Homosexuality is a mental illness.
-
Some still do.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Do women go to church with head cover ?
As said before, why does the people of the past follow tis practise and people do not do it now ? Who had interprete wrongly then ?
Some woman still cover their head with the ugly looking cloth over their heads. Nobody asks you to look for examples in CHC or NCC.
Even Jesus follow the customs of jews too but christian think they r above it now. If u ask me why, I can only say tat just chose to ignore the ones they do nto like while following the ones they like.
Woo .. did Brey bribe you to say these things?
-
Some still do
Most don't. If u say it tat way then some churches felt tat homosexual is okay too.Some woman still cover their head with the ugly looking cloth over their heads. Nobody asks you to look for examples in CHC or NCC.
Do your church follow it ? I am not even talking about CHC or NCC. Even the catholic church do not follow itWoo .. did Brey bribe you to say these things?
Wat has it got to do with him
-
Qiang ci duo li.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Most don't. If u say it tat way then some churches felt tat homosexual is okay too.
Churches that felt homosexuality is ok (diff from saying homosexuals are condemned) are not accepted by orthodox churches.
Whereas which church is branded heretical because their women cover their head with that stupid cloth?Do your church follow it ? I am not even talking about CHC or NCC. Even the catholic church do not follow it
I believe it is not totally done away in Catholic churches. I attended the weekday mass and remember got woman wear it.
The stupid cloth .. it is either in white or black. -
Qiang ci duo li.
Then the practise of women covering the hea cover is already lost.
Churches that felt homosexuality is ok (diff from saying homosexuals are condemned) are not accepted by orthodox churches.
Whereas which church is branded heretical because their women cover their head with that stupid cloth? So it is still true tat people ignore part of the bible. U seems to be the one who is qiang ci duo li.I believe it is not totally done away in Catholic churches. I attended the weekday mass and remember got woman wear it.
Why doesn't all the women wear it ? It is stated as such isn't it ?
The stupid cloth .. it is either in white or black. -
-
Homosexuals dont need to act like a homosexual. Most of them are born homosexual. Of ocurse there are exceptions where some people choose to be a homosexual and the questions is "what is wrong with that"? It is not a disease or DIS ease as what you claim. Those people are happy with their lifestyle. It is people like you who make them unhappy.Originally posted by Repented John 2:I feel that homosexuality is a mental illness & should be classifed as such. Long time ago, it was classified as one but i don't know when for whatever reason it became an alternative lifestyle.
Why? Bcos if one has a normal sexual organ, & one acts like a homosexual, there must be something wrong in their brains not their bodies. I am not talking abt those who have two organs or no organ or born with defective organs etc. These i can understand that it cant be helped for them. But i am talking abt normal people with normal organs. Why would anyone want to indulge in homosexuality unless he is a bit off in his head?
I have come across news of ppl who are homosexuals bcos of certain abuse done to them or some dysfunctional family relationships or grown up being called a sissy in school etc. They were normal in the first place but bcos of these abuses they became abnormal. These are all in the mind. They need therapy, counselling, prayer, family support, medicine etc. It's like a sexually abused young girl or boy who needs treatment or they will become mad or abnormal later in life.
Disclaimer: This is only my personal view & as this is a free country, i am free to air my views. If i have offended anyone, i am sorry. People should come to a conclusion of their own & not just quote my views. They are welcome to air their views as well or oppose what i said or support me. Thanks.
And last I recall, Jesus did not say homosexuality is a disease. tsk tsk.... -
The standard answer will be - Christians are no more under the Law.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Why doesn't all the women wear it ? It is stated as such isn't it ?
Christians bochup the 613 mitzvahs liao .. you think they chup laws of Paul meh? -
The standard answer will be - Christians are no more under the Law.
then why chup the law on homo ?
Christians bochup the 613 mitzvahs liao .. you think they chup laws of Paul meh? -
When will people ever learn that Christianity is about a personal relationship with God and all the rules and regulations are there for the organisation to run smoothly and does not affect one's personal relationship with God one way or the other.
-
*clap *clap *clapOriginally posted by casino_king:When will people ever learn that Christianity is about a personal relationship with God and all the rules and regulations are there for the organisation to run smoothly and does not affect one's personal relationship with God one way or the other.
in the context of what's being discuss about church traditions/practices...
I actually agree with C_K here, that they are there as guidlines for orderly worships.
-
then homosexual is only a guideline too ?
-
When God looks at Homosexuals and God look at Bigots they look the same. Whether homosexuality is sin or not aside; when will people ever learn that there is none, no, not one who is perfect... and if we wait for perfection before we come then none will qualify.
-
homosexuals as in the person? or homosexuality as in the act of entering a sexual relationship between 2 persons of the same gender?Originally posted by stupidissmart:then homosexual is only a guideline too ?
we do not and should not condemn the person, cause died for their sins also, just as He died for ours.
But the act of entering into a sexual relationship between 2 persons of the same gender is clearly spelt out in the Bible as a sin. then to call it otherwise is not right either.
1) one can argue that they are born genetically this way (although the findings is not conclusive yet), so they should be allow to act/live this lifestyle they choose.
this arguement is flaw as there are also studies that there is a genetic links with people that are prone to commit violence, does this also means we should also say its ok for them to go around destorying and killing? since they too can claim that they are born this way?
2) To say that since they are born this way, they should live this way or to say that they have no choice but to stay this way, is in truth setting them into bondage, telling them to resign to the fate, refusing the way to change even if they wants to.
In order to really help them, we must give them all the possibilities and their consequence, not just the nice ones, or only the path we want them to choose, then let them make their own personal choice on the path/lifestyle they want to go and may it be a fully informed decision. -
IT'S A MORAL SIN BROTHER. Don't let Satan dupe you into thinking thta it is a mental illness.
he just wants to eliminate the accountability of this sin.
God says: Homosexuality is sin [i'm referring to male to male relationships]
So it must be sin not an illness. Otherwise a homosexual would have a valid excuse at the Great White throne Judgement:
"you see God it was not my fault. it's because it's an illness you know."
Will God then say: "Ah yes you are excused, because it's an illness."
But God says He will punish homosexuals. That means that God [the all-knowing God] knows that it is not an illness because He will hold you accountable for it.
God is an understanding God. He understands that you can't attend Church because of some illness. God will not hold you accountable because He understands. But homosexuality is considered by God as sin. Whatever the findings of psychologist about it that it is an illness must be wrong.
They should study deeper. -
Ooooooooooooooh. We got us an all-knowing being posting on this forum - he obviously knows more than the professionals. The strangest thing is that psychologists have said it's not an illness, he's agreed that it's not an illness, but he's also said that psychologists are wrong when in fact it's some bible-thumping wackjob who's pushing for it to be seen as an illness.
That's what you get for going with blind dumb platitudes instead of logic - you end up making yourself look like a jackass. I think it's clear who requires more study.
Anyway, for those who have crapped on about how the Bible is just soooooooo-ho-ho-ho against same-sex relationships, why don't you look at the Old Testament about the way the doors of Ruth, David and Daniel swung - I don't recall the Big Guy opening a can of Whup-Ass on any of them. For all of this self-proclaimed knowledge and adherence to the Word, some clowns don't even know what it says. -
1) I do not agree that we condemn Homosexuals (the person), on the basis that Christ come to save the sinners (which we too are before we became His), on this note we are in no position to condemn anyone.
2) I do agree Homosexuality, which is the act of sexual relationship with people of the same gender is definitely a sin.
I do think they (yes, the homosexuals) are not beyond that which the grace of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. btw there is no illness that God cannot heal and no sins that Christ our Lord had not paid for perfectly and completely (meaning when He suffer and died on the cross, he did not forget the homosexuals). The question is, do we allow God to do His will in our lives and in theirs as well?
-edited, me barking up the wrong tree earlier- -
sorry vince brother......i did not make myself clear as to who i addressed in my post.Originally posted by vince69:Brother,
you need to read my post again,
1) I do not agree that we condemn Homosexuals (the person), on the basis that Christ come to save the sinners (which we too are before we became His), on this note we are in no position to condemn anyone.
2) I do agree Homosexuality, which is the act of sexual relationship with people of the same gender is definitely a sin.
I do think they (yes, the homosexuals) are not beyond that which the grace of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. btw there is no illness that God cannot heal and no sins that Christ our Lord had not paid for perfectly and completely (meaning when He suffer and died on the cross, he did not forget the homosexuals as well). The question is, do we allow God to do His will in our lives and in theirs as well?
i noticed the head post by RJ2 and went straight to the last portion of this thread.
'Brother' in my post actually refers to RJ2
sorry my fault. 
-
Ruth, David and Daniel are gays meh???Originally posted by Gedanken:Ooooooooooooooh. We got us an all-knowing being posting on this forum - he obviously knows more than the professionals. The strangest thing is that psychologists have said it's not an illness, he's agreed that it's not an illness, but he's also said that psychologists are wrong when in fact it's some bible-thumping wackjob who's pushing for it to be seen as an illness.
That's what you get for going with blind dumb platitudes instead of logic - you end up making yourself look like a jackass. I think it's clear who requires more study.
Anyway, for those who have crapped on about how the Bible is just soooooooo-ho-ho-ho against same-sex relationships, why don't you look at the Old Testament about the way the doors of Ruth, David and Daniel swung - I don't recall the Big Guy opening a can of Whup-Ass on any of them. For all of this self-proclaimed knowledge and adherence to the Word, some clowns don't even know what it says. -
fully agreed. Dun think SIS is aware of this.Originally posted by Icemoon:Neither.
Interpret them in context, according to the principles of biblical hermeneutics. Interpret them in spirit and in truth. -
Awww, don't tell me you haven't heard of Naomi, Jonathan and Ashpenaz? And no, they're not members of some new band.Originally posted by laoda99:Ruth, David and Daniel are gays meh??? -
What are you trying to say? That Naomi was a lesbian and Jonathan was gay? In the bible written by you maybe?Originally posted by Gedanken:Awww, don't tell me you haven't heard of Naomi, Jonathan and Ashpenaz? And no, they're not members of some new band.
Ashpenaz was in charge of the eunuchs and possibly one himself. A eunuch is not necessarily gay. -
Ah, OM. You do realise that if you carry on at this sloppy rate, your thesis defence is gonna look like a slaughterhouse?
Now I know I've impressed the hell out of you previously, but as flattering as it is, there's no reason to hold me responsible for:
"Ruth clave onto [Naomi]" (Ruth 1:14)
"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain ('twain' referring to Jonathan and Michal)" (1 Samuel 18:20-21)
And let's not even go near my part in saying chesed v'rachamim in reference to David and Ashpenaz - my Hebrew's not that good.
There you go again, not checking your facts - sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Mind you, the examples I've cited are nowhere near obscure. In fact, anybody who's performed the most cursory consideration of the Bible's stance in relation to homosexuality would know these juicy little bits of information. Obviously you don't, though - but then again, you've got a history of believeing that you know things that you don't.
Listen, OM, I understand you mean well, and that the little course you're doing makes you think that you're omniscient, but take it from someone who's been there and done that. Stop wasting time trying to strut your stuff - you've got more than enough real work on your hands making sure your thesis hangs together. In your case, you've got the additional work of making sure that the examiners don't realise how farcical your arguments can be. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:Ooooooooooooooh. We got us an all-knowing being posting on this forum - he obviously knows more than the professionals. The strangest thing is that psychologists have said it's not an illness, he's agreed that it's not an illness, but he's also said that psychologists are wrong when in fact it's some bible-thumping wackjob who's pushing for it to be seen as an illness.
That's what you get for going with blind dumb platitudes instead of logic - you end up making yourself look like a jackass. I think it's clear who requires more study.
Anyway, for those who have crapped on about how the Bible is just soooooooo-ho-ho-ho against same-sex relationships, why don't you look at the Old Testament about the way the doors of Ruth, David and Daniel swung - I don't recall the Big Guy opening a can of Whup-Ass on any of them. For all of this self-proclaimed knowledge and adherence to the Word, some clowns don't even know what it says. Don't forget "Play God" -
But the act of entering into a sexual relationship between 2 persons of the same gender is clearly spelt out in the Bible as a sin. then to call it otherwise is not right either.
Talking about sins, there r many things tat r considered as sins. Being in a period means u r "unclean", not a virgin when u r married deserve the death penalty, when your children do not listen to the parents, they also deserve the death penalty. I can go on and on about the many laws from the bible.
Conveniently u forgot all these old rules and surprisingly u only remember the very few which u like to use. Conveniently u consider some as "guidelines" while surprisingly considering others as "sins". Conveniently u say tat others had "misinterprete" the bible without looking at bla bla bla while surprisingly all the people in the past had "interprete " the same way. Conveniently u ignore the advice from modern medical experts and surprisingly u stick to a 2000 year old book tat u have "conveniently" forgotten and ignore part of it. All these really seems "surprising" to me
I do not know why women don't need to cover their head is a "guideline" while homosexual is "sin" and the others sins "forgotten". It is really like a pick-wat-u-like-buffet. People become god and say tis is "sin" while tis is "guidelines" and tis is "ignored". It clearly implied god does not know everything and need to update its version for the bible content based on instructions from people -
It is almost as if Jesus died for nothing. Why bother to die on the cross if the way is by way of Judaistic Laws?