I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.
To me, Collins came out and expressed who he is. In my opinion, Broussard came off as expressing that anyone that is like Collins or has had premarital sex or has ever cheated isn't as good a Christian as himself, and that's just flat out wrong and unprofessional for someone in his field.
Edit: And I understand the context in which Broussard said what he did, and I think that that too was very unprofessional, but that doesn't change my opinion that what Broussard said is flat out wrong, and while I'm not religious myself, so I don't really know the intricacies of the religion, it seems to me that being a Christian is about being accepting of people, and to me, he came off as being someone that is not.
I agree with a lot of what you said here but LZ said some stuff that he had no evidence to support. He said a lot from personal feeling but he said some thing intelligently to get a past but you should spout emotion feelings as fact. That is wrong. I do get where you are coming from and it is sad that believers have the most thumbs down.
Although I admit I am not the most religious, as a Christian, there are few things I hate more than other Christians using god as a reason for why gay people shouldn't exist.
If you actually read the Bible, there are many things that were viewed as sins back then, but since 2000+ years has gone by since then, they have become a part of everyday life. Wearing 2 different kinds of fabrics used to be a sin. C'mon. I didn't see the Broussard on OTL, so I don't want to direct this at him because that is unfair. But if you honestly just think a man liking another man is somehow unholy and is making the world a worse place, you should probably light yourself on fire. You can be a good Christian. You can believe in God, worship him, and be a good person, help the community, etc. But it's when you become overly worried with how other people act, and try to change things because you believe it is wrong, when in fact your opinion is entirely wrong, is when you become a hypocritical maniac.
Again, I am not aiming this at Broussard, but if someone actually feels as though this is a matter of "opinion", then that person is totally out of touch with reality. People should be free to like and do whatever they please. Because they like guys, and because they are gay is perfectly fine. That is their decision to make. It has nothing to do with god, or "choice", it has to do with how they are born, raised, and feel. And that is their right.
This is true...eating shellfish was once considered an abomination.
As a non-religious person, I totally agree with everything you said. Basically, religion can be used to justify or condemn almost anything under the sun. Because, the supposedly unified "word of God" so frequently cited by Christians actually offers a number of totally contradictory messages. That's why the Bible can be used to both justify slavery (the curse on Ham's descendents and the "mark of Cain") and promote liberation from enslavement (as in the Exodus story, for example). This means that people must necessarily pick and choose what to believe and what to ignore. So, when Christians like Chris Broussard try to apply the standards of one particular interpretation of Christianity to the other 2 billion Christians worldwide as if it's some objective fact, that's where I take issue. There are many Christians who would probably agree with me on far more issues than they would agree with Broussard on. Likewise, there are many atheists who are opposed to homosexuality for no more logical or justifiable a reason than Broussard offers in his interpretation of the Bible.
And, ultimately, homosexuality exists as a fact of life whether anyone approves of it or not. So, unless Chris Broussard is suggesting that homosexuality can somehow be cured or done away with (which is a position he may well hold given his interpretation of Christianity), the only sensible and humane option is to afford gay people the same rights and respect as everyone else. Why is there even still a debate?! I may hold a number of radical positions, but that shouldn't be one of them.
No way in the bible did it support slavery as it existed in the United States. Please show actual scriptures. Also anyone can use something good for evil if they have a evil motive.
I can take a shovel that is used for digging and it can be used as a murder weapon. The point is you can't blame the bible for the evil man does even if they lie and say the bible say it.
That is just like Manifest Destiny.
God never promised in the bible for the people coming over here to take it over. The took stuff over by force and evil methods.
"I can take a shovel that is used for digging and it can be used as a murder weapon. The point is you can't blame the bible for the evil man does even if they lie and say the bible say it."
I'm not blaming the Bible. You're missing my point here entirely. I'm specifically pointing out the fact that people can find justification for almost any political position in the Bible. Ever heard of liberation theology? It's a radical revolutionary ideology with its roots in the Bible. Now compare that to the conservative Christianity of the Westboro Baptist Church. Both liberation theologians and members of the Westboro Baptist Church consider themselves to be Christian, but they use the Bible to justify very different political stances. I hope that illustrates my point.
And, the Bible was most certainly used to justify the African slave trade and slavery in the United States. Look up the "curse of Ham" and the "mark of Cain." I'm not claiming that the Bible says: "Go forth and enslave Africans!", but many of the elite who benefited from slavery used scripture to justify its existence (see the "curse of Ham" and the "mark of Cain" referenced above). Likewise, many of the most prominent abolitionists were devout Christians who also cited the Bible to support their opposition to slavery. And, many slaves were also devout Christians. So, do you see my point now? The Bible can be used to justify a wide variety of positions. That's all I'm saying. Slaves have one interpretation of Christianity, slave masters have another (for example).
Anybody can lie. I guess you did not see what I wrote. They used the bible to justify something that was not in the bible. The stuff you are saying at no point gave white people the right to enslave black. They lied.
There is a big different between lying and actually finding something in the bible.
Why can't you understand that because if what you say is true you should be able to give me the scripture and not what people said it meant.
I can give you scripture speaking against homosexuality and there is no way you can misinterpret what is said unless you are in denial.
Alright, this is a useless pursuit. I'm simply saying that people have historically used the Bible to justify slavery. This is clear and well documented. And you know how they were able to do that? Because there are many different interpretations of the Bible! They were not just "lying", they were interpreting specific Biblical passages to suit their worldview. I hate to be condescending and dismissive, but how do you not understand what I'm saying? I'm talking about various interpretations of the Bible, not some word-for-word commandment to enslave Africans. Obviously that's not in the Bible. But, if you want the exact reference for the "curse of Ham" and "mark of Cain" that I mentioned twice (and you apparently refuse to acknowledge), go get your Holy Bible and go to Genesis 9:20-27 and Genesis 4. And don't try to tell me that there's nothing there that explicitly references enslaving Africans. I know that! That's why I said these passages were used to JUSTIFY African enslavement, not that they specifically called for it. That's my whole point. The Bible can be interpreted in a thousand different ways. If you want more detail about how exactly these passages were construed to justify the enslavement of Black people, do a Wikipedia search or something.
Again, I don't understand what you're offended about here. I'm simply stating that the Bible can be used to justify many different positions. It can be used by the slave to encourage liberation from slavery and it can be used by the master to justify enslavement. That was just an example that I happened to give, but for some reason, you've taken great offense. Although, if you're really interested in this subject, the Bible does actually directly endorse slavery in various scriptures (see Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5, and Timothy 6:1-2). I wasn't referencing these passages before, but since you're so intent on citing scripture, I figured it wouldn't hurt to throw those in too.
And, I'm sure you can quote a scriptural passage condemning homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22, right? But, as I see it, if one passage in the Bible happens to condemn homosexuality, who cares? If you believe everything the Bible tells you, good for you, but we live in what is supposed to be a secular society in which your holy book doesn't determine how other people are allowed to live their lives. Not everyone believes or is required to believe what's in that book! So, it's really irrelevant what the Bible says. Besides, I doubt you agree with every single thing that's in the Bible since it's an ancient book with a lot of outdated ideas. For example, Leviticus not only condemns homosexuality, but also eating swine, getting tattoos, trimming your hair and beard a certain way, and gossiping. There are countless other examples from throughout the Bible, but I think you get the point by now.
On a side note, how in the world did this thread devolve into a scriptural debate between an atheist and Christian? I apologize to all innocent bystanders who may have stumbled upon this exchange.
They were never told to drink at different fountains or denied regular work. No one knows when they met one. No one cares lol. Media PR to distract from real issues. 2013. Its obviously whatever. Do you and sexual orientation has no place in sports. Period.
I'm actually interested in whether he does get re-signed now. He's 34 and hasn't averaged more than 15 minutes a game for over 5 years. He could be ready for retirement and wanted to make the announcement while active to help inspire others. Will be interesting
Anybody here have thoughts on the odds he gets re-signed?
I'm not the most religious either and I don't care for getting into religious arguments, but I grew up Christian. My uncle is a pastor. I've never heard anybody I've gone to church with, etc say that gay people shouldn't exist. In the bible, it says no sin is greater than the other. There are plenty of gay people that go to the church I go to. My aunt is gay and she's been one of the most important people in my life.
I just don't think Chris Broussard should be struck down because of his beliefs. He posted a bible verse and then stated his belief. There are a lot of people that share those same beliefs. Just because he doesn't believe in homosexuality doesn't mean he thinks they're making the world a worse place, etc. This is the same guy who wrote an article that the NBA was ready for an openly gay player. He made a good point... It's to the point now where if you don't believe in homosexuality, you're automatically called bigoted and intolerant.
Do you get mad at people who openly say they don't believe in God, etc? Or people that say they do believe in homosexuality? Then why get mad at Broussard that he doesn't believe in homosexuality? I think to each is own. That's why this is the United States of America. You have the freedom to believe in what you want.
Here's the difference Indiana...
If you are gay, that is your life. For someone else to push their beliefs in to the picture is completely unneeded. If Chris doesn't believe in gay people, he doesn't have to be gay and that's fine. But it doesn't apply to Collins at all. Collins is frowned upon by Chrisians like Broussard is what I have a problem with. I have no problem with What people choose to believe in. But it doesn't apply to anyone else. People have the option to not be religious, or follow religion how they please. They aren't wrong to be gay.
Imagine a white sports analyst saying something about why having black players on your team isnt smart because the bible talked about slavery... How would that go over?
Having a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ his son should be everyone's goal and lifestyle. Trying to get praise for admitting your sins and the fact that you don't want to change should not.
I guess we should just give people degrees they want instead of them actually working towards because that is the nice thing to do and it would save them time and money.
People need to be able to express their oppinion either way they feel on the subject and many other subjects without fear of reprisal.
Personally I couldn't care less what a persons sexual preference is and soon I hope their comes a day when it isn't newsworthy.
It was a great article and well written...but I found it funny that he admitted he flopped in reference to shaq.
Some great points brought up in this thread, I believe Broussard will be reprimanded, but he shouldn't be. All he did was say what he believed in, nothing else. But I'm happy for Collins, takes a lot of guts to do that.
But as for his playing prospects for next season, from a purely basketball standpoint, I don't think he'd find a spot on an NBA team in training camp, but rather later in the season as the injury bug bites. There are a lot of young D-leagers who are cheaper and more athletic at the disposal of teams in need. I do think he would've latched on at some point to a team in need of a big man, in this particular case, not finding a place to play would be unrelated to him being gay. If he doesn't latch on to a team in training camp, I think some team will be pressured to offer him, because it wouldn't be a good look for the NBA for Collins to be out of the league right after coming out.
I hope you guys don't mind, but I will be using part of this thread for an assignment relating to homosexuality and gender representation in basketball. Thank you, dotnetters.
and congrats to Jason Collins. I respect his courage for doing what I think a string of players in all major sport outlets will follow suit.
To him for expressing his feelings and actually being brave to say i'm GAY much much respect for Jason Collins
its huge news that he came out saying hes gay...and its awesome that he did... but all this homophobic gay sh*t needs to stop... if someone is gay who gives a f*ck... whether its a choice or someone is born like that.. who cares... it has nothing to do with religion... who the f*ck are we as ppl to judge
Malik by definition of the word judge, you just judged all religious people and people who disagree with your support.
I find it odd that in the same sentence you say it is wrong to judge, you are judging others.
"Whether it's a free country or not, you should be free to act as you want to do as long as it's not violent. No matter what it is. I came here in a Cookie Monster shirt because I wanted to, and I was going to wear the pants. But I thought you guys were going to judge me. I was going to wear the hat too. But I thought you guys would judge me. I didn't want Mitch [Kupchak] to judge me. So that's why I didn't wear the hats and the pants. But I should've wore it. You should be free to do and act how you want to act."
Legitimately one of the best responses ever.
I hope Chris Brossard keeps his job. I have so much more respect for him for not being scared of this unfair media situation where if you support gays, that is the thing to do but the minute you disagree with their lifestyle and say it is wrong, you are attacked.
Also when you say someone is wrong without evidence, how does that work? People are repeating stupid stuff based on no evidence and calling people ignorant when you have no clue what you are talking about. I have yet to find anyone that have evidence to support the gay lifestyle. Gay people are not the only people to have it tough and how is it brave when they made this dude a super hero for finally telling the truth.
I think the people who helped the bomb victims in Boston could be seen as brave but a 7 foot millionaire who tells people about what he likes in the bedroom is considered brave. Chris Broussard is brave for not acting scared like the NBA players who did not post support on twitter and the ones that did who not too long were saying things like "&$#%#&@!" I am looking at you Kobe. Chris Broussard is the only one actually catching heat. He may lose his job and he is being verbally attack. Collins is a millionaire. He already made enough money, dude barely plays.
Your comments are ignorant, immature, and lazy, if you think it's not a real issue then stay off this thread.
I hate the world we live in, in regards to Chris Broussard. He is getting so much hate for stating what he believes him. But if people are so offended by what he said, then they are technically going to his level by attacking him. Why can't we live in a world where we accept one another's believes and opinions. But no, that can't happen. And it probably won't. I'm happy for Collins coming out. And I'm also happy about Broussard stating his opinion and beliefs. Both are perfectly fine in my book. They are both their own person's. Each one of us make our own decisions and form our own beliefs. So why criticize people who think differently then you.
The way I see Broussards beliefs can be dangerous in that they inspire discrimination which can lead to hate. Homosexuality is harmless and I sometimes believe is natures response to overpopulation. Jason Colins was born a homosexual, Chris Broussard was not born with those beliefs. Children are bullied to the point of suicide over homosexuality based on ignorant Christain beliefs. I don't really think it's unfair to get on Broussard for his comments.
First off, good for Jason. So many people judge you negatively, especially in a macho sports culture, that it has to be tough to come out. The interesting part going forward now is what happens with him next season. We won't actually get to see an openly gay athlete in one of the major sports and how he is received unless he makes a team. And if he doesn't make a team, many will turn that into a gay man being blackballed story, even if it's not fair since he's only a borderline NBA caliber player nearing the end of his career and might not be deserving of a contract anyways.
The person being judged negatively is Chris Broussard. No said anything about Jason. People disagreed with his lifestyle and that if you believe you can openly live a gay lifestyle, Christianity is probably not right for you. I know we all make mistakes but the day I just said you know what forget this and do what I want why say I believe in God where their is a criteria for being a follower of Christ.
If any man will comes after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me
Ch 16 verse 24
Believers are not afraid of gay people but it appears gay people and gay people supporters are afraid of believers.
What is the name I can call a person that is afraid of a Christian or believer in Jesus Christ
I don't see what Chris Broussard did was wrong. He was asked for his thoughts on the subject and now people are attacking him because they disagree. And now he's the intolerant one? As a christian were called to hate sin.
In mark it says to love god first. Then the next verse says to love your neighbor as yourself. But Roman 12:9 says "Hate what is evil but cling to what is good". So from a christian viewpoint and from what Chris Broussard was saying is that we still love the person, but hate the sin in their life.
@chilbertarenas. Not everyone who bullies someone about being gay is a christian. Just like if I saw a black guy play basketball and he wasn't good, and I assumed that all black athletes sucked at basketball that would be wrong. Everyone has sinned, and i'm maybe some christian people have said mean things to gay people and that's totally wrong. But... a christian is someone (like sheltwon3 said) who puts God and others ahead of themselves. There are a lot of people who call themselves christians but don't have a relationship with God. If they did have a relationship with God they would do his will ahead of are own desires. Granted true christians do keep on sinning but they keep striving to have more and more of a relationship with him so that their sins are less. In Lamentations it says that God's mercies are new every morning. So even when we fall short, God covers are sin if we are truly following christ to have him in charge of us. For example: I know everyone looks forward to watching their favorite player... Well that should be same way of how christians view their time when you fellowship with God. Finally Just because a person says their a christian doesn't mean that they are truly a christian...Again just cus a person says that can ball doesn't mean their good at basketball at all lol and just like i practice and work on my game to get better. I also try to do the same spiritually because I know that i'm just a lonely sinner without christ.
I know some of you or most of you might think i'm crazy which is fine. But.. if your curious at all about christianity or if you are a christian I would recommend a great book for you that I currently am reading. It is called Not a fan by Kyle Idleman
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
I think the Christian excuse to judge homosexuals is a huge cop out. There is so much antequated law in the old testiment it seems like an excuse to endulge your own prejudice to all of a sudden become passionate about a couple sentences in the Old Testament. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, there is more in the Old Testament pertaining to how to treat your slaves than there is to any sort of opinon on homosexuals.
Everyone has their own opinon and is entitled to such, but people really are cool with the Biblical excuse to be against gays. They shouldn't be cool with it, in my opinon. What would you think of someone that was pro slavery that went around quoting Exodus? What would you think of someone trying to marry off his daughter to her rapist because the Bible said so? They're entitled to their own opinion, but that still makes them a jackass.
The KKK was a Christian organization in it's infancy using the Bible as a tool of hate. Few Christians are doing that today pertaining to homosexuality, many use the Bible as an excuse to not hate, but to deny legal equality among the gay community and many get that the overwhelming message of the Bible is unconditional love. It's unfair to judge all Christians by the actions of a few, but those who use the Bible in any manner of hate and all of a sudden start quoting Leviticus while ignoring stupid Biblical passages pertaining to slavery, a woman marrying her rapist, and what not to eat are the worst kind of Christians. I don't know Brussard on a personal level, so I don't know where he lies, but anyone who is super passionate about homosexuality's minute role in the Bible is just doing so to fester their own prejudice.
It made the mainstream news here in England which is very significant. I'm sure the PC police are all over Broussard after his comments despite saying what HE believed in and since we're big on freedom of speech, his opinion shouldn't be muted. I just don't like the fact that anything which is positive gets a free pass but anything that goes against homosexuality will be shot down or aggressively challenged, this kind of filter goes against the notion of equality and further condemns those who don't agree with the majority.
So being gay is not a sin?
No. It's something that Bronze Age humans didn't understand and had little value in their society, so they struck it down in the name of God. I'm not a Christian either, I was just forced to read the Bible a lot growing up.
I think it's all about interpretation.
What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
The Bible clearly condemns the type of slavery that went on in the United States where whites considered blacks inferior human beings and blacks were enslaved because of their nationality. An example is the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews. The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery. The Bible also clearly condemns "man stealing" which is what went on in Africa. The Bible says people who steal/kidnap and sell a person as a slave is punishable by death.
Even the thoughts on a father marrying his daughter off to her rapist is all about interpretation. There are no recorded situations in the bible where this happened. The father is ultimately in authority over his daughter, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. Whether a man raped or had consensual sex with a virgin, it was actually punishment that he'd have to provide for that woman and not be able to divorce her for the rest of his days. Even if they weren't married, the man still had to pay the "bride price".
I think it's also important to note that the times back then were a lot different than now. In that culture, virginity was highly prized. It would have been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a woman who had been raped, to find a man to marry her. I don't think that's the case today lol. In that culture, a woman without a husband would have a very difficult time providing for herself. Unmarried women often had no choice but to sell themselves into slavery or prostitution just to survive. This is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different and it is better to be flexible than have a blanket rule.
That's kind of my point. Christians in modern society excuse other sons because of a different time, but hold steadfast against homosexuality which was probably also condemned due to the fact marriage back then involved dowries and economic pacts and if your child was gay, you missed out on that. It just seems, to me, that Christians are holding on to it because of some prejudice among older and or more traditional church leaders.
In the bible, it clearly states that homosexuality is a sin.
13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
1 Corinthians 6:9
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
I don't think there's any other way you can interpret that. It's pretty cut and dry.
Regardless, I think the problem comes when people try to make it like homosexuality is some unforgivable sin that's placed above all others and those people are hated by God. I think that's extremely wrong. It's no different than any other sin. We all sin.
I think that it's a tough subject because people that are homosexual think it's an attack against their individuality when they hear it's a sin... When really it's against the act or attitude.
Being gay is NOT a sin.
I think it all boils down to what you believe. And you can believe whatever you want. That's why this is the best country in the world.
Which goes back to the original subject.
I don't have a problem with anything Chris Broussard said. He didn't attack Jason Collins. He didn't bash the gay or lesbian community. He was asked his personal opinion on the topic at hand and he replied honestly without being politically correct.
I think the same people that are attacking Broussard are no better than the people attacking Collins.
Most people around here know that I'm pretty outspoken about gay rights, but I'd like to present you with a hypothetical situation to understand a little more about where you're coming from. Please try to ignore my bias or how you think I feel about Broussard's comments when answering. Anyway:
The LDS church believed that darker skin was the result of a curse from God. Dark skin was a way for God to distinguish who was guilty for Cain's murder of his brother, and the punishment was for them to be clearly marked (with dark skin), used as servants, and treated as inferior.
Now, the church has backed off the matter since 1978. Some LDS pioneers were even supportive of civil rights (Joseph Smith in particular). But you've heard of Brigham Young, right? The dude that has all those schools named after him? Here's what he said on the matter:
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind...Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the ‘servant of servants’; and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree."
Let's say that the church continued to teach this, and that members continued to believe it. Where does society draw the line? Not legally, mind you; but where would you start having a problem with those beliefs? Is it just wrong to believe? Is it okay to believe, but wrong to say publically? Is it okay to say publically as long as it doesn't directly hurt somebody, even if it certainly does indirectly hurt them? Would it be okay for them to publically protest the funerals of black kids?
Where's should the line be in this case? Where would you, personally, stop and say, "That's wrong."
Edit for Sources:
Second Edit for Clarity: Nowhere in this post do I compare Christianity and Mormonism, or race and sexual orientation. I was asking one person in this thread when he thought it would be acceptable (if ever) to criticize the beliefs of others. That's all.
Also that church teaching was against the bible.
There are actual scriptures against homosexuality and it is so plain and frequent that saying that people are misinterpreting something is foolish and ignorant.
I have read the bible many times and I do not recall where is supported racism. Matter of fact Peter got called out for his prejudice against gentiles.
NoMoney, the LDS and your mainstream Christians are completely separate things. To compare the two is a complete stretch as there are a TON of Mormon believes that we Christians don't agree with.
Your right. Christians in modern society shouldn't excuse other sins but hold steadfast to homosexuality. A sin is a sin. That's why a good amount of "christians" who go to church don't actually live out the word. Just because you go to church doesn't make you christian.. Last I checked the divorce rate in protestant churches were actually the a little higher then people outside of church...(I'm not saying just because your divorced you can't be forgiven). Anyways a sin is a sin but I hate the sins of people (not the person) who continue to do the same sin daily. Someone who is homosexual lives in that sin daily and to me it's wrong. But.. that's not any worse then people who live in other sins daily (stealing, lying etc.) A true christian is someone who is seeking Gods will and how God will use him for his glory. Sometimes true christians will sin, but that sin won't control us, it won't become a habitual practice. Here's a verse on christians seeking God
1 Corithians 9:24-27
24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26 Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. 27 No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.
I'm sorry it seems like i've been preaching. But I just want people on here to know where I'm coming from as a christian. And I'm sure other "christians" have actually hated toward homosexuals and i'm sorry that its ruined it for actual christians. For people who aren't christians that's fine too I just want people to know why I don't praise a person for saying their homosexual. And it's not because I hate them,(Love the person, but hate the sin. Just like I hate my own sin)and it's not because I think its the worst sin out there. I wouldn't give praise for someone having pre-marital sex either. I'm going to respect anyone who gives praise to Collins for coming out and saying he is homosexual. But also you have to show me respect (and Chris Broussard) for our opinion. Again none of this is out of hate. It is just from what the bible says.
Great points and good examples
It is sad how Christian are made to be the villians in order for gay people to be heroes even their lifestyle is a sin and unnatural.
The point of Eve was for Adam to have a companion and Eve was made for Adam. The two become one.
Two men and two women can not become one. That was not the holy design.
Comparing sexuality and race is foolish
also from a pure logic standpoint
How come it is cool to compare sexuality and race but homosexuals and pedophiles
Both are sexual in nature
Also if homosexuals are born they way they are why is this argument not used with pedophiles.
What kind of double standard is this?
I don't understand a lot of people's logic because it lacks consistency or one to one comparison.
How bout this logic.
You are trying to pick the flaws in the idea that it is acceptable to let people like who they want to like. The difference is pedophilia is in essence rape. It is non consensual sexual conduct. It is also illegal. Kissing a boy is not illegal.
Pedophilia -- like rape -- is more about control and less about attraction. Pedophiles attack children because they can be manipulated, scared, and kept quiet.
I'm sure there are people who are attracted to children for reasons they don't understand, but it's only the pedophile's problem unless he/she decides to act on it. Once he/she attacks a child, is when where we drop the hammer.
Two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want to with each other. No victims. US law dictates that children under the age of 18 (or 16 in some states), are unable to consent.