View Poll Results: Would you allow your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members?

Voters
201. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    160 79.60%
  • No

    41 20.40%
Page 210 of 211 FirstFirst ... 110160200208209210211 LastLast
Results 2,091 to 2,100 of 2106

Thread: Would you let your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members? [W:19,1642]

  1. #2091
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,170

    Re: Would you allow your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members? [W:19

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    Prove to me that this was the wrong translation......just prove it....that's all. You cannot....for all you have are allegations driven by emotion.

    Funny......I'm apparently the "closed-minded" Christian here......and I'm the one openly admitting that I am a sinner and no holier or better than anyone else............you, who apparently want the world to see you as the poor "victim" of intolerance in this debate,.... are the one being antagonistic and the one who is blatantly denying his sin..........you don't find this ironic in the least?
    the excerpt from Corinthians you didn't read it properly. you are inserting a meaning that isn't there. I explained it to you. but just in case you're not completely illiterate I will try again.

    where the Bible said that the men gave up natural relations with women and burned with must for each other. this is about a heterosexual man sleeping around on their wives with men. it never mentioned anything about people who are naturally homosexual.

    again it says nothing about homosexuality here.

    I'm getting tired of repeating myself to your illiteracy

  2. #2092
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,170

    Re: Would you allow your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members? [W:19

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    It makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. I was just pointing out that he was incorrect when he made the false claim that it was a common occurrence. No need to get so defensive here...........believe it or not, you are among friends. It's combative gays like you that give so many others a bad reputation. You've prejudiciously attacked every post I've made without considering it for its substance and you've jumped to the conclusion that because I'm a devout Christian, and consider homosexuality sinful, that I hate gays. My friend, you could not be further from the truth.

    Perhaps you should take a step back and reevaluate your approach......you seem a bit abrasive.....and high-strung.
    it's your satanic misrepresentation of scripture that gives Christians a bad name.

  3. #2093
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,170

    Re: Would you allow your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members? [W:19

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    Prove to me that this was the wrong translation......just prove it....that's all. You cannot....for all you have are allegations driven by emotion.

    Funny......I'm apparently the "closed-minded" Christian here......and I'm the one openly admitting that I am a sinner and no holier or better than anyone else............you, who apparently want the world to see you as the poor "victim" of intolerance in this debate,.... are the one being antagonistic and the one who is blatantly denying his sin..........you don't find this ironic in the least?
    The only victim here is christianity. And the disservice you are doing to it. I am Christian. You blatantly have a second or third grade reading level. I explained before.

    I am not denying my sin, just that homosexuality isn't a sin. You have completely failed to support that claim with scripture. You are not really a good person to consult on this, you're understanding of scripture is terribly limited.

  4. #2094
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,170

    Re: Would you allow your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members? [W:19

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    Wow! Thanks for your very specific response to my request. (1)I give you specific scripture. (2) you deny it is accurate and give no specific, cited evidence as to how or why. Then, (3) you give me this as a rebuttal? Debating is not really your thing, I can tell.
    Well you need to learn basic reading comprehension, I can't help you with that.

    1) You gave scripture that has nothing to do with homosexuality, your poor reading comprehension is clear.
    2) I denied your notion that it regarded homosexuality is inaccurate, I explained that you are just to hard headed.

    Debating with feeble minds is not my thing, especially when it requires you to think.

  5. #2095
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    04-03-13 @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    458

    Re: Would you let your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members? [W:19,1

    How come the OP only asks about sons and not daughters?

  6. #2096
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,170

    Re: Would you allow your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members? [W:19

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    It makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. I was just pointing out that he was incorrect when he made the false claim that it was a common occurrence. No need to get so defensive here...........believe it or not, you are among friends. It's combative gays like you that give so many others a bad reputation. You've prejudiciously attacked every post I've made without considering it for its substance and you've jumped to the conclusion that because I'm a devout Christian, and consider homosexuality sinful, that I hate gays. My friend, you could not be further from the truth.

    Perhaps you should take a step back and reevaluate your approach......you seem a bit abrasive.....and high-strung.
    You called me agnostic, I am a Christian. I rebutted your false claims on what is sin. Never said you hated gays, just that your interpretation of the scripture you posted is only yours and that it doesn't follow the words written. It relies on a false hood that everybody is naturally heterosexual. That is a predisposed judgment or a prejudice. You can't think that way if you want to read scripture and get its true meaning.

    As I explained several times for me to force a heterosexual relationship against God's design, that would be a detestable act. For me to give up what is natural for me, in my case, a relationship with a man would be exchanging what is natural for what is unnatural. Burning with lust seems to be the part that is detestable. Lust drives wedges in families, and between us and the lord.

    I don't care if its heterosexual or homosexual. Why it was referenced here was the practice of prostitution that occurred in the pagan temples the prostitutes were male.

    When you read the scripture here in original Greek, the words don't really reflect homosexuality.

  7. #2097
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Would you allow your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members? [W:19

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    You called me agnostic, I am a Christian. I rebutted your false claims on what is sin. Never said you hated gays, just that your interpretation of the scripture you posted is only yours and that it doesn't follow the words written. It relies on a false hood that everybody is naturally heterosexual. That is a predisposed judgment or a prejudice. You can't think that way if you want to read scripture and get its true meaning.

    As I explained several times for me to force a heterosexual relationship against God's design, that would be a detestable act. For me to give up what is natural for me, in my case, a relationship with a man would be exchanging what is natural for what is unnatural. Burning with lust seems to be the part that is detestable. Lust drives wedges in families, and between us and the lord.

    I don't care if its heterosexual or homosexual. Why it was referenced here was the practice of prostitution that occurred in the pagan temples the prostitutes were male.

    When you read the scripture here in original Greek, the words don't really reflect homosexuality.
    Wow, you've quoted my one little post, several times. First off, I don't remember ever calling you an agnostic. Secondly, This is ONLY your interpretation of scripture based on what you believe regarding homosexuality. Thirdly, I don't think it really matters whether the persons involved were considered to be "naturally" gay or were just "experimenting"......the scripture does not specify. But what it DOES specify, is what acts are considered abominations in God's eyes. The passage from Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians does refer to either "homosexuals" or to "sodomites" depending on the literal translation from Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. You can dance around this all you'd like, but you can't change what was written there 1900 years ago.

    All you are accomplishing is that you are nitpicking semantics from only the translations which you find favorable and you seem to be ignoring the basic content of the scripture.........this is not how objective study is done.......you can't simply throw out what you find unfavorable. Your argument that Paul does not specifically reference "natural-born" homosexuals is completely ludicrous. Show me ANY other credible historic document from that specific era and that specific region which shows discernment between "casual" homosexuals and "natural" homosexuals, and I will gladly bow out. You won't because you can't.........it does not exist and your argument is based on utter nonsense and on your emotional ties to this issue.

    When you read the scripture in its most accurate literal translation into English (which is not from any EXISTING Greek edition) it DOES indeed reflect homosexuality.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  8. #2098
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,170

    Re: Would you allow your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members? [W:19

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    Wow, you've quoted my one little post, several times. First off, I don't remember ever calling you an agnostic. Secondly, This is ONLY your interpretation of scripture based on what you believe regarding homosexuality.
    Correction it is my interpretation based on what is written.

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    Thirdly, I don't think it really matters whether the persons involved were considered to be "naturally" gay or were just "experimenting"......the scripture does not specify.
    It only specifies giving up to lust. And replacing what is natural with what is unnatural. Nothing whatsoever about homosexuality.

    Show me where it directly references homosexuality.

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    what it DOES specify, is what acts are considered abominations in God's eyes.
    The scripture only specifies that giving up what is natural for what is unnatural is detestable.

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    passage from Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians does refer to either "homosexuals" or to "sodomites" depending on the literal translation from Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. You can dance around this all you'd like, but you can't change what was written there 1900 years ago.
    The only place in scripture that it refers to sodomites is in regard to the city of Sodom.

    In original Greek the word is arsenokoitai, that is not synonymous with homosexual, sorry. In Hebrew it is catamites, again not synonymous with homosexual.




    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    All you are accomplishing is that you are nitpicking semantics from only the translations which you find favorable and you seem to be ignoring the basic content of the scripture.........
    That is also all you are doing. Hello pot, I am the kettle, stop calling me black.

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    this is not how objective study is done.......you can't simply throw out what you find unfavorable.
    I never did, I am going by the English translation.


    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    Your argument that Paul does not specifically reference "natural-born" homosexuals is completely ludicrous. Show me ANY other credible historic document from that specific era and that specific region which shows discernment between "casual" homosexuals and "natural" homosexuals,
    The concept of homosexuals didn't exist until about 150 years ago, that is precisely why your argument that Paul was referring to homosexuals is ludicrous. Did he carry a Mac ten and a cell phone also?


    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    You won't because you can't.........it does not exist and your argument is based on utter nonsense and on your emotional ties to this issue.
    Seems like your mind is made up. Beware, satan's greatest trick is commencing you he isn't there.


    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    When you read the scripture in its most accurate literal translation into English (which is not from any EXISTING Greek edition) it DOES indeed reflect homosexuality.
    No, it doesn't, it refers to lust and doing what is unnatural. Sorry you are dead wrong here.

    Lastly I am not dancing around and ignoring the text. I am not allowing you or the others that share your prejudice to manipulate the Bible into agreeing with you.

    The text says only what it says. This nonsense that you perpetuate is a glaring flaw in your capacity to be objective.
    Last edited by CLAX1911; 03-07-13 at 09:54 PM.

  9. #2099
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Would you allow your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members? [W:19

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post


    It only specifies giving up to lust. And replacing what is natural with what is unnatural. Nothing whatsoever about homosexuality.

    Show me where it directly references homosexuality.
    I already have, in 1 Corinthians.


    The scripture only specifies that giving up what is natural for what is unnatural is detestable.
    No, not really. I've already established that that which is deemed "natural" is not always Godly.


    In original Greek the word is arsenokoitai, that is not synonymous with homosexual, sorry. In Hebrew it is catamites, again not synonymous with homosexual.
    Yes, it is true that Paul, apparently created this Greek word for the sole purpose of describing specific acts that were being committed by men. There is no evidence of this word ever being used before Paul employs it. So, let us take a closer look at the word "arsenokoital". It can simply be broken down into its two basic Greek root words: arsen (=male) and koites (=to bed or sleep with sexually; like the English word coitus). Knowing this, I can't imagine any other reason why Paul would have combined these two Greek words other than to describe homosexual acts........can you? Well, of course you can, because you are obviously incapable of analyzing this objectively.





    I never did, I am going by the English translation.
    As am I, and the English translation of these two very basic Greek root words is fairly evident.



    The concept of homosexuals didn't exist until about 150 years ago, that is precisely why your argument that Paul was referring to homosexuals is ludicrous. Did he carry a Mac ten and a cell phone also?
    Wow! Just when I thought this could not become more strange and ridiculous. Yes, you are correct......which is probably why Paul used his own combination of two Greek words to describe the act. We don't know if Paul was completely fluent in Greek or if he was simply adept at translating letters into Greek. We do know that he combined these two words into one in an attempt to describe something sinful......and the English translation of the words makes his intent pretty clear........both in my humble opinion......and in the opinions of most reputable biblical scholars.


    Seems like your mind is made up. Beware, satan's greatest trick is commencing you he isn't there.
    I think you meant "convincing" us that he does not exist. Either way, I am quite aware of the enemy's intentions and am not swayed by them.. Also remember that Christ, Himself reminds us that Lucifer is indeed the Prince of this world and is always on the prowl. What you suggest is that Paul's message is confusing and that he may have misused terminology. My suggestion is that my God is not a God of confusion and that His message is simple. It is the enemy who spawns confusion and tempts us to twist the message of Christ and of His Holy Word by attempting to rely too heavily upon our own understandings and by not seeking out God's will and the guidance of His Holy Spirit.


    I pray for you my brother.....that you'd not rely too much on your own interpretations and understandings and seek out God's will in your readings of the scripture. I'll just leave it at this.........I will argue semantics and worldy interpretations with you no further, as it is not my goal to change your mind, but simply to express to you why my faith leads me to believe what I do. I truly believe that some scripture is meant to be taken at face value and is not necessarily "open to interpretation."

    I suppose this is where we part ways...........may you go in God's grace my friend.
    Last edited by FluffyNinja; 03-08-13 at 12:43 AM.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  10. #2100
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,170

    Re: Would you allow your son to go to camp where there were openly gay members? [W:19

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    Wow! Just when I thought this could not become more strange and ridiculous. Yes, you are correct......which is probably why Paul used his own combination of two Greek words to describe the act. We don't know if Paul was completely fluent in Greek or if he was simply adept at translating letters into Greek. We do know that he combined these two words into one in an attempt to describe something sinful......and the English translation of the words makes his intent pretty clear........both in my humble opinion......and in the opinions of most reputable biblical scholars.
    What act was he describing, because you only dissected a noun. arsenokoitai is a noun. And removed out of its text can mean anything, but when used in conjunction with pornos, malakos, and catamites the meaning becomes clear that this is a particular type of arsenokoitai, one that uses soft (malakos) beardless (catamites) prostitutes (pornos) being that they are a male (arseno) bedder (koitai) its abundantly clear that this is a specific form of homosexuality. It is still homosexuality.

    Arsenokoitai doesn't really translate to homosexual. Homosexual refers to someone with a same sex attraction. The English translation lacks specificity, mainly due to the changing of language.

    If you take it at face value you are overlooking true meaning, that isn't a wise idea.

    Arsenokoitai can mean a male doorm, or time where men sleep, it could mean all sorts of things out of context and culture.

    Lets just dissect the term homosexual, homo means same, sexual means gender. The boy scouts can be called a homosexual organization, all the members are the same sex, the priesthood is homosexual, only males can be priests. But if you put another word with it, like homosexual attraction, it changes the meaning.

    As with arsenokoitai, coupled with malakos, catamites, and pornos, we get a vastly different meaning.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •