Posted on 07/27/2003 7:21:52 AM PDT by apackof2
Homosexuals like to categorize their "orientation" as genetic, in attempt to manilpulate both the public and the church into accepting homosexaulity.
They claim they were born that way, "they can't help themselves". And therefore everybody must accept homosexuality.
Many people who are not familair with the true nature of sin and the state of man's heart actually fall for this nonsense.
This might work for the world, but should never work for Christians.
All of us are lost and our perceptions are distorted by sin, which is why we need to trust God's Word. Not our feelings and certainly not the testimony of men when it comes to moral behavior.
Christians however have no excuse for remaining in sinful behavior..let alone having the arrogance to call it a "gift from God".
In any case, nowhere does the Bible teach that having an "orientation" of any kind toward sin makes us an exception to God's laws. This applies to both Christian and non-believers.
Those who truly believe God's word on sin will never accept the "orientation" argument as justification for homosexual conduct.
And those who do so have much bigger problems than where they stand on homosexuality.
I thought he DID have Michael Jackson on already...
I would be much more inclined to suspect dishonest manipulation if the accounts wholly lacked discrepancies and were in lock-step agreement on every minor point.
Really? Is it okay only for priests to engage in sodomy and molesting kids? While everyone else must refrain? The leaders of your church appear to have different standards for different people. As for those priests, like any other sinner, they are unfaithful to God not a "church". The church is the body of believers and all believers have to answer to God, not a "church" for sin.
As for O'Reilly he defends homosexuals. This does stem from his Catholic teachings.
If you are a Catholic I am happy to hear that you believe that Scripture is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. That's unusal. Sola Scriptura is typically ridiculed by Catholics and they typically don't believe it is inerrant.
Not true, if a female is exposed to abnormal amounts of androgens she will develop an intersex disorder. You’ve been reading too much homosexual propaganda.
For instance, women who carry male babies and have a lot of stress during their pregnancies are more likely to give birth to kids who grow up to be gay.
Did your “old wife” tell you that yarn?
Given enough time, muscle and money, I could make you an alcoholic, heroine addict, porn addict…ect. ect…
But anyway can you show me the genetic marker for homosexuality, alcoholism and heroin addiction please?
Case open!
NONE of your atheist cites proves any error. What are you talking about?
Most scholars say that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written about 40 to 70 years after the death of Christ.
These are scripture quotes. I wouldn't classify them as "Atheist Cites." But to address your point, all of them cannot be correct, so one or more of these particular passages must be wrong. Hence, there is error.
My, your just a fount wishful conjecture, aren't you?
Hehehe…Who’s conclusions and analysis are used here? That would be the atheists and your endorsement of them.
Stories of the resurrection of Jesus differ. They differ on whether it was one (John 20:1-8), two (Matthew 28:1), three (Mark 16:1) or more (Luke 24:10) women who went to Jesus' tomb.
OK so let’s look at your very first cite and see if it holds water. First of all Luke 24:10 is about who went to see the apostles NOT who went to the sepulchre. This is a lie from the get go and impeaches the rest of your atheist spin.
Second, the accounts in John, Mark and Luke are about Mary Magdalene and that’s consistent in ALL verses, who she was with was unimportant, to say they “differ” is yet another lie. If three people told a story about what YOU did playing basketball and one said you made a dunk, and another said you made a dunk off the pass from Kobe and the third person said you made a dunk off the pass from Kobe against Shaquille is there ANY “difference” in what happened??? Of course not.
Since your atheist cite is so easily debunked in their very first sentence the rest of your atheism spin/spam isn’t worth the time to challenge. You have NO faith; I feel sorry for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.