This is on of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. People seriously want to vote for this guy? It is really sad hearing such ignorance coming out of an educated man.
Manuela is having lust in your heart acceptable? I don't see anyone demanding that having an adulterous or fornicating orientation suddenly be embraced. It is just society, through those influenced by society demanding that homosexual lust be accepted. Why is that?
"Manuela is having lust in your heart acceptable? I don't see anyone demanding that having an adulterous or fornicating orientation suddenly be embraced. It is just society, through those influenced by society demanding that homosexual lust be accepted. Why is that?"
Heisenberg, sadly it seems you are unable to make a distinction between a sexual orientation and actual actions.
It does not matter if you me or anyone is heterosexual or homosexual or whatever-sexual. Thats the orientation. Nothing in the orientation by its own says anything about anyone or the actions they do and the orientation itself is never sin.
Sadly it seems when a stranger walks up to you and tells you he is homosexual you would automatically assume that he is having gay sex.
Now i wonder are you assuming the very same about heterosexuals? A heterosexual can and will and does commit adultery and fornication on every given day around you yet you will most likely always give the heterosexual the benefit of the doubt and do not stress about that as long as you do not actually know and even when you know it you would most likely dismiss it as his or hers private affairs.
Take as example the thread about homosexual teens kissing on TV. Where are the threads on this forum about heterosexual teens kissing? Or the threads abut heterosexual adultery and fornication on TV?
It is happening every day. It is the very same sin and according to scripture every sin would be equal anyway. So why are you joining the outcry against one kind of adultery but not the outcry against the other?
So tell me why is it that we are so fixated with it that someone with a homosexual orientation automatically has sex while on the other hand when there is a heterosexual we assume he does not have sex?
That is implicit bias and the major problem when engaging with homosexual people. You are judging people differently based on your personal bias and not judging their actions.
"It does not matter if you me or anyone is heterosexual or homosexual or whatever-sexual. Thats the orientation. Nothing in the orientation by its own says anything about anyone or the actions they do and the orientation itself is never sin."
This is quite a set up for the pedophile or other dangerous deviance.
Just can't help it.
Not saved from sin but saved in it?
Liberal churches be like: all you heterosexual fornicators and adulterers will be disfellowshipped. All you in various degrees of homosexual relationships are welcome to hang out - nothing to say or see because you just can't help gay not even God can change it.
I agree that this kind of response really does set things up for paedophiles to claim acceptance - and why shouldn't they be accepted? It's ok to be orientated towards sex with children as long as you don't actually do it. Same with bestiality.
The big problem that I have with all of this is that we are being asked to accept homosexuals who define themselves and their Christianity by their orientation. We are urged to accept "gay Christians" (or "homosexual Christians") should we also expect to find everybody else defining their Christianity by their propensities? "Robber Christians"? "Adulterer Christians"?
What does it really mean to suggest that all is ok as long as you don't act on the desire? Sin begins in the mind, not the action. I find this all very bizarre. All Christians are trying to overcome sin in one form or another but it is only the homosexuals who define themselves by the very sin that they are supposed to be foregoing.
I guess it is ok to claim to be a "Thief Adventist" and if anyone speaks against you there is the comeback that "you cannot condemn me because I do not practice theft". It appears that it is fine to identify yourself with sin as long as you don't practice that sin. How does that fit in with us all being one in Christ?
I really can't see any logic in this unless it is a move to make homosexuality acceptable in the church.
@Raymond and JohnB:
Both your replies make me wonder something:
If you are arguing that someone who has not committed a sin should not be accepted because he possibly could commit a certain sin how would you accept a heterosexual than?
After all heterosexuals are as likely and sometimes even more likely to commit adultery and fornication. So why would we accept a heterosexual person than?
Your argumentation basically sets 2 different kind of standards. One for the vast majority were we are more tolerating and more accepting and one for the rest which are judged and condemned at much harsher standards.
Now that is quite disturbing....
Sadly thats exactly what the church has been doing since decades and it is even set into our church manual to have 2 different sets of standards by now.
So the church is only a hospital for sinners if you are in danger of committing the "right" sin but not when you are tempted by "wrong" kind of sins than you are hanged out dry...
Right back at you! It's a two-way street. There is no-one who has not committed a sin, no-one other than Jesus Christ. So why don't we go a bit deeper than the surface gloss?
It is certainly not acceptable to suggest that a heterosexual is more likely to sin than a homosexual. Are you really trying to tell me that being homosexual makes you less likely to sin?
Look, I will say straight off that I am a struggling sinner. I accept that everyone else who sits around me in church is also a struggling sinner. All of us struggling to different degrees and with different sins. However, when it comes to homosexuals there is one big difference: they are the only sinners that seek acceptance whilst still identifying themselves with the sin.
It is a shame you did not address the main part of what I was saying rather than trying to extrapolate something that was not there. This I find to be somewhat typical, no-one wants to grasp the nettle.
So... is it equally acceptable for someone to declare that they are a paedophile Christian?
Does it not show that "the old man" has not been surrendered fully to Christ when we still want to identify with the sin?
On the basis that sin is conceived in the mind before the action how can we say that you can be homosexual as long as you do not commit the act? Does the same apply to paedophiles, thieves, adulterers, liars? I can refer to myself as a "Lying Christian" as long as I do not actually lie?
On the basis that we are all sinners in need of Christ, how does it help to have a group of people separate themselves on the basis of the sin they are trying not to commit?
It is a perfectly reasonable question. How is it, you are suggesting that we embrace men who lust after another man's twig and berries, as acceptable and should be embraced, is more acceptable than man who lusts after a woman. Sin, is sin, right? Orientation means attraction. If I get excited about every pair of perky bouncy boobs that goes by, isn't that lusting in my heart? How is that any different than a man lusting after another man's "junk"?
Reply by beachboy puti
I know MFG that you don't want to hear that being gay is wrong.
hello Beachboy Puti
the might of Christ means i must look at you with unsurpassable worth
regardless of your ignorant accusation of me
maybe as time passes you actually get to know me
and then when you speak of me you will know what you are talking about
God loves you and so do i
the scripture is plain regarding bearing false witness
thank you for pointing that out
The response to this interview which he well earned and worked hard for over the last few months ridiculing himself:
Just posted on facebook by Ben Carson. Seems reasonable, so some can stop hyperventilating.
In my travels over the past several days, it’s become clear to me that I needed to set the record straight about my recent appearance on a CNN interview segment.
First, my remark was simply a boneheaded response to what I considered an astonishing ‘gotcha’ question, comparing the civil rights struggles of the Sixties to the efforts to redefine traditional marriage. My poorly considered reflex comment in no way shape or form represents my knowledge or appreciation for the LGBT... community.
Secondly, the media attention it spawned badly obscured my record and my positions supporting human rights and constitutional protections for the LGBT community.
While I remain opposed to same-sex marriage, I have and will continue to support recognition of same-sex civil unions.
I have and will continue full recognition of same-sex marriage in State jurisdictions where the matter has been approved by a vote of the people or their representatives;
I support States’ prerogatives to determine their own policy without interference from the Federal government;
If and when the matter of same-sex marriage is considered and decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, we all must adhere to their decision.
At a time when we Americans face so many serious problems that threaten the very fabric and quality of life for future generations, we must adhere to the values of love and respect for one another, embrace the principles of unity and truth, and reject the politics of personal destruction. Together, let's examine the solutions offered by all, and build a better America.
the only people who can really speak on the matter is those who are gay
and i never chose to be gay
i assure everyone here
and all the gays i know and have known in more ways than one share that experience ofnot choosing it also
the choice is to act on it
and finally Brethren and Sisteren
JESUS is the only real choice that we make or not
make it count!
#people do not know what they don't know and act or pretend they do (whatever)
and then get a microphone or a blog!