Wierd homework, your oppinion?

[Draklar]

Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
I think you need to learn how to interpret the Bible before you start quoting it.  Those are 2 excellent scripture passages, but they have nothing (directly) to do with the topic at hand.

Heh... you don\'t think I\'ve been reading the Bible to get that quotes, do you? I took it from article from some christian about the discriminations and opressings... I would say his interpretation was quite good
You however are interpreting it more or less like people from the burning times

Here\'s the interpretation for you:

I do, however, have something against their chosen lifestyle

If so, then you believe their lifestyle is wrong - you judge their lifestyle.
Thus your lifestyle shall be judged by God. Simple.

As Christian you should accept any behaviour and consider it as good as any other. God is supposed to judge it, not you.
Most of christians don\'t even understand it that no matter if God condemns it or not, they aren\'t supposed to have anything against someone\'s chosen lifestyle...

As for the forgiving passage, again, I have no idea what you are getting at.

fear not, I shall enligthen thee :]
More or less: Don\'t mind if someone does a sin and it shall be done same to you...
In other words: Don\'t mind if someone decides to be with someone of same sex and God won\'t mind your sins that much.

- Swords

[Moogie]

Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
This is why, Moogie, I am against homosexuality altogether.  As for non-christians marrying, why would I be against a (non-Christian) man and women promising to love each other for the rest of their lives?  So long as they don\'t get divorced 5 years down the road I think it is fine.  

I\'m afraid this is what I don\'t understand. Why are people who don\'t even believe in God allowed to marry in Christian churches, and why is that fine in your opinion? Why couldn\'t the same be said for gay people? If you tolerate people who deliberately say \"There is no God\", which is the single most direct opposition to your beliefs there could possibly be, then why not tolerate harmless gay couples?

What if the gay couple were Christian? There must be thousands out there. Are they condemned, even though they worship God and follow his teachings? Do you still not tolerate them marrying just because they\'re different from you?

Sorry for the barrage of questions. I\'m genuinly interested in the response though.


**None of what I\'m saying here is meant to be forcing my opinion on you, Arcane, I hope you understand. I just want to learn more about how you feel on the subject, because its an interesting debate, and our views are on opposite sides. I\'m sure it\'s just as interesting for you to try and explore the reasons why other people have their opinions also.

[Draklar]

Originally posted by Moogie
If you tolerate people who deliberately say \"There is no God\", which is the single most direct opposition to your beliefs there could possibly be,

Not sure about that. According to Christ\'s teachings even those who don\'t worship God are allowed in his \"Kingdom\".
According to that, there\'s nothing wrong in allowing couples like that to marry at christian church. The only question would be why they want to do it.
It is said that marriage must be between man and woman (and nothing about religion, I think... but then again, myself am not allowed to have church marriage because of throwing away christian teachings so who knows) so Church goes by those rules...
it\'s kinda bleh, but oh well...

- Swords

[ArcaneFalcon]

Moogie:  

I\'m afraid this is what I don\'t understand. Why are people who don\'t even believe in God allowed to marry in Christian churches, and why is that fine in your opinion? Why couldn\'t the same be said for gay people?

It\'s not the fact that they are Christian or non-Christian.  Non-Christians marrying aren\'t sinning, and marrying them won\'t be promoting anything deemed wrong in the eyes of the Bible (quite the contrary, actually, they will be upholding Biblical principles of sexual purity).  Letting homosexuals marry would be promoting sin.  I see where you are coming from in that both are against Christianity, but in this case marrying one couple (the heterosexual couple) would be a step in the right direction, whereas marrying the other couple (the homosexual couple) would be a step in the wrong direction.  Does that make sense?  Don\'t worry about sounding like you are trying to force your opinion, because you don\'t.  And you at least bring up a good question (after thinking about it for a minute), as opposed to V that one.

*sigh, now for the long one

Draklar:

Heh... you don\'t think I\'ve been reading the Bible to get that quotes, do you?

Yeah, silly me.  To think you would actually, oh, I don\'t know, do some research on the topic you are trying to argue.  Geez, you call me ignorant for being Christian, and yet you go and read one cracked up article by a person claiming to be Christian and immediately take it to be an authority.  Who is more ignorant, the person who studies and searches for what he/she thinks is truth, and then stands up for themself, or the person who hears someone else say something and immediately takes it as truth? Give me a break.  

I took it from article from some christian about the discriminations and opressings... I would say his interpretation was quite good

How would you know?  You won\'t even crack the book open.  To think some person who won\'t even open the Bible is arguing with me over Biblical teachings.

To thoroughly dispute this I\'m going to need to give you a short lesson in Bible interpretation.  The first rule of interpreting the Bible is this: context.  The second rule is:  context.  And here is the third rule on interpreting scripture: context.  You can\'t just take the words at face value.  That is where you get people (like the article you are quoting) twisting scripture to say things it doesn\'t.  If you take words at face value, and only quote parts and small portions of scripture you can have the Bible support just about anything you want (just like you can have two political groups use the same statistics to support both sides of a particular issue, except their version is called \"spinning\" ).  You need to find what the author was saying at the time of the writing.  For example, there is a scripture passage that says that women should be silent in the church.  Does this actually mean that women shouldn\'t talk in churches?  That is what some claim.  However, if you look into the context of the church that this was written to (it was in one of Paul\'s letters) you will find that that particular church was having problems with women having outbursts of questions and comments during church gatherings.  To bring this back to the topic at hand, those verses quoted have nothing at all to do with the homosexuality issue.  Again, I am not the one judging homosexuals as being sinful.  God and his word are taking care of that, I am merely conveying it.  

 

In other words: Don\'t mind if someone decides to be with someone of same sex and God won\'t mind your sins that much.

Ugh, that is so wrong.  Example: the Bible also says you shouldn\'t murder (unjustified killing).  Now, if I were to go with your face value interpretation of Matthew 7:2 and Matthew 6:14-15 I would be indifferent to murderers.  You just went and slaughtered 20 women and children, meh, I don\'t care, after all, the Bible says I shouldn\'t judge you (note the sarcasm).  More correctly, Matthew 7:2 is telling us we need to be careful about accusing someone of sin when there is no real clear basis for such an accusation.  What it is not saying is that we should not accuse anyone of or speak out against sin ever.  When there is a clear Biblical condemnation to a specific action, and a person has admitted to doing that action, then I am free to lovingly point them in the right direction.  I already posted two examples of scripture denouncing homosexuality, so there is no need for me to judge them, God has done that already.  As for your other scripture reference (Matthew 6:14-15), that is simply saying we need to forgive those who have sinned against us (or sinned in general).  We shouldn\'t harbor anger or despise people who sin, rather we should forgive them.  I already said I have nothing against homosexuals as people (they\'re very nice people, most are very happy and cheerful, there\'s nothing wrong with that).  This semi applies in that Christians shouldn\'t despise homosexuals (or any other group of sinners) for what they have done.  In fact, after looking at what both of those scriptures really mean, your article may not be cracked up at all, you just don\'t understand at all.  I have a feeling that article is saying we shouldn\'t despise homosexuals (or any other group) for their sin, rather that we should lovingly correct them.  I would bet that article isn\'t condoning homosexuality at all, you are just twisting it to work for your argument (remember the politicians and their \"spinning\" example?).  

Not sure about that. According to Christ\'s teachings even those who don\'t worship God are allowed in his \"Kingdom\".

I\'m not quite sure what you mean by that, but if you are implying it is possible for non-Christians to get to heaven you are wrong.  The bible is quite clear on that.  Ephesians 2:8-9  For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.  (NKJV)  If you have faith in Jesus dieing on the cross for your sins you can be forgiven because of God\'s grace.  You can not be saved by doing good alone(though true faith manifests itself in doing good).  Everyone has sinned, and any sin at all is grounds for death (death in this case means eternal seperation from God, IE Hell - Romans 3:23).  That right there is pretty much the core of the core of the Christian faith.

I think that about does it.  Sorry that was so long, seriously, but Draklar asked for it.

:emerald:

Edit:  Oh, and you claim this is fire and brimstone preaching?  You are very wrong my friend.  God is to be feared and loved.  Many people today try to convey God\'s love a lot, which they should, because he is very loving.  But if you disobey his word then you are rejecting his love, and are deserving of his wrath (eternal seperation, IE Hell).  The only unpardonable sin is not believing what God is trying to tell you.

:emerald:

[Moogie]

Arcane: I understand your points now. Thank you.

With that last post I feel I understand enough where you\'re coming from, and any more argument from me wouldn\'t add anything useful here.

So... *vanishes in a puff of fluff*

[dannythompson]

Well I suppose everything that can be said here has been said. Let it be that. I herby vote for this thread to be closed, all in favor say, \"aye!\".

[Draklar]

ArcaneFalcon, I said I found the quotes in the article, I never actually said I didn\'t check them. And as a matter of fact I did open the book and looked into the quotes.

...so yeah, by assuming something before actually asking you are quite ignorant.

I\'m not even going to read such a long post if you start it from making false assumptions :rolleyes:

- Swords

[Olig]

To each, his own. People might as well let gays marry, its going to happen anyways and its not a big deal. Let them get married, let them live in peace, and lets move on to more important subjects.

[Adeli]

Moogie, sorry that was my fault. I forgot to quote you, heh. I was only referring to your comment about gays being the most believing believers that ever believed.
I apologise for confusion.

This will be in no particular order, random like my thoughts.
Arcane... where to start?
You say you don\'t judge these people, \'God\' does. Yet you openly admit to judging their actions. You are indeed judging them, by their actions. So you have contradicted yourself here. Also, isn\'t it blashpemy to speak for your god? I\'m not sure about this, I no longer follow religion.

I agree with Moogie here, how is it that you have no problem with atheists and you do with homosexuals? This has not been sufficiently answered in my opinion. They deny everything you believe in, every single value and belief of your faith, most homosexuals violate one. An entire religion ignored, or one precept... Seems strange to me. Was there an eleventh commandment: \"Thou shalt not love one who is of like gender\"?

Icefalcon, to add to your comment, if gays were to save sex for marriage (oops, forgot, they can\'t in the US), AIDS would be spread less by your reasoning, seems a good reason to allow it.

I feel those passages were indeed relevant and blatantly so. (On this note, Draklar... read the post, it\'s enlightening). They are saying that you have no right to judge (which as I stated you are judging), lest you too be judged, and you must forgive, lest you not be forgiven. I thought this was obvious.

Ionas made a point I was thinking of. Not all christians feel this way. Why is this? Some feel they have no right to judge, others don\'t care. As for your eternal separation (which I do not feel refers to hell), not all christians believe that. For some there is no heaven nor hell, just death. They are no less christian for being different.

Marriage was (originally) unity under God. How then can you deem it right for atheists to marry in a church? I can\'t imagine many would, but how is it allowed? A church is a place of worship, they are non-believers, another strange thing to me. What about an atheist (or agnostic like myself) were to marry a christian? What would you say to that, is it wrong? Trust me it does happen, it will eventually happen to me.

The comment about sexual purity intrigues me. Is purity only defiled by same sex relations? I am sure there must be other ways. Surely the mere loss of virginity is a sign of sexual impurity? What are your feelings on fornication? Should sex be saved for marriages?

Your notes on interpretation... So nothing in the bible makes sense in more than one context? This seems somewhat contradictory to me. I see it like this... \"Do/believe/think/hate/preach this... unless this and this and this...\" Do you see my point? I can\'t understand how this could work? Surely a bible teaching could be applied anywhere? Or is it just where it suits you? If one is to put one\'s trust entirely in a book, then they should be careful of contradictory interpretations. Either you do or you don\'t, not you do under these circumstances and don\'t under those.

Is there a bible passage that encourages you to speak out against sin? I don\'t recall mention of one. (I have not looked at a bible in years, but used to know it rather well.)

so there is no need for me to judge them, God has done that already.

You\'re doing it again, it is ignorant to believe that you are not judging them. I do not think this ignorance is due to your christianity (which, by the way, Draklar never said either), but due to your personality.
You claim to have forgiven them, therefore you should no judge their lifestyle, you should forgive it. This is your own wording here.

This semi applies in that Christians shouldn\'t despise homosexuals (or any other group of sinners) for what they have done.

Why does it only semi apply? Just curious? Seems you just decided on the interpretation that suits you best.

In fact, after looking at what both of those scriptures really mean, your article may not be cracked up at all, you just don\'t understand at all. I have a feeling that article is saying we shouldn\'t despise homosexuals (or any other group) for their sin, rather that we should lovingly correct them. I would bet that article isn\'t condoning homosexuality at all, you are just twisting it to work for your argument

You assume much, but strive to prove little here. Where is your reasoning? You automatically assume your assumption is right, and his understanding is flawed? Have you read the article? I think not. Perhaps you should, you may find you are right... or [gasp] you may be wrong! [/gasp]. A perfect example of your ignorant assumptions is that you immediately decided the article was \"cracked up\" then upon learning it had credence decided that Draklar did not understand \"at all\". This, no matter how you try to sugar coat it, is ignorant. your close-mindedness is nauseating at times.

Your last point, once again... some christians believe there is no heaven or hell, so some may just as well believe \'God\' would welcome atheists. Remember: Yours is not the only denomination, there are hundreds.

Danny, I don\'t agree... this post should show how wrong you are.

Olig, that\'s a nice impartial attitude.

Forgive me for the length of this reply, I feel I covered all of you points, and raised many new ones.

- Tyralus Shadowdancer

[Draklar]

Just thing I caught while reading Adeli\'s post

Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
In fact, after looking at what both of those scriptures really mean, your article may not be cracked up at all, you just don\'t understand at all.  I have a feeling that article is saying we shouldn\'t despise homosexuals (or any other group) for their sin, rather that we should lovingly correct them.  I would bet that article isn\'t condoning homosexuality at all, you are just twisting it to work for your argument (remember the politicians and their \"spinning\" example?).

uhuh... sure, that must be it
first of all it isn\'t about homosexuality, but as I said opressions from christians. Opressions against different religion actually, but obviously that goes for any kinds of opressions.
It was rather call for fellow christians to bugger off already because \"We have persecuted them, and God will hold us accountable for this, you may be sure\".

Heh... \"lovingly correct them\"
you must mean show them the right way by showing good example, not correcting them by pointing out their failures, right? I mean God wouldn\'t like the second one
\"remember the politicians and their \"spinning\" example?\"
I\'m afraid I don\'t... I don\'t care about politics... too much christianity in it nowadays... like that Bush and Reed scum

- Swords

[ArcaneFalcon]

I agree with Moogie here, how is it that you have no problem with atheists and you do with homosexuals? This has not been sufficiently answered in my opinion.

I\'m sorry it hasn\'t, however there is no simpler way to explain it.  Moogie seemed to understand it.

Icefalcon, to add to your comment, if gays were to save sex for marriage (oops, forgot, they can\'t in the US), AIDS would be spread less by your reasoning, seems a good reason to allow it.

Give me a break, what homosexual is going to save sex for marriage?  Yeah right.

As for your eternal separation (which I do not feel refers to hell),

Yes, it is obvious you don\'t really know much about Christianity.  That\'s what Hell is, eternal seperation from God.  That is not some theory or interpretation, it is.

For some there is no heaven nor hell, just death. They are no less christian for being different.

Yes, as a matter of fact, they are.  I would not consider someone who doesn\'t believe in Heaven and Hell to be a Christian.  The Bible is more than blatant about that, and if there is no heaven, then there is no point in the Christian faith in the first place.  If a person can\'t believe the whole Bible, then they are not a Christian in my book.

How then can you deem it right for atheists to marry in a church? I can\'t imagine many would, but how is it allowed?

To be honest with you, I don\'t think many (or any) non-Christians have been married in my church.  It is mostly the Catholic church that does this (as it is increasingly easier to be a part of the Catholic church, and not do anything aside from attend church twice a year).  I think most non-Christians get married in parks and stuff (or in Catholic churches).

Your notes on interpretation... So nothing in the bible makes sense in more than one context?

It really doesn\'t, no.  You need to see what the original author meant when he was writing it, and apply it to that only.  What if you wrote something today, only to have it twisted to mean 10 different things in 1000 years.  It just doesn\'t work that way.  If it did, then people would come along (and do come along, thinking it does work this way) and twist scripture to argue things the Bible was never intended to argue (or was intended to argue against).

You\'re doing it again, it is ignorant to believe that you are not judging them.

No, you simply don\'t understand.  I already posted the references to 2 verses (there are more) that condemn homosexuality.  God hates sin, and homosexuality is sin.  Therefore God hates homosexuality.  I am not speaking for God here, it\'s all there in His book!

Why does it only semi apply? Just curious? Seems you just decided on the interpretation that suits you best.

I already told you what this verse means, and how it applies to this situation.  There really are no other interpretations.  There is no need for me to reiterate this.

You assume much, but strive to prove little here. Where is your reasoning? You automatically assume your assumption is right, and his understanding is flawed? Have you read the article? I think not.

Did I say I read the article?  Note the use of the words \"may,\" \"have a feeling,\" and \"I would bet.\"  

first of all it isn\'t about homosexuality, but as I said opressions from christians. Opressions against different religion actually, but obviously that goes for any kinds of opressions.

Honestly, I don\'t see any of this oppression.  The last Christian oppression I can think of was the KKK, and they were (are) an offshoot radicle group.

A perfect example of your ignorant assumptions is that you immediately decided the article was \"cracked up\" then upon learning it had credence decided that Draklar did not understand \"at all\". This, no matter how you try to sugar coat it, is ignorant.

I think you need some reading lessons.  If you\'ll notice, my entire last post was an evolution of thought.  At the end, and note again the use of conjectural phrases, I decided that the article may be credible, in which case Draklar was twisting it.  I have not read the article, and therefore it is difficult for me to dispute it.

you must mean show them the right way by showing good example, not correcting them by pointing out their failures, right? I mean God wouldn\'t like the second one

Leading by example is a good way, but some times direct intervention is necessary.  What if my best friend was going to commit suicide?  Would I lead by example by not killing myself?  Definitely not!  I give you this extreme example to show you how it applies to lesser situations.  The fact is, homosexuals are destroying themselves in their sin, and it is dis-heartening to sit around and watch (just as it is dis-heartening to sit around and watch anyone do something not beneficial to themselves).  It is my responsibility as a Christian to spread God\'s word, and I can\'t allow someone to claim they are a Christian, and then continue to do things that directly go against His word.  That\'s like being traded to a new sports team, yet still playing for your old one.  You tell me not to speak for God, and yet by \"I mean God wouldn\'t like the second one\" I think you become hipocritic.  Especially when I can back up my comments.

:emerald:

Edit:

\"remember the politicians and their \"spinning\" example?\"

I\'m afraid I don\'t... I don\'t care about politics... too much christianity in it nowadays... like that Bush and Reed scum

If you had read my previous post you would remember it (hint: it was in perenthasis, just like this hint is).

:emerald:

[Dameon]

That has to be the most potentially offensive assignment ever. Be hella careful when answering that one.

[Draklar]

Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
Honestly, I don\'t see any of this oppression.  The last Christian oppression I can think of was the KKK, and they were (are) an offshoot radicle group.

Sure you don\'t, your religion was always twisting public\'s opinion
Do you think people in burning times considered it opressions? No, all they thought was that they\'re doing God\'s will because Church told them so.
But today? What would you call trying to remove pagans from army or making their religion illegal in all? Look up for such people as Bush or Ralph Reed.
To quote article:

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, these people of Wicca have been terribly slandered by us. They have lost jobs, and homes, and places of business because we have assured others that they worship Satan, which they do not. We have persecuted them, and God will hold us accountable for this, you may be sure, for He has said, \"Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.\" (Matthew 25:40)

If you don\'t see opressings from christians then I guess you don\'t want to see them. It\'s not even that hard to find christian websites that are connecting all kinds of things to satan.
Heck, I even saw comic where teaching tolerance for homosexuality is work of satan...

You tell me not to speak for God, and yet by \"I mean God wouldn\'t like the second one\" I think you become hipocritic. Especially when I can back up my comments.

Note the smiley. They are here for some reason... :rolleyes:
but in case your browser doesn\'t support them, there\'s a winking smiley... that means more or less \"not to be taken seriously\"... It\'s just an example of how Church works, but forget about it :rolleyes:

God hates sin, and homosexuality is sin.

it must be terribly smart to hate something that you knew will exist as a result of your actions... and yet not change them...
Everything that exists was created from God\'s will. If so then he willed it to be as it is. If he didn\'t then he would make it different. How can you hate something you wanted to exist? That\'s retarded...

- Swords

[ArcaneFalcon]

But today? What would you call trying to remove pagans from army or making their religion illegal in all?

What the dickens?  Bush is president of a country that was founded for the purpose of freedom of religion.  There\'s no way he will ever make any religion illegal, not a chance.  I know that, you know that, he knows that.

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, these people of Wicca have been terribly slandered by us. They have lost jobs, and homes, and places of business because we have assured others that they worship Satan, which they do not. We have persecuted them, and God will hold us accountable for this, you may be sure, for He has said, \"Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.\" (Matthew 25:40)

Uh huh, that\'s great.  Giving us a one paragraph quote from some random source does nothing for anyone.  Maybe if you could post the link to this article you could begin to argue something worthwhile.  Also, while the topic being argued here may be somewhat credible, the verse used to argue it is really a poor choice.  In this particular section of the Bible Jesus is talking about helping the needy, not about oppressing anyone.  The focus of the passage is on helping, and the lack thereof, not on oppression.

Heck, I even saw comic where teaching tolerance for homosexuality is work of satan...

Let\'s see here, homosexuality=sin.  While I don\'t think this is a very comic worthy issue, I wouldn\'t argue against that.

it must be terribly smart to hate something that you knew will exist as a result of your actions... and yet not change them...
Everything that exists was created from God\'s will. If so then he willed it to be as it is. If he didn\'t then he would make it different. How can you hate something you wanted to exist? That\'s retarded...

It\'s not an issue of retardedness, it\'s an issue of you not understanding.  Stick with me for a minute.  Let\'s say you build a computer.  Wouldn\'t you expect your computer to go ahead and do, oh, say, computerish things?  Maybe you need to do some powerpoint presentations, listen to some music, play some PS, etc.  You go and build this nice new computer.  Fabulous.  However, a week after formating it, it comes down with a bad virus.  Suddently powerpoint doesn\'t work, winamp is crashing every 5 minutes, and PS lags like nobody\'s business (except it\'s the virus\' fault this time, not the devs ).  All you wanted was a computer that did stuff for you, not some hunk of metal that wastes your time.  Wouldn\'t you try to fix the computer?  Maybe get some anti-virus stuff, tweak some security settings, etc.  You built your computer intending to do work more efficiently, and to have some entertainment.  However now it is doing exactly the opposite.  That\'s exactly what God did.  Humans were made to bring God joy.  However, they came down with a virus (sin, it started when Adam at the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden) and now they are doing something completely opposite of their intent.  God put the tree in the garden so that humans wouldn\'t be forced to love him.  What is more satisfying, having someone love you because they have to, or having someone love you because they choose to?  I know I would prefer the latter.  Once humans gained the knowledge of good and evil they lost their innocence.  There is no way they could uphold everything that is good to the T.  Sin entered their lives, and because of this they can\'t be in the presence of God.  However, God wasn\'t finished with humans.  He gets some antivirus software (Jesus dieing on the cross for our sins) and suddenly there is a way out!  All we have to do is believe, and we are cleansed of that which would otherwise seperate us from God forever.  We can then enter back into fellowship with God, and do that which we were created for.  It\'s not retarded, it\'s fulfilling.

:emerald:

[Boldstorm]

I am not going to try and quote everything that has been said so I will paraphrase to the best of my abilities here.

A few things that I just need to point out to some major issues I have with some of these arguements.

First of the United States was founded on the purpose of freedom for \"THEIR\" religion. Do you think someone who believed in Buddah was respected and included in their thoughts, NO.

The bible is not factual. It has been stated many times by many respected members of the church that the bible is not a factual book in all parts and should be taken more for it\'s moral stories then for it\'s truths. With that being said a moral story can not be a definitive response to a problem or a solution. There can be several interpretations. Unless you are talking with the specific person who wrote this story you do not know the exact meanings of everything, and since the earliest copies we have of the bible are from what like 45AD I don\'t think we have the defnitive answers. Also which version of the bible are we talking about since to my knowledge there has been a few different versions.

How in the world can you condeem someone so much for their sexual preference yet over look other people who commit far greater \"sins\"? Isn\'t greed a sin, isn\'t envy a sin, isn\'t anger a sin, only one of the deadly sins that homosexuality would fall under might be lust and that is if you just take it for the physical aspect and not for the emotinal aspect. Even reading the 10 commandments literally there is no where where it says that homosexuality is a sin. Now I know that many have stretched the 7th commandment \"Thou shall not commit adultery\" to try and say that that also covers unnatural sex acts, but please that is a little too much of a stretch for me.

The thing that really bothered me alot though was the thoughts and views on homosexuality as being purely about sex and the particular comment about what homosexual would save sex for marriage. I would say the same amount of \"straight\" people that would. Because you are attracted to the same sex does not mean you have anymore or any less cravings for sex. So it doesn\'t mean that you are going to run around and go dropping your pants for everyone you see.

I don\'t know some of the comments have me a little upset and I don\'t even know how much sense I am making anymore so enough of this rambling.