stigma over it and calls it wrong.
Otherwise, it doesn't hurt anybody else. Please dont start typing at me for how I supposedly love beastiality.
Again, we are talking about morality. You can oppose homosexuality for your moral decisions, but I only want to ask why? Why do you find homosexuality morally offensive towards you?
You cannot compare a man or a woman loving a same sex partner to an person loving an dog or a small child. You are only judging it wrong because you dont like the idea of two men or women getting close "that way". Marriage was not the original creation of christianity and while it has originally been an union between a man and a woman, the social benefits it includes should not be denied from same sex marriages. And in all honesty some gay couples do just want to get married together in this "holy union" because they feel their love is true with their religion. If God of that religion condemns that, then he is an surprisingly judgmental God.

- I do agree that a gay person can choose to live a straight lifestyle, but it doesnt mean the said person wouldnt still hold attraction towards men and not have any towards women. There is always the choice but we as an society must dictate if that choice in particular is morally condemnable. While therapy for turning "gay" people into "straight" people has worked for some, it doesnt disqualify the people who have been left harmed from it and who havent turned away from their "evil lifestyles". I am bi-sexual myself so it wouldnt be too hard for me to just renounce my "sin" and start loving women all of the sudden solely, but it wouldn't turn off my attraction towards men. Then I just start placing negative influences over the triggers that hit when I find a man attractive, in which case Id be associating it as an moral sin, which is hilariously stupid to begin with.

We are not talking about christians in the past, like we are not talking about the crusades of faith or witch hunts of the past. I cannot say why a christian back then wouldnt renounce their faith over the threat of their life, but people did tend to be a lot more ignorant back then. The threat of dying soon is squandered when the threat of Hell looms if you do renounce your faith. The bible after all is a tale about sacrifice and threat of damnation for committing a sin.
Today here, you wont get judged for declaring that you are a christian.
But someone will be taking hostile notice if you openly display your homosexuality.
Choosing to believe in something is not the same thing as feeling attracted towards something because your body is saying so.

After reading your story about Rainbowqueertopia I dont even know why I am continuing writing these messages to you. It clearly shows that what ever I write wont be changing your mind and vice versa.

Critical thinking would be me not sending this message, but apparently I cannot apply it well enough. Enjoy.

I'm sorry, but exactly what "morals" do animals show? Many species eat their own young. Many species will kill another animal and steal its nest/burrow/den. Some species mate for life while others jump on literally anything they can mount. Aside from anthropomorphising OUR ideals onto perceived behavior what "morality" do animals show?

And can you prove that morality existed before religion, even if not the Christian religion? And you say that morals around the world "hardly differ." I beg to disagree. I had a rather interesting and enlightening discussion on morality with a young man of the Islamic faith. On the surface he claimed that we had much the same view on moral issues. For example, he said, we both morally oppose senseless killing but at the same time understand that there are certain circumstances in which killing becomes a necessary evil. However, once I dug beneath the surface, it because quickly apparent that our "shared moral code" was anything but. While I viewed "necessary evils" in terms such as described before (i.e. killing one sociopath to save a dozen innocents) he, on the other hand, stated there were only "two" circumstances in which killing was acceptable: revenge (i.e. someone kills a friend or family member, you can kill them "guilt free"), and to stop what he termed as "acts of corruption." When questioned as to what constitutes an "act of corruption" he gave me a list of offenses including but not limited to: singing any song that does not directly exalt Allah, dancing in any way other than in praise of Allah, watching any film/video/youtube clips that do not praise Allah, smiling and/or laughing within a mile of an Islamic temple, following any god/prophet other than Allah/Muhammad, oh, and celebrating Christmas in literally any form or fashion (whether "commercialized" or "Christianized"). I would say our "morals" vary greatly, and that's just comparing to ONE other belief system. Let's not even get into cow-worshipers, child-sacrificers, or those who wholeheartedly believe women were put on this earth to be used, abused, and ultimately discarded by men when they are no longer amusing.

You say you grew up in a "nonreligious environment" but, if I understand your profile correctly, you are from Finland, yes? 75% of the population belongs to the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Here in America, 78% of the population identifies as Christian. I admit that I do not know the national history of Finland as well as I do that of America, so perhaps things are different there, but here our nation was founded by European settlers seeking to establish a nation whose very foundation is rooted in Biblical principles. When it is said that America "is a Christian nation" the title is not based upon popularity but upon the very framework around which this nation was built. It is virtually impossible, short of living in a remote shack with no outside connection, for a person to live in this country and not be exposed, in one form or another, to Christian morality. Our very laws were written according to Christian principles. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution both make frequent and weighty references to the Bible, God, Christianity, and matters of faith, even going so far as to claim that our basic human rights were "endowed by our Creator." So, again, perhaps it is different there in Finland (although I am skeptical) but here, it is impossible to not have one's morals at least partially influenced by Christian principles. When you are born into a society in which the majority believes a certain way, you grow up believing that this is simply "normal." I refer you again to the conversation I had with the young Islamic man. To him, wishing (or enacting) death upon someone for singing a non-praise song was "perfectly normal, moral, and the right thing to do." You can't escape it.

If you believe that love and attraction is merely the result of chemicals firing off in your brain...well quite frankly I pity you. Human beings are far more than the sum total of the chemicals of which they are comprised.

Here's another "morality" question for you: why is it "morally wrong" for that man to sodomize a child, but not to sodomize another man? What is the difference if both pairs are "born that way?"

My objection to homosexuality is multifaceted. Yes, there is the religious/moral objection, certainly. But there is also the simple fact that it is unnatural, no matter how you try to spin it. Genetically there has been absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest a person is "born that way." Speaking strictly in biological terms, humans (homo sapiens) are a sexually-reproducing species and thus, as a necessity, are heterosexual by nature. Neither two men nor two women can produce offspring, thus homosexuality represents to cessation of the genetic line. Taking an evolutionist's point of view for a moment, evolution proclaims that the only purpose to life is to produce offspring better adapted to the world than ourselves, thus strengthening our genetic line and achieving a greater status of dominance over others both within and apart from our own species. With that as the "Gold standard" of evolution, homosexuality (along with infertility, illness, old-age, and anything else that renders one incapable of producing healthy offspring) would be natural selection's way of saying "get the fuck out of the gene pool, you have absolutely nothing of value to contribute." Really, the ONLY school of thought I have found that would, in any way, find homosexuality acceptable is the school of "I do whatever I want, so go blow it out your ass."

If a gay man can live straight, but you feel he shouldn't be forced to do so because it would not be as "fulfilling" a life for him, I would again have to take you back to the previous questions regarding attraction to animals, youths, and/or any other "orientation."

I spoke of Christians in the past because you made that ignorant remark about who being gay couldn't possibly be a choice because if it was, gays would quit being gay to avoid the persecution from their peers. Hell, I wouldn't even give up Pokemon because people talked shit about me for it. People are stubborn. They hold onto what they feel is their identity, even if that "identity" is false. Homosexuality is a psychological disorder, a person believing they are something that they cannot truly be. It is no different than a human being "truly believing" that she is a cat. Her DNA is human. Her features are human. Her physical, mental, and emotional capabilities are human. She wars clothes, cooks her own meals, conducts interviews, takes selfies, has a youtube channel, wears glasses, speaks fluent "human" languages, etc.. It is, quite frankly, pure insanity for someone to believe they are something when all actual, scientific evidence says otherwise.

And the "Rainbowqueertopia" bit was just a rant I find myself going on frequently. I don't know what it's like over there, but here in the States there are so many ignorant people comparing the LGBT "Equality movement" with the African-American Civil Rights movement, claiming that they are exactly the same when, in reality, they have nothing in common.

Critical thinking, in this case, would be to look at some of your arguments and actually follow them all the way through to their logical conclusion. For example, the one I keep hammering away at, "born this way." If gays can be "born this way" and a straights can be "born this way" and that excuse alone is sufficient enough to justify their behavior regardless of how morally objectionable it is to certain groups, then why does that not apply to ALL lifestyles and behaviors that are morally objectionable only to certain groups? Critical thinking would say "if it cannot be applied universally, it cannot be truth." There are groups that would find pedophilia to be "morally acceptable." There are groups that would find killing a man just for spoiling your mood to be "morally acceptable." There are groups that would say it should be "morally acceptable" to run an irritating driver off the road. Critical thinking requires going beyond the surface thought. The world, unfortunately, has too many of what I call "thoughters." A "Thoughter" is a person who gets a single thought (such as "they can't help it, they're born that way), and becomes completely absorbed in that singular thought. What the world needs are THINKERS, because a Thinker would say "if being 'born that way' excuses one behavior that I find offensive, couldn't it just as easily excuse a behavior YOU find offensive?" Or how about the feel-good mantra of "be yourself, and don't let anybody try to change you. You are who you are and if anyone hates you for that, they have a problem, not you." What if "who you are" is a bully? What if "who you are" is a drug addict? Shouldn't they then be allowed to fully embrace their destructive lifestyle because it's "who they are?" Critical thinking. It's a lot mroe complicated than you seem to believe.

I had a long argument written to counter this, but I deleted it because I came to my senses and realized this is just a debate between two opinions. Im only glad that more millenials here in my country are becoming accepting over homosexuals and I can live in a world where no ones religious beliefs can harm my life.

So Im just going to end this here and wish you a good day. ~

I wish I could say the same about millennials and being accepting of Christianity around here, but I can't. Around here politely declining to bastardize your own beliefs for the sake of someone else's trumped-up sense of entitlement, you get labeled a "bigot" accused of committing "hate crimes" and get sued back into the stone-age while these "tolerant" assholes take away your very livelihood, all because you, as a baker, declined to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple and, instead, referred them to a rival baker who you know will offer them a deep discount for the inconvenience of having to go a full half a mile down the road (which actually turned out to be closer to their home, and thus actually saved them travel time). So really, you do them a FAVOR and these asshats blame YOU for them gaining weight, picking up smoking, feeling "emotionally diminished and traumatized," and a slew of other utter BS to the tune of $135,000 plus the loss of your business license, being put on the "watch list," and knowing that IF you ever have a situation like that come up again, your'e going to jail for 10+ years. All because somebody else tried to force THEIR belief on you.

So yea, you keep bitching about religion like it's the real problem around here.

They both are the "real" problems here, mate. Keep on bitching if you feel like it.

Gay weddings are now enforced in all 50 states

Slavery was legal in all 50 states once, too. Legality does not make something right. Neither does popularity, as slavery was also very popular at one time. In mid 20th-century Germany hunting down and killing Jews was both legal and popular. And currently what was once considered "jail bait" is legal in the grater majority of the country. You probably didn't know that. Only 11 states maintain 18 as the legal age of consent. 8 have dropped it to 17, the remaining 31 have reduced it to 16, and in states like Ohio so long as neither partner is OLDER than 18 consent can be given as young as 13. Think about that for a moment. It is legal for a High School junior, senior, possibly even a college freshman if they're "advanced" enough, to sleep with a seventh grader. What happens if (or quite likely WHEN) that age dips even lower nation-wide? Will the legality of it suddenly make it "right" for a 45 year old to jump in bed with a kid 1/3 his age?

But let's tackle this with another approach. Do you attend church? Would you even want to attend church? How would it make you feel if the government made it a federal mandate and you HAD to go to church or else face stiff fines, jail time, and being stripped of various freedoms and privileges and, indeed, your very livelihood? I'm wiling to bet you'd be rather pissed off at being forced to do something you don't want to do nor even agree with, yes?

So what gives anyone the right to tell a Christian pastor that he or she MUST perform a homosexual ceremony? What gives anyone the right to tell a baker he or she MUST cater for a homosexual wedding? The answer is the same as "who has the right to tell you that you absolutely MUST attend church." Nobody.

Yes i do and years back I use to go to church but the reason why I don't becuz the church I go to back then they acted like the pharesses keeper of the law or some mess excuse my bad word and they tell me to cut my hair or force me to how to live my life style and tell me not to wear emo stuff and the worse of all they tell me not to draw and do art this had destroyed my talent skills and I can't draw for years but I did in all of my heart.

Are you bashing on Christians? It looks like you just looking down on other Christians, I know that underage marriage wad legal back in those days. I use to go to church but due to these churches acting like the Pharisees telling me what to do in my life. And my character that you're thinking that she's a sex transgender she's not apart in any GLBT she's straight a woman born without boobs. Anna was born like that she's half human/anthro.

Quite honestly I'm just confused as to what your point was to begin with. I'm sorry that your old church made you feel unwelcome, but if that drives you away from God then your faith was in PEOPLE, not Him. I'd gladly invite you to my church but I don't know how long of a trip SW Vermont would be for you. If you're worried about "emo clothes bashing" let me tell you about Pete. He's kind of my God-brother. He's got piercings, most of them gauged. He's got tattoos. Sleeves, chest, back, an assortment of tribal flames on his face. The pastor adores him. The assistant/youth pastor, who's a a carpenter by trade, loves working with this guy, they've done a lot of jobs over the years. Now, aside from all these tattoos and piercings he also wears metal band tees, shorts hanging off his ass with chains/straps/etc hanging from them, and has a tendency to have a foul mouth and a vulgar sense of humor. But we all love him. Because God loves him. Who the heck are we to be any different?

I'm goth/emo and I found some emo Christians in my life, l draw things inspired by left behind movies and I wanted to create my own movie and I do remember the thief in the night. This movie was freakn scary, it tells about the antichrist rule the world killing folks that kinda of thing.

I do believe I've seen Thief in the Night. Or at least, I remember seeing a "post-rapture" type movie long before the Left Behind series came out. Unfortunately there are certain sub-groups within Christianity that, for some odd reason, think that something as simple as wearing black as the predominant color of your clothing is "satanic" or some such tripe. They don't seem to grasp the reality that God could not care less what we wear on the outside. He cares about the heart we carry on the inside.

those christians are eighter insane or just a cult. they just brainwashed by complete nonsense i'm not a atheist though.

I wouldn't say they're insane or a cult. They're just, "Flanders Christians" I guess you could say. People who go way too far, take things way out of context, more often than not are focused more on the "Old Testament way of doing things" than on the ministry of Christ. Ironic that this sort of "Christian" is so unfamiliar with Christ. It would absolutely blow their mind to really think about the fact that he hung out with prostitutes, crooked tax collectors, and all many of "societal undesirables."

That was in the bible too, and I think that those might be modern day Pharisees, like I say, I use to go to a church but I don't due to modern day Pharisees, now I found a good church and my pastor is cool and funny but he explains down to earth subjects.

I make a character and its a woman born without boobs and she will attack any furry or human call her a man.

If she's just "Flat-chested" then that's perfectly understandable. I don't like being called a woman just because my hair's long. If "she" has a penis, too, then it does not matter what's "politically correct" to say, it is BIOLOGICALLY correct to call "her" male. Don't blow a gasket over it, that's not me giving my subjective opinion, that is purely OBJECTIVE science, the result of many generations of research and study. Take it up with all the biologists and geneticists in the world if you want to, but don't bash Christians nor Conservatives for not buying into the "PC" hype.

She's not sextrangender

Ah, the pushiness of a parent looking at a child about to do something incredibly dangerous. Alas, as most children do, they think their parents are just a pushover.
Interestingly enough: the decline of America and the more it distanced itself from the Gospel seems to go hand-in-hand.

As a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran, I understood how my mother, my grandma, anybody at my church feels about the whole gay thing. So many of them are always against the gay stuff. However, I have finally decided that america is no longer "christian nation" as it used to be. It used to be that way, because it was full of christians living out their lives back in the 1700's. However, america is always all about the freedom rights of both believers and nonbelievers. That I keep seeing the patterns over the years, in a way people keeps pushing sinful acts farther and farther. Breaking rules after the rules to have more sins. I can say that america now becoming un-Christianity as seen by many evangelical christians like myself. That as I grow older, I understood how those old people do feel. Talking with my grandma was interesting at times, the way she feels about it. I understood her. But the problem is that america is now way too far from what it used to be in her own times. Very dirty and completely different.

I would make jokes about how "damaged" the america is in many ways. Both with non-christian and christian ideas about it. However Personally, the biggest problem is that there are way too many people (both christians and non-christians) out there in the world. Having different ideas on what america should be. That I no longer care on what america should be anymore. I do my own thing while others do their own ways. I see it more as a "do whatever the hell you want to do anyway". Vote what you really do care from your own heart, your mind on what it really needs.

I do always make myself clear to many that I don't care that gay is right or wrong. But rather that it's difficult to tell whatever it is right or wrong. Because jesus never said anything about it. However it doesn't mean that jesus would support it. However, maybe the only the actual gay sex action thing would be wrong to act out on it. That having gay feelings is not wrong to have, maybe. The fact it is only man and woman can do it. Still, this is all coming from one christian's ideas here. Does not means all Christians think like this. I understood "religious freedom laws versus LGBT civil rights" thing. My feelings are mixed, I respect people trying to bring back the religious freedom. But, gay people are people like us. Even if we try to add more religious freedom, I don't think it will stop them from having sex or talk gay stuff anyway. I do believe they should be treated with love, but I don't like the idea that gay sex is okay to me as a christian. Hate the sin, not the sinner. LoL, yeah I'm one of those people with "awful beliefs".

Sigh, it's always difficult because not all christians are the same. Lot of christianity ideas are different from each others, and influenced by the god's word. Just keep telling them that all christians are different, even tell them there are gay ones that do go to church. I have meet many gay furry christians over time, many actually stay away from gay sins, or act out on it anyway. That I have finally decided that christianity should be more viewed as small part of each person to judge quietly. All of us are made up of many different series of layers to understand. There needs to be more understandings on what we are.

I would keep saying, don't blame it on christianity. Blame it on the humanity trying to make choices inspired by god's words that caused so much drama we have right now.

Blame on fundies not Christians and gay Christians are OK but I don't agree with them.

Most of the comments here are illustrative of why the Church is losing influence and significance in western culture. Even well-meaning, kind Christians are oblivious when it comes to how to interact and speak to people who see the world differently than they do. I understand that being a Christian means that you hold to timeless, transcendent principles and to an objective moral law, but that doesn't mean that our understanding of those principles can't change or that they way we implement them can't change. For good or ill, the refusal of us Christians to adapt to the world around us is going to ensure our increasing insignificance and decline.

Above all though, if we really want to talk about moral responsibility, the denial and blind-eye we turn to the real hatred and sin committed in the name of Christ is inexcusable. The fact that the media, Hollywood, academia, and many other worldly institutions often wrongly smear Christians and are unduly hostile to us does not mean that we are entirely innocent and without fault or desert for some of the hatred we receive.

Secular society says: Christians are categorically hatemongers and evil.
Christians say: Christians are categorically like Christ and because the world hates Christ, it hates Christians. Christians are guilty of nothing other than telling the world that it is evil.

Neither one of these statements are accurate. The truth is more mixed than that.

Personally, church will fail and lost lot of influence and significance in western culture. Because, america is the western culture that always try and find any forms of escape from Christianity by any means. They will always react to the christians that is worst than I and many furs here. Media, Hollywood, any other forms. Will always work for money, and will always try to make more as long it can get them. Money is roots of all evil, as many would say.

It is possible that christianity will get changed into different kind of christianity that many christians won't like it. Shrug, whatever works the best for many. As long the god's word will survive best as possible the way god see it.

Fair points and well-said. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (Edmund Burke). I certainly didn't mean this journal to act as an argument absolving anyone of their Christian responsibility; only to hopefully show less sensational (and thereby less newsworthy) side of the faith to non-believers and explain why we do what we do.

For a long time, I didn't understand at all why Christians "were against" the LGBT movement and all I saw from America were those sign-wavers you talked of. Well, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Those are a few people only but I know, human beings enjoy to generalize.
I wouldn't ever go so far to proclaim that I hated anyone because of his 'sexual preference', even less so since I know that these people weren't born that way and shit happened in their life so they turned to that.
I totally understand about telling someone that they're straight heading for the abyss, already out of my psychotherapeutical mindset, but I have made the experience that they spit at you then for telling them. They're so caught up with their traumas that they refuse any other perspective. I've kinda given up trying to offer them another view on life thus.

"I know that these people weren't born that way and shit happened in their life so they turned to that."

What makes you think that? Gay people don't "turn gay" anymore than straight people "turn straight." That's a Freudian idea that, like most of the stuff Freud came up with, has been since discredited. Homosexuality is not the result of neglect, abuse, or any other trauma.

lol I knew someone would massively oppose it.
I'm not pro-Freud and it is not only a Freudian idea. I won't start explaining psychology and psychotherapy to you now; I know that other people are of different opinion and as I said, I let them be.

Could you provide me with the studies at least? Because the field of psychology is pretty unanimous on this subject. Homosexuality does not come from bad upbringing or any sort of trauma.

No disrespect, but I've actually heard exactly the opposite; that there IS a disproportionate number of homosexual-identifying individuals who either grew up without a father figure, suffered some sort of abuse, or otherwise had an atypical childhood. The studies I've read, at best, suggest that it's inconclusive whether sexuality is a product of nature or nurtur, though more seem to learn toward it being a learned behavior given the absence of identifiable genetic markers (to date) and certain non-genetic trends, such as youngest sons (in families with two or more boys) being disproportionately more likely to identify as same-sex attracted. Speaking as someone who struggled with it for years, I'm inclined to argue in favor of nurture, but I understand that that isn't popular. Still, I'm living proof that it can be overcome.

Studies, please.

I would ask you for the same, but then it becomes a battle of who has more free time to scour the web; a battle I will undoubtedly lose. If you really care, the resources are not hard to find.

You made a claim that was contrary to the medical consensus (AMA, APA, AAP, and many more), so the burden is on you to provide the evidence. Otherwise I don't think anyone has any reason to believe your unfounded (not to mention insulting to parents) claim that people are gay because of lackluster or abusive upbringings.

Didn't wait for your reply (so I apologize if you do so while I'm writing this), so let me explain why I took the bait on that last one. I expect you're going to post a study or some studies. The natural progression of the conversation would have me post some studies in favor of my point of view. (I don't have them off-hand, but I know where I'd start looking. All the same, I hope you don't take me for someone who would lie to try to "win" an argument. That would be counter-productive to me.) You would dispute my studies. I would dispute yours and defend minem you would defend yours and rebut me. I would conclude with something to the effect of "assuming you're right, why would God make it a sin if people can't help it?" I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you would dispute my interpretation of passages that say homosexuality is a sin, or at least would say it was only meant for that time, etc. People would jump in to defend us both, based on the opinions they already had. Ultimately, we would agree to disagree and end up just liking each other a little less for all that time spent.

...if you ask me, there's not a great RoI for all of that. :P I'm not trying to come off snooty; I've just done this enough times to know it's almost always a p***ing contest where no one wins and we both get wet. This isn't an indictment of spirited discussion, but it is an observation on when that discussion has reached the end of it's fruitfulness, so let's skip to the end while we're still friends, aye? xP

You will never hear a therapist say that being homosexual is considered a mental illness. Transsexuality is, but you specifically asked about homosexuality there. It is not a mental illness but not causelessly that way either since sexuality, next to gender, is something we learn and aren’t born with. You can look that topic up in the gender studies sections if you please. I've had enough of that shit myself and will not fetch my essays and dossiers from the cellar for you to show you about studies which won't change your mind anyway. Discover it yourself. It's fun if you're bored. Start with Judith Butler.

I do agree with you here, it is a learned action. Not born with it. It's more how one person looks around, becomes influenced by what it is happening around him in his own sexuality. That at times feels like it's not a choice to many. I would make jokes on the fact, that we are born furries and never find humans sexy at all?

I understand how shocking that comes to many that sexuality is a learned thing because they suddenly find themselves the victims of their subconscious. People just should do more self-reflection. And geez, they want to take over as little responsibility as possible and it's so easy to claim that Sorry, been born with it.
(The only chance, if ever, I could imagine sexuality being something we are born with is that it would be part of the collective subconscious but then only things that make sense would enter that collective mind and something wich is not productive aka homosexuality or paedophilia or zoophilia would never enter it.)
But, where the heck is the problem if it's learned?? It's like it would be minor or bad if it is a leanred action ._o

I understand what you're saying here.

Yeah, it is now shocking to people in their 20's and younger To think that it is a learned action. But ages ago, it wasn't shocking. When you learn what it was used to be in the 50's. They thought that everybody could have done it as anybody could. They were trying to protect themselves from any possible gay influences. However, even they try to hide those influences. There are still people out there can become gay for years without realizing it, before it's too late to break it off earlier. Leading that person on hard and difficult life of breaking it off and trying to change himself.

I myself personally say to many that I don't care it's a choice or not a choice among many. What I really do believe, that it can be kept under controlled best as possible. That it have to be taken with great care and handling. Learning how to not act on it, however okay to have those feelings. It can be the devil's trick, to push people away from the god's word. By making gays to act out on their own feelings. When people say that gay is not a choice, means that paedophilia or zoophilia is not a choice either to have. Should we allowed love, and pity the guys who might be touching children, and pets? Saying that out loud to their own faces that it's okay? I hope not.

I can agree, that it is a responsibility for many. However, I do believe that god will have to judge them for what choices they have to make. At times there are difficult choices. Let's say, which one is the best choice for one gay person? To tell that he's gay, facing the negative reactions that gay cannot be "straight" said by many that we're dealing with in the furry fandom? (we can see that in the comments attached to the journal here, furries never believe that gay can be cured. they'll be like nah you're Bi anyway, or actually never gay in the first place) or lie that he's not gay, to keep himself from acting and talking out on it? Actual gay sex and sexual gay talks, could be lot worse than to lie about being gay. I myself do believe it can be manageable best as possible. When something that cannot be cured, does not mean it can't be kept under controlled.

For many open gay christians, and hidden gay christians. It is very difficult choice, since difficult to tell what's right or wrong in those choices. What best christians we all should be? Keep in mind, that we humans are always, awful role models to be looked up to. We can be great human beings. But as christians? We are dead in sins. Jesus, is the only perfect human being that we all failed to be.

Gay people have hidden their own sexuality for so long (until now in this age) in many ways, that I'm sure there are people who likes children or real actual animals can hide them very well. Babyfurs, there are some of them do likes children too much. While many others does not. Very difficult to tell. For example, gays does look like any normal people in our everyday lives. I went to midwest furfest, with the actual knowledge in my head. That about 76% of the fandom is all gay/bi. It really did impressed me that they're all have been among we humans for ages. they were only hiding it because of the still seriously straight society/media we all live in.

The only reason why most Christian furs hate is because they don't really understand
Grace themselves.
Or they don't understand how much God really cares for them in a since.

I got falsely accused of homophobia. :(

I don't hate gays and I'm not scared of them. I just don't like homosexuality. I explained that to one homosexual but he constantly called me a homophobe and wouldn't listen to reason or logic. It's not just homosexuals that get victimized due to this issue, people...yes, homophobia does exist but just because a Christian speaks out against homosexuality, doesn't always mean they are homophobic. And it doesn't mean they hate either. And quite frankly, there's hate and intolerance coming from the LGBT crowd too.

For instance, though I don't like homosexuality, one of my cousins is homosexual. And I still love him as a brother. We grew up together, we lived close together and we both didn't have any siblings, so we became as close as brother and sisters are. And I still view him as such. I told him I would love him no matter what.

Understandable. I mean "not liking homosexuality" has multiple meanings anyway, which is something that should be recognized for as much as culture seems to expect awareness and recognition. Like I'm not sure if you mean that it's not your thing or that you disagree with the practice, but I certainly would ask for certainty before assuming. Even then, I respect people's opinions whether I agree with them or not. To be quite fair, I think people of the LGBT crowd could learn from this equally as much as those that oppose them.

That's the same thing that was thinking and I don't hate homos but I don't agree with them. The gays just don't get it they just sterotype us as bigots, they love to compare us to the westboro. Gays can be jerks like you say about hate and tolerance from GLBT movement. They have to be gay athiests to act like that. Do they use blasphemy to you?

Can you reread and rephrase this? You either left out some words or are making some cognitive leaps in your logic that I really don't follow.

Yes one sec

Ok, so what I want to know is, "Why are the media giving all of their attention to this subject, if there are more important things to be focusing on?" Don't get me wrong, I know some people believe religion is important and some gays shout that it isn't a choice, which I for one should know is true, and I love everyone equally, but I need to ask why the hell people are making this THE biggest deal of the century? What about the people out there that actually need help? The people dying on the streets from hunger? The terrorism that happens whether it is on the news or not? How about the people fighting for our right to be on the internet and talk shit about each other? To be able to make journals like this and sit on our asses, debating this topic TO DEATH? I don't understand why people think it is ok to debate such an interesting topic AND that we send people to fight a terrorist group in a different country, just so that they can come home to a country that is already killing its own people. What the hella sense does that make? Are their lives really THAT useless?

Please tell me you understand what I am saying.

Yes, thank you, I think I follow now. Unfortunately, I think there are some assumptions in play here that we would need to address at a very fundamental level in order to compare worldviews and make this into a fruitful discussion. Not really having the time (or energy) to chase those rabbits, I don't really think i can provide any enriching insight building off these foundations.

Sorry. :]

My question, to rephrase, is, "Are those people literally fighting for a country that is fighting itself? Religion aside, a country that is killing its own people? If so, how small is a person's life on the scale that Homosexuality had to be a GOVERNMENT concern?"

Well said ! :3

This journal has put it right on the spot!

The thing I always try to tell people is that Jesus would never try to condemn those who either did not know they are committing evil (either deliberately or those that have been doing it for so long they are lost in it), or those who do not know him and deny him. I believe that the only way to get people to join the body of Christ (or the church, for those who don't speak church talk) is to be loving and polite. Don't be rude or crass with your words or thoughts against them, nurture them with love and compassion.

Now I don't support any of the LGBT community or the gay rights movement or anything like that, but I know I have to hold a positive disposition and message when being around those kinds of people. I know that if others feel they have the right to insult these people, I have the right to talk and be caring for them without being all "gloom and doom" about it. I feel that that is the same attitude that the WHOLE christian community should have, You don't have to be supportive of the ideas, but be respectful of the people involved and love them one way or the other, like Jesus would.

I am bisexual and I support your message. You know what is one thing I actually do wonder?

What's that?

My question, to rephrase, is, "Are those people literally fighting for a country that is fighting itself? Religion aside, a country that is killing its own people? If so, how small is a person's life on the scale that Homosexuality had to be a GOVERNMENT concern?"

This. :/

Jesus said that the 2 greatest commandments are:

1. Love the Lord God with all our heart and might.

2. Love your neighbor (which is everyone) as we love ourselves.

Jesus was seen in his day as a sinner, and associated himself with prostitutes, tax collectors, the sick, and the destitute. This is why he was put to death. Flash-forward to today, are modern Christians even honoring the true teachings of the Gospel?

Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32

I can appreciate the notion that Christianity is supposed to only be about "spreading love and acceptance" and the preachers on the street are just trying to save my immortal soul. The ones who use the bible, or any religion in the matter, to spout out their hate are truly damned.

But I just cant get enough of these people coming to me when I walk the streets and ask "Do you believe in God? No? Then what do you think of Hell?" or the signs saying "Please dont go to Hell. Love God".
I know its pure intention of helping others, but being religious should be an commitment, not an cheap way of escaping an supposed damnation after death. Because that's what its advertised. If you don't believe in Him, you will suffer. Its fine if you believe, but proselytizing has just become an obstinate thing in my eyes at least. A person should find his/her faith and commitment by him/herself, not because someone says that you will suffer if you don't believe in "x" thing. Its like a marketing ploy.

I appreciate this as a well-reasoned and thoughtfully-worded dissenting opinion. I can certainly see your perspective on it; people should believe because it makes sense to them, not because they fear the consequences of unbelief. But, to that end, if it's the fear of unbelief that gets them to research, I can't really condemn the method. I think a lot of people walk around with the mentality of "if there is a god that judges, I'm probably a good enough person to pass the test" and never really give it any more thought than that. If a sign about Hell gets them to at least think a little deeper about that, I'm in favor of it.

Thank you for the compliment ~
I do agree that the notion of damnation is thought provoking, since I have gone through that myself in the past. Its just annoying to me how black and white the matter it is. Sure its simple that way, find faith or don't, but for me it has become an faith in on itself to stay true to myself as a sort of an skeptic, though funnily enough I believe the notion of Hell has pushed me farther away from belief in "God". Like if there wasn't an encouraging prize hung at the end of the tunnel when you have been a devout believer, but rather the religion in on itself would just be the prize. Sure it is like that for some people, but not for me personally. Not a simple matter in the end.

I wish I can fave this journal. I enjoyed reading it.

I'm a Christian myself and I have so many issues dealing with the world's perception on Christianity today. I'll have to make my own journal about it.

Like blasphemy to the holy spirit you know that is a unforgiving sin you should make a journal like that

As a Christian dragon here (yea, I know.. that seems like an utter conflict of interest), I try not to hate people, although admittedly, with some people I do have a difficult time, and likely something I should try to work on, but... it's hard when you consider all the evil and corruption in the world. However, with that being siad... the difficulty I have with people is not because of how they choose to live, but rather for reasons of how they act or treat other people, sometimes even fellow Christians for their whole "righteous" megachurchyness and "better than thou art" attitudes. Although some things are deemed "more sinful" than others by our standards.. to God... sin is sin, and any of it eradicates your deserving of heaven by your own regard (good thing for His grace, or we'd all be SOL), so in that, NONE of us can really hate on another group for their sinful natures much in the way of that living-in-glass-houses concept goes.

I think we tend to get treated more harshly than other groups (aside from Muslims), because the atheists, pagan and those of the various Eastern religions tend to see how many Christians act, and those actions can be perceived as rather cold/hateful. I'm not what I'd say a huge fan of gays marrying and that sort of thing, but considering I have friends who fall in this group, and atheists and various manner of folks of varying beliefs, who would I be if I negated all of my friends who did not believe as I do? I care about my friends, and they like my company, despite our differences in spirtiual belief. Obviously, there are things about life that I won't agree on with folks of other lifestyles/beliefs, but... me personally, I don't think we should go out of our way to hate these people either. Often, it just tempts people to act out even MORESO in those ways just out of spite in rebellion. This differentiates old testament thinking from the new... the ability to accept or try to work with people instead of utterly abandon them. We all have free will here, to do as we please (no matter how right or wrong that is), all we can do is try to help people down a healthier road for the sake of their souls... but... what they shall do with the information shall be up to them... but doing so in hate will only make them throw dirt as they bust a U turn and haul away at a great speed.
Ironically, the Christian community in society is often the most broken when it comes to hetero relationships... failed marriages, miserable mariages, cheating on one another, etc. I have spoken with many people over this thing we call the internet, and the state of society is part of what's led a lot of people to gay lifestyles... not necessarily because they feel an insatiable attraction for one of like gender, but for us males, many can't deal with the drama, manipulation and materialism of today's females (not to mention at ANY moment a gal can leave you and you're on the hook for years of child support, even if you don't wish to separate and have done nothing wrong). Honestly, this is partly why I'm a single drake (not to mention I'm not exactly "all that"). And.. males treat females hardly any better, with the abuse, sexual expectations and womanizing they are expected to "live with". Our society is broken... and IMO... to "fix" the "gay problem", part of the solution is going to have to be a healing of society where true love is a thing again. So... that is a dragon's 2¢ (5¢ in Canada).

Nobody falls in love with the same sex unless they're attracted to them. Whoever told you otherwise doesn't understand gay people. If you can authentically be attracted to and fall in love with a member of the same sex, you are not heterosexual.

I suppose it could be more physical than say, a matter of being tired of the bull brought on by the opposite sex. Depends on the person and the reasons they are attracted to what they are. Then again... I'm hardly an expert on relations.

Orientation is pretty much random; it's not really brought on by anything, and certainly not chosen (not that I'm accus ing you of suggesting that). Some people like girls, some people like boys, some people like both, and some people like neither. That's just how they are. :3

mmmm... I suppose. Not really a thing I understand completely. I have friend's who're like that, but I just don't get why. I'm kinda a broken dragon in that department, myself, however.

We don't know a lot of things about why people are certain ways! Like why they're left-handed, for instance. We just gotta love and show understanding to people who are different. Especially considering how little love LGBT people receive from Christians, who just seem to want to hurt us and shout at us instead of listening to and learning from us and our experiences.

Only thing I can really say is... I may not agree with everything people do... but long as people treat others reasonably, I try to return that and accept who/what they feel they are. Things going against the natural process of things is going to meet its challenges, that's kinda life... but hating people for the sake of hating people isn't going to help either. *holds out a taloned paw in friendly gesture* There are worse things in the world that need more attention as far as I'm concerned... politicians, CEOs, generally... folks who blatantly have no remorse nor care who they step on in the world to fulfill their dreams of greed and power... essentially people who need my taloned foot in their hind end.

Im a anarchist christian I hate the government and I hate what this country is doing to our brothers and sisters, im not homophobic.... but the government is just corrupted. Chistianty isnt the cause of the worlds problem, its everyone including christians too causing sins, forgive me for saying this its sad but true. I always believe that we have freedom to worship christ, but we ger mocked and scoffed, the last time i joined yall my email got hacked.

How can your concern for the people you confront be shown to be substantive? What makes your denomination and religion correct about who is in peril for certain actions?

In my personal opinion, William Lane Craig does the best job at answering why Christianity is, not only the most rational, but actually the only defensible worldview. His website is: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

I can't seem to find a specific article on why Christianity is the only defensible worldview. I'd love to read it, so I'll have a look for it. I did however read his "Eight Reasons in Support of God's Existence" post and I did not think he sufficiently explained why the universe required a transcendental cause. It was just sort of his conclusion, as far as I could tell. Like this part:

1. The universe began to exist.

2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-does-god-exist]

Why does the second point necessarily follow? Why has the possibility of a non-transcendental explanation already been eliminated? An interesting article, but these are questions that I think Dr. Craig should address.

But anyway, if you have time to respond, what about yourself? As a concerned Christian, what would you do to try and convince someone that they are in danger? Because I have had a Nigerian Evangelical Christian and a member of the Korean World Mission Society Church of God approach me before. The former asked me to have faith while the latter relied on their denomination's scripture and interpretation. There must be something more than those things that drives you to warn people. What is it?

To ensure that I'm answering the right question and not opening a new can of worms, are you asking why I feel the need to evangelize, or why I believe the Christian faith is correct?

I think I understand why you feel the need to evangelize. You said it in the journal. People are in eternal spiritual danger and you want to help them avoid that. I guess I'm just wondering what convinces you that there is danger? And what would you present to convince others of that danger?

So, as I sit here writing this, there is a book on my coffee table called "Christian Apologetics." It's over 700 pages long. Now, I don't say that hoping it will impress you; I mention it because if I were to take on a targeted evangelistic effort, I would first want to know where my audience was coming from. There's a lot of ground to cover, and I would need to know where to start.

If you want a really concise explanation of why I'm a Christian, it's because I believe it is the only worldview that is both rationally and historically defensible... but I can't give you a succinct argument for why. All I can say (whether you find this believable or not) is that I employ the method of Francis Schaeffer: "I try to approach every problem as though I were not a Christian and see what the answer would be." After years of study, being as unbiased as I can, I believe the evidence (ex. prophecies) deductively affirms the Bible. From there, inductive reasoning informs the rest.

"I mention it because if I were to take on a targeted evangelistic effort, I would first want to know where my audience was coming from. There's a lot of ground to cover, and I would need to know where to start."

Well, I'm an atheist. I have never been part of any organized religion. I'm interested in other perspectives, but I'm ultimately pretty certain there isn't a god. Being convinced otherwise would likely not have the intended effect, anyway. :P

Which Biblical prophecies in particular were you thinking of?

A few places to start, in increasing order of complexity:

http://www.gotquestions.org/messian.....rophecies.html
https://carm.org/prophecy-bible-and-jesus
https://bible.org/article/messianic-prophecies
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/old-.....s-resurrection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4v8yssXnIE (or any of Dr. Michael Brown's lectures on Jewish Opposition to Jesus as the Prophesied Messiah)

If you find that these arguments are making an assumption that you don't agree with (historicity of the Bible or what-have-you) let me know and I'll address it. And yes, I have read and watched all of these, so I'm not just trying to weary you out of the conversation. :P

You couldn't weary me out of the conversation if you tried, though my own lack of familiarity with the subject in question may lead to a misunderstanding on my part.

Messianic Prophecies:

I don't see explicit predictions about Jesus Christ in what I'm presented with, but I'm not really surprised that the New Testament would build on the Old Testament. The New Testament was able to have its scripture written with the Old Testament in mind. Its writers had the benefit of knowing the Old Testament, and could phrase things such that they would respond to prophecies in the Old Testament. I'd personally be more wowed by specific predictions of contemporary events. The prophecies do not seem supernatural in ability.

Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah? I don't really have an opinion either way. I'm sure Dr. Brown lays out some considerable points, but I can't unpack his lecture based on my limited schedule. His joke at the beginning was pretty funny, though. I think I laughed harder than the audience.


So, through ignorance of scripture and a severely short attention span, I have managed to at least blunder through the sources you provided.

Are the Messianic prophecies what convince you there is a danger to people?

"Are the Messianic prophecies what convince you there is a danger to people?"

Not alone, no. They're one piece of the deductive evidence that I believe proves the Bible is the Word of God. Once that is deduced, inductive reasoning (what the Bible says) takes it from there.

Is your question one of pluralism? ie. "Why can't there be multiple paths?"

"Is your question one of pluralism?"

I don't think so. Why?

Was hoping to narrow my response. If your question is just as broad as "what convinces me to be a Christian," I really don't have a short answer for it. I can answer targeted questions, but that... you'd be better off getting Groothius' book "Christian Apologetics." He pretty much goes from A-Z on the rational arguments for Christianity.

That's fair. Thank you for your time and for discussing your views with me. I look forward to the next journal.

Correction: http://www.gotquestions.org/ messianic-prophecies.html (remove the space)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/old-tes tament-prophecies-of-jesus-resurrection (remove the space)

"That doesn't mean that we're not going to talk to you about our faith, because a true believer is called to do exactly that, but we're not trying to hurt or annoy you. Exactly the opposite. We love you!"

Amen. And Amen!

I'm a emo/gothic christian and I write dark stories inspired by left behind movies and combine with military shooting games into one.

Oh hey, you'll want to speak with  jacobsyme he knows a lot more about it, given his studies on it. Annihilationism may not be one of the historically, or widely held views on the destiny of the wicked, but it falls well within the scope of orthodox Christian belief. (So you don't need to act like it's some big deal you just discovered or that organized religion has been hiding from people!)