• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will God Bless the Military Beacuse of New Policy?

Will God Bless the Military Because of New Policy?

  • God will Continue to bless our Country but not our Military

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • God will continue to bless BOTH country and military

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • God blesses individuals NOT groups

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • God blesses individuals AND groups seperatly

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • God doesnt work like this at all!

    Votes: 10 27.0%
  • I dont believe in God of the Chirstian Bible

    Votes: 9 24.3%
  • Im an Athiest

    Votes: 13 35.1%
  • Other / I dont know

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • The person that said this to you Noodle is a idiot

    Votes: 12 32.4%
  • The person that said this to you Noodle is a wise person

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Total voters
    37
Everyone is God's creation, but not everyone is a child of God. God loves everyone, but not everyone has been adopted as children into his family. Only those who have repented of sin and believe in Jesus are Biblically Children of God.

I was raised to believe that everyone was a child of God - you didn't have ot believe it or be righteous for that to be true. :shrug:

But I'm not going to debate it - I don't believe in the whole religious-god thing anymore.
 
Show me Biblically where God says that He makes people gay and forces them into homosexuality.

It's obvious you don't think people are born gay. That's where we differ.
Just curious, with the hell gays get put through by so many bigots, do you think they actually "choose" to be gay?
I have no doubt God loves his gay children as much as he loves his straight ones.
 
I also agree with you. Alas I feel that folks here are surprised you feel that way because of your strong conservative beliefs. Conservatives generally believe in the Bible and in the bible it says at LEAST twice that God HATES homosexual activity. A LOT!
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).


“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…” (Romans 1:26-27).

The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).

Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behavior. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and…

“Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4-5).

“While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean 'to have sex with,' nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. …It means 'to know sexually' in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having “known” a man (19:8).” 9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.

Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an ‘abomination.’ This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.”10

It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is 'sodomy'.

Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as 'Jonathan loved David (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David's presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41)'.11

However, “David's love for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).”12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David's love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.

Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God's presence (“my temple”), but practicing homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.

Other scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.

Punishment
The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).

Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.

“…Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortion ers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

What's wrong with being gay? Homosexual behavior versus the Bible - ChristianAnswers.Net

I've barely picked up a bible since my teen years. I heard a preacher saying some crap about blacks being inferior or something like that and that it said so in the bible. Any God of mine would never think that way. He made all kinds of people as far as I'm concerned and they are all his children.
 
To The Giant Noodle (I really don't want to quote that again)

Ezekiel 16:49 clearly states that it was not homosexuality or any sexual deviance that led to Sodom's destruction. It was the people of Sodom turning from God (which is also stated in the passages prior to the actual story of Sodom, when God is speaking with Abraham. He never mentions sexual activities at all. Ezekiel says that it was "inhospitality and essentially greed".

Ezekiel 16:49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Plus, it was common in those times for people to believe that having sex with a supernatural being (angels) would give the person some of that being's powers. Which would explain why all the men in the town, young and old came to rape the angels, not just some of them. They couldn't have all been homosexual (bisexual maybe, but I doubt it) because there were children in the town. It was about the power.
 
To The Giant Noodle (I really don't want to quote that again)

Ezekiel 16:49 clearly states that it was not homosexuality or any sexual deviance that led to Sodom's destruction. It was the people of Sodom turning from God (which is also stated in the passages prior to the actual story of Sodom, when God is speaking with Abraham. He never mentions sexual activities at all. Ezekiel says that it was "inhospitality and essentially greed".

Ezekiel 16:49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.



Plus, it was common in those times for people to believe that having sex with a supernatural being (angels) would give the person some of that being's powers. Which would explain why all the men in the town, young and old came to rape the angels, not just some of them. They couldn't have all been homosexual (bisexual maybe, but I doubt it) because there were children in the town. It was about the power.


ACtually youre wrong because it was part of how they turned away from God. It states multiple times in the Bible in NT and OT that God HAAAAATES homosexual acts.
Personally I dont give a **** because I feel the whole thing is man made and not inspired or blessed by any god.
 
OHHHHHHHH by the way the person who said this was my Pastor speaking during a Bible study. I used to be a Born-Again until I realized how foolish it all was. In any case I still go to services because most of my friends are there.
 
Show me Biblically where God says that He makes people gay and forces them into homosexuality.

God made everything correct? According to Genesis...yes. Of course it doesn't specifically say anything about gays or homosexuals. But then it also doesn't say that God created the Oak tree specifically either.

First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 6 And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." 29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
 
I really wish you hadn't started this thread. All it is going to do is stir up a lot of controversy and anger.

To answer the OP, I'd just have to say that I don't know. I don't claim to speak for God. He will bless a nation(or its military) as He wills according to His purposes. Individuals are a different matter, according to my beliefs.




I doubt that God has ever blessed an active soldier.

That's quite a radical statement. Would you care to expand on your thoughts on that matter?
 
Hah! I love this - I just might get one to draw scripture from in debates.

Amazon.com: The Bible in Original Languages is Not anti Gay: an essential guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians (9781452881232): Dr A. Nyland: Books
Amazon.com: Study New Testament For Lesbians, Gays, Bi, And Transgender: With Extensive Notes On Greek Word Meaning And Context (9780980443011): Dr A. Nyland: Books

The Gay and Lesbian Study Bible, translated from the Greek by Dr Ann Nyland, is a timely contribution to the spiritual needs of gay and lesbian followers of Christ. Dr Nyland's close examination of the source materials shows beyond doubt that there is no textual basis in the Bible for the exclusion of same sex relations. The Gay and Lesbian Study Bible will give heart to many who feel that sexual orientation is irrelevant to spiritual communion, and it does so by paying meticulous scholarly attention to the true meanings of the source text of all Christian faith.
-- Dr William McDonald, University of New England.
 
Well it would be cool if ya DID! I would like to seehow they can wiggle their way around direct biblical statements that arent taken out of context.

They re-translated from the original texts. . .as do many conflicting versions of the Bible.

that's what happens when a religion uses a book that's extremely old - there's a lot of room for interpretation . . . interpreting texts of any type - for any purpose - is tricky business. It's not like a code where all you have to do is unscramble it.
 
They re-translated from the original texts. . .as do many conflicting versions of the Bible.

that's what happens when a religion uses a book that's extremely old - there's a lot of room for interpretation . . . interpreting texts of any type - for any purpose - is tricky business. It's not like a code where all you have to do is unscramble it.


I personally dont think it would change muliple references directed at gay acts. Sounds like the author is trying to fit a sqare peg in a round hole. :roll:
 
I personally dont think it would change muliple references directed at gay acts. Sounds like the author is trying to fit a sqare peg in a round hole. :roll:

Yet that's at the core of many philosophical and theological debates: linguistics.
 
I personally dont think it would change muliple references directed at gay acts. Sounds like the author is trying to fit a sqare peg in a round hole. :roll:

It is more like the thinking of the times were different. As far as we know, they didn't have a word for any sexuality. Sociology didn't exist back then. They didn't think such things were really necessary to explain. It is quite possible that they were talking about either sex between a man and boy, or ritual male prostitution, or even someone who sleeps with both men and women. It really isn't as cut and dry as we may think. And it could very well mean man/man sexual relations, but it is really not easy to know this, since those original words are no longer used and really weren't translated directly from someone who lived in the time when those terms were being used to clear up what exactly is being talked about.

Heck, until the 1970s, homosexuality was considered a mental illness even by mental health professionals. Why? What exactly was wrong with being homosexual that made it necessary to make it a mental illness? Many people, even now, hold this stance because they feel that it somehow helps to justify their own bigotry against consenting adults of the same sex being involved in intimate relationships when there is no actual conflict with them living a normal healthy life nor a conflict of violating consent laws.
 
It is more like the thinking of the times were different. As far as we know, they didn't have a word for any sexuality. Sociology didn't exist back then. They didn't think such things were really necessary to explain. It is quite possible that they were talking about either sex between a man and boy, or ritual male prostitution, or even someone who sleeps with both men and women. It really isn't as cut and dry as we may think. And it could very well mean man/man sexual relations, but it is really not easy to know this, since those original words are no longer used and really weren't translated directly from someone who lived in the time when those terms were being used to clear up what exactly is being talked about.

One of the biggest reasons why I think the bible..in any of its current forms is crap.
 
In my humble opinion, the sentience of any 'divine' monotheistic entity (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient) would be so utterly foreign to our minds that nothing we could ever conceive of could mimic, predict or understand its reasoning. It'd be like explaining to penguins the nuances of atomic particles. Naturally, I find this poll absurd.
 
Last edited:
Only God knows. From a spiritual standpoint, God showed compassion and love to all sinners and gave everyone a chance to repent and be saved. In terms of sin, it is equally wrong for a soldier to have premarital sex and act crass and foolish. As a Christian, I believe that God doesn't hate homosexuals or any other sinner and wishes that they would repent and turn from their ways. Biblically speaking, allowing homosexuals to serve openly is just as "wrong" as accepting heterosexuals that brag and are open about their sexual immorality with the opposite sex. I believe God will judge all nations and all people during the end of days.

Jolly good post old chap.
 
It is more like the thinking of the times were different. As far as we know, they didn't have a word for any sexuality. Sociology didn't exist back then. They didn't think such things were really necessary to explain. It is quite possible that they were talking about either sex between a man and boy, or ritual male prostitution, or even someone who sleeps with both men and women. It really isn't as cut and dry as we may think. And it could very well mean man/man sexual relations, but it is really not easy to know this, since those original words are no longer used and really weren't translated directly from someone who lived in the time when those terms were being used to clear up what exactly is being talked about.

Heck, until the 1970s, homosexuality was considered a mental illness even by mental health professionals. Why? What exactly was wrong with being homosexual that made it necessary to make it a mental illness? Many people, even now, hold this stance because they feel that it somehow helps to justify their own bigotry against consenting adults of the same sex being involved in intimate relationships when there is no actual conflict with them living a normal healthy life nor a conflict of violating consent laws.

Actually - many historians date most of the Bible to be within the first few centuries BC.
That would date along side the pyramids and other such things - and Greek history when they were a large empire. The Greeks, as we all know, were very insightful and many of their ideas and beliefs still heavily influence our societies, today - such as Aristotles teachings and so on.

Of course - other stories of the Bible come from other areas such as Assyria and coincide with more ancient events that came form Hammurabi's time-period. . . Hammurabi, as we all now, instilled values he set forward in his 'Code of Hammurabi' - which is extremely detailed i in some ways quite insightful.

All in all - though the stories and events are diverse in their time-period - people back then in some places spent an excessive amount of time trying to understand human nature - and to control and contain it.

This is how I think the Bible itself came around - from an attempt to control and govern mankind. Obviously they figured out something about human-psychology - because people still follow the Bible as Constantine decided it would be written.
 
I really wish you hadn't started this thread. All it is going to do is stir up a lot of controversy and anger.

To answer the OP, I'd just have to say that I don't know. I don't claim to speak for God. He will bless a nation(or its military) as He wills according to His purposes. Individuals are a different matter, according to my beliefs.






That's quite a radical statement. Would you care to expand on your thoughts on that matter?

Which part of "Thou shalt not kill" is confusing for you? Soldiers should repent heavily for the lives that they have taken in battle. God doesn't bless active warriors, but should accept those that know that they have sinned.
 
Actually - many historians date most of the Bible to be within the first few centuries BC.
That would date along side the pyramids and other such things - and Greek history when they were a large empire. The Greeks, as we all know, were very insightful and many of their ideas and beliefs still heavily influence our societies, today - such as Aristotles teachings and so on.

The old testament, perhaps. The new testament dates to around 100AD or much later. The earliest copies in existence date from around 300 AD.
 
This question is ridiculous on many levels, theologically speaking. First, it is based upon the presumption that America had some sort of favored nation status in God's eyes, akin to Israel, and has now lost it because of teh gheys. There is zero theological basis for this belief. God doesn't have a favorite team. He has relationships with individuals.

Secondly, it presumes that God withholds love from humans based upon their hetero/homosexuality. That is also patently false...

"While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Some evangelicals are just ridiculously stupid when they come up with this sort of nonsense. It's as if they haven't even read the bible.
 
Last edited:
The old testament, perhaps. The new testament dates to around 100AD or much later. The earliest copies in existence date from around 300 AD.

Yes - there's a large span of time and a significant number of books to consider. Yet the New Testament was compiled from a variety of books that were collected, (as was the Old Testament) - and many were actually rejected from the Bible.

Which is interesting - the rejected books are rarely read and revered - eventhough they, too, are claimed to be 'the word of God' and so on.
 
This question is ridiculous on many levels, theologically speaking. First, it is based upon the presumption that America had some sort of favored nation status in God's eyes, akin to Israel. There is zero theological basis for this belief. God doesn't have a favorite team. He has relationships with individuals.

Secondly, it presumes that God withholds love from humans based upon their hetero/homosexuality. That is also patently false...

"While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Some evangelicals are just ridiculously stupid when they come up with this sort of nonsense. It's as if they haven't even read the bible.

They, like so many others, only read and live by the portions that they agree with and find tasteful.
 
Back
Top Bottom