-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
3
ok, i know pretty much nothing on this topic but as far as i have observed (nobody please take offince to this) People are not gay.They simply search for whats new, diffrent, sexy, and rebellious. You see i think of this as LUST and LOVE. The lust is when you can experience sothing new just to see if it feels better. (Im sorry if im being frank i just dnt know how else to word this) So the way i see it things go like this curiosity=new experiences=gayness=lust=sin Id say...but ive never been IN that situation before ive just tryed to help my friends. The love part is a lot easier though. forget what the inside of your pants are telling you and follow your heart, follow love, follow JESUS! 
TRUE-LOVE-WAITS
TRUE-LOVE-WAITS
L
I think this one
Romans 1:24-27
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Granted, I have not known a ton of gay people, but the handful that I have known have all either been abused in the past or had trouble connecting to their parent of the same sex. For example, I knew a guy who had all sisters, and his dad really wanted him to be into sports and be someone he could do "guy things" with. But he wasn't interested in sports and rough-housing and whatnot. So his dad was always calling him a girl and a sissy and things like that. Eventually he joined a swim team and thought "Finally, my dad will be proud of me, now that I'm getting into a sport." But his dad didn't feel that swimming was a "man's sport," and continued to call his son a girl and talk about how he wished he had a boy who liked doing "guy things." This guy ended up being gay. To me, that's not real surprising--he had no connection or validation from the person who should have been a male role model to him, so he went looking elsewhere for it. Eventually he did become a Christian and asked God that if being gay was a sin, to change his feelings. And God did--that guy now has a wife and is a father, and has forgiven his own father for the way he treated him growing up.
Again, that is just one story, and I guess I can't say that ALL gay people have been through something similar, but I personally think these things are what "cause" people to become gay.
Again, that is just one story, and I guess I can't say that ALL gay people have been through something similar, but I personally think these things are what "cause" people to become gay.
-
1
- Show all
L
Give the girl a break. She's only 15, and she did request that no one take offense with what she was saying since her intent was not to offend. What she is saying is true for some people who are homosexual, anyways. No, it does not apply to all homosexuals, but that does not make her some "special kind of lazy" just because at the age of 15 she hasn't taken the time to do a years-long scientific experiment on the matter.
There are people who simply delve into homosexuality because they want to try something new. This is how you end up with some (notice the word "some" there) bisexuals, and some (note the word "some" again) homosexuals. Her hypothesis isn't completely off-base. I think you are overreacting.
Homosexuality isn't something you learn about in school, so where exactly did you expect this 15-year-old girl to test her opinion? You want her to walk up to every homosexual she knows and ask "So, how did you end up being homosexual?" Yeah, that'd go over real great.
There are people who simply delve into homosexuality because they want to try something new. This is how you end up with some (notice the word "some" there) bisexuals, and some (note the word "some" again) homosexuals. Her hypothesis isn't completely off-base. I think you are overreacting.
Homosexuality isn't something you learn about in school, so where exactly did you expect this 15-year-old girl to test her opinion? You want her to walk up to every homosexual she knows and ask "So, how did you end up being homosexual?" Yeah, that'd go over real great.
K
At the age of 15, I knew how to say "some" if that is what I meant. I imagine you did too. Besides, if we're playing doctor and diagnosing lust in other people, we can't all the sudden hide behind our age. If she's too young to take criticisms of her opinion, she's too young to give it. I don't think she's too young, however - I think she can afford to think more deeply, even if she's only 15.
It certainly is better than saying, "you know, people are gay because they're lusty and looking for something new." Asking is always better than asserting.
Regardless, if she hasn't tested her opinions, why does she feel empowered to share them as fact? As she says: "i know pretty much nothing on this topic." When I recognize that I'm ignorant about something, I tend to listen, not tell people what sounds pretty.
It certainly is better than saying, "you know, people are gay because they're lusty and looking for something new." Asking is always better than asserting.
Regardless, if she hasn't tested her opinions, why does she feel empowered to share them as fact? As she says: "i know pretty much nothing on this topic." When I recognize that I'm ignorant about something, I tend to listen, not tell people what sounds pretty.
L
She obviously didn't mean "some," so she didn't say it. I emphasized the word "some" so you wouldn't try and say my opinion was a special kind of lazy too.
I am not saying she is too young to take criticism. I am saying your brand of criticism was unnecessarily harsh, and coming from me that is saying alot because I can be rather harsh on this site.
She was simply sharing her thoughts on the matter. By stating that she had little concrete knowledge about the issue and that it was her opinion, she was not trying to assert anything as fact. There is no place in her post that she tried to pass off her beliefs of the matter as fact. And instead of tearing her down, you could have simply corrected her where you believed her opinion to be wrong. Try responding to her like the child that she is instead of treating her like some sort of evil politician that is trying to pass lies as truth.
There is a very big difference between saying "I know for a fact that..." and "I know little on the issue, but I personally believe that..."
I am not saying she is too young to take criticism. I am saying your brand of criticism was unnecessarily harsh, and coming from me that is saying alot because I can be rather harsh on this site.
She was simply sharing her thoughts on the matter. By stating that she had little concrete knowledge about the issue and that it was her opinion, she was not trying to assert anything as fact. There is no place in her post that she tried to pass off her beliefs of the matter as fact. And instead of tearing her down, you could have simply corrected her where you believed her opinion to be wrong. Try responding to her like the child that she is instead of treating her like some sort of evil politician that is trying to pass lies as truth.
There is a very big difference between saying "I know for a fact that..." and "I know little on the issue, but I personally believe that..."
K
Given what she was saying about all gay people, I think the tone fits. She does not get to make such sweeping and, in my opinion, cruel generalizations without opening herself up to equally harsh criticisms. She can tell a an entire subculture they're deluded by lust, but I can't tell one 15 year old girl she's been too lazy in critical thinking?
Why am I wearing kid gloves with somebody already throwing punches at any gay person who happens to stumble across this thread?
Then we're reading different posts. Not only is she passing it off as fact, she's using her beliefs as a recommendation for those around her.
I will take her as seriously as what she's said warrants.The opinions she's giving here and to her friends have the potential to do a lot of harm. Are you not worried about the children she's telling these things to? By her own admission, after all, she's spreading this among her peers.
Why am I wearing kid gloves with somebody already throwing punches at any gay person who happens to stumble across this thread?
Then we're reading different posts. Not only is she passing it off as fact, she's using her beliefs as a recommendation for those around her.
I will take her as seriously as what she's said warrants.The opinions she's giving here and to her friends have the potential to do a lot of harm. Are you not worried about the children she's telling these things to? By her own admission, after all, she's spreading this among her peers.
L
What's so wrong with telling people they are living in lust exactly?
Someone who is homosexual is bound to have had lustful thoughts before, or else that person would not be a professing homosexual. In order to know you are homosexual you have to have had lustful thoughts toward someone of the same sex before. You can't just say "I've never been attracted to someone of the same sex as me, but I know I'm a homosexual." That makes no sense. Upon what is this person basing his feelings?
Quite honestly, I really don't understand what was so horrible about this girl's post. It was a bit premature, and her opinion was not fully researched, but a very sound argument could be built upon her weak hypothesis.
And yes, you can tell a person to think critically. I just don't think the way you went about it was the most prudent or entirely warranted in this instance.
Generally that is how it goes when a person has brains enough to form their own opinion. They generally want people to believe the same way they do. What is the point in having an opinion if you are not willing to defend it?
I would prefer she be more educated on the issue, yes. But by yelling at the girl and tearing her down, you are not going to get her to change her way of thinking. And you only got a few sentences of her belief. You don't know how she deals with this sort of thing when talking to her friends or how she words it when around them. Maybe in her experience the people she has seen become homosexual did do it for experimental sexual reasons. You wouldn't know, because you did not take the time to ask. Or maybe all she knows about homosexuality is what she has seen displayed on the media, and the media does a really good job of making it seem all about lust and experimentation. I could be wrong though, and she could simply be a willfully ignorant 15 year old who enjoys condemning people she knows nothing about. I don't know. Either way, jumping down her throat isn't going to help anything.
Honestly, I think she is on the right track, and I appreciate the fact that she is at least willing to spread her spiritual beliefs to her friends instead of hiding them or trying to water them down to make them more socially acceptable.
Someone who is homosexual is bound to have had lustful thoughts before, or else that person would not be a professing homosexual. In order to know you are homosexual you have to have had lustful thoughts toward someone of the same sex before. You can't just say "I've never been attracted to someone of the same sex as me, but I know I'm a homosexual." That makes no sense. Upon what is this person basing his feelings?
Quite honestly, I really don't understand what was so horrible about this girl's post. It was a bit premature, and her opinion was not fully researched, but a very sound argument could be built upon her weak hypothesis.
And yes, you can tell a person to think critically. I just don't think the way you went about it was the most prudent or entirely warranted in this instance.
Generally that is how it goes when a person has brains enough to form their own opinion. They generally want people to believe the same way they do. What is the point in having an opinion if you are not willing to defend it?
I would prefer she be more educated on the issue, yes. But by yelling at the girl and tearing her down, you are not going to get her to change her way of thinking. And you only got a few sentences of her belief. You don't know how she deals with this sort of thing when talking to her friends or how she words it when around them. Maybe in her experience the people she has seen become homosexual did do it for experimental sexual reasons. You wouldn't know, because you did not take the time to ask. Or maybe all she knows about homosexuality is what she has seen displayed on the media, and the media does a really good job of making it seem all about lust and experimentation. I could be wrong though, and she could simply be a willfully ignorant 15 year old who enjoys condemning people she knows nothing about. I don't know. Either way, jumping down her throat isn't going to help anything.
Honestly, I think she is on the right track, and I appreciate the fact that she is at least willing to spread her spiritual beliefs to her friends instead of hiding them or trying to water them down to make them more socially acceptable.
K
I'm not sure why you're asking this question. Her post indicates much more than that, that the person investigates homosexuality because they were so lustful that they had to seek out new experiences. This is not the same thing as telling somebody they're living in lust. She said: I'm explaining the genesis of homosexuality. You ask: Why is it wrong to tell someone they're lustful?
Apples, oranges.
How did her actual post apply to the virgin homosexual? When did he or she get a chance to get bored? Or what did it have to do with the 40 or 50 year old celibate who prays daily for God to burn the desires out of him? How many homosexuals are so bored with all the straight sex they've had that they go out seeking a new kind of titillation? How about the kid who senses same sex attraction before he has any idea what goes where?
Now "living in lust" is "having had lustful thoughts before."
And now "having had lustful thoughts" is "being attracted to someone of the same sex."
In any case, I'll answer the question directly - the person is definitely not basing his feelings on "I'm bored with chicks." The original post wasn't suggesting that the person called himself gay because he was attracted to a member of the same sex, but because he was bored and wanted something more. I don't know why you're on this tangent.
Of course not - in interpreting it, you've reinterpreted it completely. If you stick to what she actually said, however, it's much more problematic.
This is a false dichotomy. It would be best for her to refine them, then spread them. It is clear to me, however, that she hasn't spent much time testing her ideas, so I don't feel bad suggesting that she go back to that stage.
I understand you have a point you'd like to make about my style, but my goal isn't necessarily to convert this one girl to my way of thinking. Perhaps I'd like to blow off some steam at something very stupid that I read. In any case, I believe that her disregard for reality and the feelings of those who might actually not have bored themselves gay deserves the sort of response I gave.
You may differ, but, with your style, I don't see how I'll be convinced otherwise. (See how that works?)
Apples, oranges.
How did her actual post apply to the virgin homosexual? When did he or she get a chance to get bored? Or what did it have to do with the 40 or 50 year old celibate who prays daily for God to burn the desires out of him? How many homosexuals are so bored with all the straight sex they've had that they go out seeking a new kind of titillation? How about the kid who senses same sex attraction before he has any idea what goes where?
Now "living in lust" is "having had lustful thoughts before."
And now "having had lustful thoughts" is "being attracted to someone of the same sex."
In any case, I'll answer the question directly - the person is definitely not basing his feelings on "I'm bored with chicks." The original post wasn't suggesting that the person called himself gay because he was attracted to a member of the same sex, but because he was bored and wanted something more. I don't know why you're on this tangent.
Of course not - in interpreting it, you've reinterpreted it completely. If you stick to what she actually said, however, it's much more problematic.
This is a false dichotomy. It would be best for her to refine them, then spread them. It is clear to me, however, that she hasn't spent much time testing her ideas, so I don't feel bad suggesting that she go back to that stage.
I understand you have a point you'd like to make about my style, but my goal isn't necessarily to convert this one girl to my way of thinking. Perhaps I'd like to blow off some steam at something very stupid that I read. In any case, I believe that her disregard for reality and the feelings of those who might actually not have bored themselves gay deserves the sort of response I gave.
You may differ, but, with your style, I don't see how I'll be convinced otherwise. (See how that works?)
L
She over-generalized, which is always a bad thing, but it still comes down to lust. Hence my question of why would it be wrong to tell someone they're lustful.
Yes, I am aware that her post doesn't apply to everyone. I already conceded that point to you in my first response to you.
Just because I use two phrases in the same post does not mean they are the same thing. I asked one question, expecting one answer, and then I moved on to the next phrase expecting another answer. Question one: what is wrong with telling people they are living in lust? Question two: can a person be homosexual without first having had lustful thoughts for someone of the same sex? Having lustful thoughts can lead to living in lust. I never said the two are the same thing, though.
And I am saying the two (lustful thoughts and being attracted to people of the same sex) are intertwined. I am not saying they are interchangeable. It's an "if, then" situation, not a "if and only if, then" situation.
I was only following where you were leading the conversation. Honestly, I figured this could have been over with my first post. All I really felt that needed to be said was that you overreacted.
So basically, I went off on this tangent because we couldn't end this at "The girl was wrong in oversimplifying things, but it was an overreaction to tell her she was a lazy thinker who needs to try thinking critically."
The girl prefaced her post with saying she was not trying to offend anyone! That's the whole problem here with your taking offense. Her intent was not to hurt any feelings, and yet here you are carrying around a wound as if she stabbed you in the back. This isn't some homophobe coming in here saying "Down with gays! May the sinning maggots rot in hell!" This is just a 15-year-old girl expressing her (misguided) opinion on the matter.
If she had come in here with the intent to offend, I would say go for it: Tell the girl to go buy a brain and acquire some Godly love while she's at it, but it certainly doesn't seem like she was trying to hurt any feelings. Now, if she comes in here later and reveals that she is indeed an unfeeling homophobe then I'll stand corrected.
Honestly, would it have been so hard to have taken the time to respond differently in a manner that wasn't harsh? Or maybe even have respond harshly, but with some sort of corrective speech mixed in with your post? I mean, if you're going to be harsh you should at least give a counterargument to back up your harsh words.
"What about those gay people who haven't ever tried heterosexual sex? You're offensive because you haven't bothered testing your opinion but think we need to hear it anyway. We shouldn't have to do your critical thinking for you. This is a special kind of lazy." could have been converted to "your argument is flawed and erroneous, because not all homosexuals become homosexual simply because they are bored with being heterosexual. Many homosexuals are virgins, or believe they were born homosexual. How would you explain these homosexuals who obviously are not burning with lustful desires? You should really do some more research before you decide to start spreading your beliefs about such a controversial topic."
That's slightly harsh too, but at least I give her some food for thought instead of simply calling her a special kind of lazy that can't think critically.
Yes, I am aware that her post doesn't apply to everyone. I already conceded that point to you in my first response to you.
Just because I use two phrases in the same post does not mean they are the same thing. I asked one question, expecting one answer, and then I moved on to the next phrase expecting another answer. Question one: what is wrong with telling people they are living in lust? Question two: can a person be homosexual without first having had lustful thoughts for someone of the same sex? Having lustful thoughts can lead to living in lust. I never said the two are the same thing, though.
And I am saying the two (lustful thoughts and being attracted to people of the same sex) are intertwined. I am not saying they are interchangeable. It's an "if, then" situation, not a "if and only if, then" situation.
I was only following where you were leading the conversation. Honestly, I figured this could have been over with my first post. All I really felt that needed to be said was that you overreacted.
So basically, I went off on this tangent because we couldn't end this at "The girl was wrong in oversimplifying things, but it was an overreaction to tell her she was a lazy thinker who needs to try thinking critically."
The girl prefaced her post with saying she was not trying to offend anyone! That's the whole problem here with your taking offense. Her intent was not to hurt any feelings, and yet here you are carrying around a wound as if she stabbed you in the back. This isn't some homophobe coming in here saying "Down with gays! May the sinning maggots rot in hell!" This is just a 15-year-old girl expressing her (misguided) opinion on the matter.
If she had come in here with the intent to offend, I would say go for it: Tell the girl to go buy a brain and acquire some Godly love while she's at it, but it certainly doesn't seem like she was trying to hurt any feelings. Now, if she comes in here later and reveals that she is indeed an unfeeling homophobe then I'll stand corrected.
Honestly, would it have been so hard to have taken the time to respond differently in a manner that wasn't harsh? Or maybe even have respond harshly, but with some sort of corrective speech mixed in with your post? I mean, if you're going to be harsh you should at least give a counterargument to back up your harsh words.
"What about those gay people who haven't ever tried heterosexual sex? You're offensive because you haven't bothered testing your opinion but think we need to hear it anyway. We shouldn't have to do your critical thinking for you. This is a special kind of lazy." could have been converted to "your argument is flawed and erroneous, because not all homosexuals become homosexual simply because they are bored with being heterosexual. Many homosexuals are virgins, or believe they were born homosexual. How would you explain these homosexuals who obviously are not burning with lustful desires? You should really do some more research before you decide to start spreading your beliefs about such a controversial topic."
That's slightly harsh too, but at least I give her some food for thought instead of simply calling her a special kind of lazy that can't think critically.
H
I totally dig what Dread zepplin had to say about this subject. I think she was very on point. i do believe being gay is a sin, but i do believe there are a lot of factors that kinda make it an addictive lifestyle. I have a lot of gay friends due to the fact i work in media, and i see a lot of things that have built up to cause a lifestyle change in them. i think just like anything else, if they truly WANT to change their lifestyle and with God's they can.
i think a lot of gays run into people like godsbluesman, and it is very counterproductive when it comes to them changing. There is a right way to go about love, and there is a wrong way. Make sure you are objective in your dealings and not full of ignorance or ill informed on the matter..
i think a lot of gays run into people like godsbluesman, and it is very counterproductive when it comes to them changing. There is a right way to go about love, and there is a wrong way. Make sure you are objective in your dealings and not full of ignorance or ill informed on the matter..
-
1
- Show all
M
THose are just a few verses about homosexuality in the bible, and really, there is no way you can interprete those verses wrong, only if you want to.
Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV)
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)
“…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).
ooohh and read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah again...
Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV)
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)
“…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).
ooohh and read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah again...