Are homosexual relationships any different from heterosexual ones?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lost anomaly

...I haven't studied U.S. history in two years. That was my mistake. I will how ever be taking it next year.

A bit young, are we? :chuckle:

 

[lost anomaly]

I'm only a freshman. I took US hisrtory in seventh grade. I did already state that I was 14.

 

[lost anomaly]

Re: Thanks

Re: Thanks

Originally posted by Kiwicottonball

All I gather from your post is that you want to bully a 14 year old into changing her mind instead of actually stopping to explain what you think and feel.

In all fairness to Sozo, he didn't know I was 14 untill he made that comment about my thinking being immature. So I guess he thought he was debating with an adult, when in reality he was debating with little 'ol me.

 

[ShadowMaid]

Originally posted by lost anomaly

When this debate started I wasn't sure if I believed homosexuality was a sin. Because Jesus calls himself the "new covenant" I believe that the old testament laws are null and void. I had yet to see a scripture in the new testament that condemns homosexuality. I was proved incorrect.

Because of this whole debate I see that it is a sin. I think the Bible interperts that homosexuality is a sin. It was Sozo who gave the the Scripture Romans 1:21-36 to prove this.

I still however believe that it shouldn't be only a heterosexual right to get married and the definition of marriage should be changed. America was founded on the basis of equality and it should stay that way. I also still believe, while you can disagree with their life style, you should still be compassionate toward them. They are the kind of people who need your prayers and your guidence.

Thank you for your explanation.

 

[lost anomaly]

Anytime. Did you get my PM by the way?

 

[Kiwicottonball]

Re: Re: Thanks

Re: Re: Thanks

Originally posted by lost anomaly

In all fairness to Sozo, he didn't know I was 14 untill he made that comment about my thinking being immature. So I guess he thought he was debating with an adult, when in reality he was debating with little 'ol me.

I hope I didn't sound like I was trying to be condescending to you. 14 is old enough to talk about this stuff and to reach decisions on it. I just didn't think it was fair the tone of hostility you were getting thrown at you. I would probably think the same if you were 44, or 94.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lost anomaly

I'm only a freshman. I took US hisrtory in seventh grade. I did already state that I was 14.

Thank you for clarifying. :thumb:

 

[lost anomaly]

Re: Re: Re: Thanks

Re: Re: Re: Thanks

Originally posted by Kiwicottonball

I hope I didn't sound like I was trying to be condescending to you.

don't worry. I didn't think you were being condescending. It's just that people act different around people depending on their age.

 

[lost anomaly]

I am still interested on Sozo's opinion on this matter. He hasn't said much lately and he said he would talk later. The debate was just getting good between us.

 

[lost anomaly]

I just noticed I am now suddenly a journeyman. Yay for me! only my second or third day!

 

[Crow]

Re: Thanks

Re: Thanks

Originally posted by Kiwicottonball
. All I gather from your post is that you want to bully a 14 year old into changing her mind instead of actually stopping to explain what you think and feel. I guess it's easier to just make everybody fear God to turn them into Christians than bothering with explaining anything.

What Sozo thinks and feels is not important. The truth is important, and in this case, the scriptures back Sozo.

 

[Kiwicottonball]

Re: Re: Thanks

Re: Re: Thanks

Originally posted by Crow

What Sozo thinks and feels is not important. The truth is important, and in this case, the scriptures back Sozo.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, there may be people out there who don't consider it truth.

That said, I used the words "think and feel" loosely, it was just a way of saying "your argument". Obviously he thinks and feels in accordance with what the scripture says, which he has made clear.

The nit picking isn't necessary...I am sure I've said enough to upset him for other reasons. I'm more interested in really hearing an argument than having every other word analyzed.

 

[Crow]

Re: Re: Re: Thanks

Re: Re: Re: Thanks

Originally posted by Kiwicottonball

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, there may be people out there who don't consider it truth.

In which case, it's their turn to back their position scripturally. What a person considers something to be does not have any bearing on what is true.

That said, I used the words "think and feel" loosely, it was just a way of saying "your argument". Obviously he thinks and feels in accordance with what the scripture says, which he has made clear.

The nit picking isn't necessary...I am sure I've said enough to upset him for other reasons. I'm more interested in really hearing an argument than having every other word analyzed.

If you do not wish to have your words analyzed, a message board is a heck of a place to put them. The only way a person may understand your thoughts is to examine the words you use to convey them, and if you use words loosely, then people are not nit picking to respond to them in a manner you did not intend.

 

[Kiwicottonball]

Originally posted by Crow
If you do not wish to have your words analyzed, a message board is a heck of a place to put them.

Perhaps, but then that would also apply to several folks I've seen on the board who refuse to even discuss certain topics with non Christians. Shouldn't they refrain from using the board too?

Oh, just ignore me, I'm being argumentative.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by lost anomaly

Ok, So I was wrong and ["the pursuit of happiness" is] not in the Bill of rights. But's common knowledge that it's in the constitution. I haven't studied U.S. history in two years. That was my mistake. I will how ever be taking it next year.

Actually, that phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence.

I don't particularly agree with Thomas Jefferson's sentiment. Those who pursue happiness rarely find it. Those who pursue righteousness are more likely to find happiness than those who pursue happiness directly.

Ever read Ecclesiastes?

 

[lost anomaly]

Originally posted by Turbo

Actually, that phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence.

I don't particularly agree with Thomas Jefferson's sentiment. Those who pursue happiness rarely find it. Those who pursue righteousness are more likely to find happiness than those who pursue happiness directly.

Ever read Ecclesiastes?

I knew it was in some important document. but anyways....

Yes I have and I see your point that true happiness is rarely, if ever found. The opperative word in that statement is the pursuit. It never states that you will find happiness just that you can pursue it.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Turbo
Those who pursue happiness rarely find it. Those who pursue righteousness are more likely to find happiness than those who pursue happiness directly.

A confirming quote:

"I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I know:
The only ones among you who will be truly happy are those who
will have sought and found how to serve." - Albert Schweitzer

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by Kiwicottonball

Perhaps, but then that would also apply to several folks I've seen on the board who refuse to even discuss certain topics with non Christians. Shouldn't they refrain from using the board too?

Oh, just ignore me, I'm being argumentative.

They should realize that the subjects will be discussed whether they want to participate or not. And it's up to the individual who they engage or do not engage with.

 

[Elaine]

Originally posted by Zakath

Yes, and the devout heterosexual Baptist businesswoman of my acquaintance who ripped off my wife when she orchestrated a bankruptcy to default on a sizable business loan my wife made to her. The old bat still has her new Cadillac and a very nice house...

But experiencing such anecdotal incident doesn't mean all heterosexual Christians are crooks either. (... remembering Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker :think: )... :chuckle:

You didn't read my parenthetical information at all, did you? I thought I made it quite clear that I was not insinuating just because the sodomites I knew were thieves, that it made all sodomites thieves. :doh:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Elaine

You didn't read my parenthetical information at all, did you? I thought I made it quite clear that I was not insinuating just because the sodomites I knew were thieves, that it made all sodomites thieves. :doh:

And you didn't read my last line at all, did you? I thought I made it quite clear that I was not insinuating just because the Christians I knew were thieves, that it made all Christians thieves...