Not at all. Rather, i was associating the fact that you werent gay and you believed in God to the good attributes of being a christain but when u said you were not a christain, I got confused and had to ask.

So please answer, which religion is it

[Lioness,are you saying that anyone that believes in the 'true@ God must be a lesbian and a christian?/quote]

t4cash:

Yawn. Why is it that once someone says to them "I don't believe in the Bible" some Christians become deflated and can't carry forward their argument?

BTW There is no such thing as a "christian God". God with a capital G, implies monotheism. Correctly, you shouls say a "Christian concept of God".

My guy,
I can only argue using the bible as text with sm1 who accepts the bible.
In the case of which you don't, then that particular line of reasoning falls apart, ok?
The only option left for me is to appeal to some authority we both recognise to  attempt toproove my case, in this case logic.
And then by the way, this is a moral issue, Logic is so limited when it comes to morals.
i'm just curious, I wonder how atheists i.e people who don't believe in the existence of ANY kind of God (god) explain the concept of morals. How can there be good/evil if there is nobody up there to decide that this is good;this is evil
I wonder if i'm making any sense to anyone out there?

t4cash:

Yawn. Why is it that once someone says to them "I don't believe in the Bible" some Christians become deflated and can't carry forward their argument?

BTW There is no such thing as a "christian God". God with a capital G, implies monotheism. Correctly, you shouls say a "Christian concept of God".

Excuse me t4cash, you obviously just waded into the discussion without checking out what has been said before. FYI, in response to KAG's posts, I made the correction that not everyone speaking of God is necessarily talking about the 'Christian God' (precisely as she put it - concept or no concept!). So, when you come up to the idea that some Christians become 'deflated' just because others who speak about God don't believe in the Bible, I think that is being bogus and childish on your part. The argument has been well carried, and if you can't see that, sorry. And what is the argument? God did not make anyone gay - from the Christian point of view, the Bible has a lot to say on the issue, and you only need to refer to the previous posts with clear Biblical references. If anyone believes that their 'God' (or 'concept of God') made them gay, they are most welcome to push their agenda - but that does not justify the notion that any and every silly agenda should necessarily be blamed on the Christian faith.

yea yea yea

so.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which religion na? Abi fear dey catch you

spikey,spikey _{shakes his head again}

choice.A:

I have met many people from other religions who speak of 'God' as the deity of their religion - and not even one of them would readily think first and foremost of the Christian God when you mention 'God' to them. For example, in religious discussions with some of my friends of the Bahá'i faith, the moment I mention 'God' to them, they readily think of the deity they worship in their religion. Although its history is recent, Bahá'i believe quite a few things about God that sound 'Christian', but that is not to mean that just because they also call Him 'God' in English, therefore it is the Christian God that they are speaking of. The one thing a Bahá'i sharply disagrees with the Christian about God is that "God cannot become incarnate in a human being." [You may find this link helpful: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bahai/beliefs/god.shtml]. I'd say you're inaccurate in representing this view that anyone mentioning 'God' must be speaking of the Christian deity by default; and if that's what you'll still try to drive around, it would only mean you're forcing this idea without any justification. Incidentally, when my Bahá'i friends leave me offlines (Yahoo IMs), they say just the same things as you mentioned in your reply - "I prayed to GOD last night", "GOD made me all that I am today", "GOD created the universe" - and for all that, none of them ever was referring to the Christian deity!

I see your point, and I may have been too hastyin generalising. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be, "when most people refer call a deity by the name GOD, especially in a country with a christian majority, they are more often than not referring to the christian God.

To be fair, I went to the site you offered in your last reply - and I was shocked to find it confirmed my suspicion. On the one hand, as far as I'm concerned, the writer did not discuss the Biblical position of immoral sexual activities as is clearly stated in Lev.20:13 -

There was no need to, Lev 20:13 is a mosaic law, and has been superceded by the love of christ. This is also clear freom the other mosaic laws that have been disregarded, like, the recommended punishment for many practises, the belief that eating certain animals would make you unclean, the keeping of the sabbath day free, and the law condemning the wearing of a garment made of two different materials.

it doesn't matter to me whatever translations he or she was reading. Okay, they don't read 'homosexual' prior to 1946, but 'effeminate' was the hush word? So, what were the writer(s) trying to sell - that 'effeminate' persons were heirs of the Kingdom of God whereas 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says 'No'?

No, the writer was trying to point out that homosexuality is not a condemned sin. there's a difference between effeminate and homosexuality.

Let's be honest with ourselves. The truth is, homosexuality is listed as a sexual sin in God's eyes, and it does not matter who else feels it's right. Go figure - even the word 'catamites' (a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man) is not disconnected from this practice; although the author, in quoting Daniel Helminiak, wants us to believe that homosexuality was not an issue as far back as 347-407 A.D. What these gentlemen should realise is that Leviticus 20:13 was penned long before then, and even the New Testament did not countenance such sexual vice. Let me put it simply: in sexual relations, "man + man = homosexuality" - and that is what Rom.1:27 clearly states ('men with men working that which is unseemly'). In the list of verses given in the article on the website, I wonder how it is that the author just did not see the Rom.1:27 text - and by all means shied away from it.

Rom 1:27, is not condemning homosexuals, but is instead condemning the Roman heterosexuals, who unnaturallly decided to partake in lustful homosexual practices, something that was prevalent in ancient Rome. Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Please. I offer again that the young man could not have been referring to the Christian God.

And I offer that the young man may very well have been referring to the christian God. What's more, the many homosexul christians would also be referring to the christian God as their creator.

There's just a simple way to look at it: God speaks through the Bible about the way He created us, and states in clear terms that His design in sex was not homsexual, else we would not find Lev.20:13 (OT) and Rom.1:27 (NT) in our Bibles. Think about it for a moment: if He sees these acts as both 'abominable' (OT) and 'unseemly' (NT), why would He want to create people this way and then later punish them for what was not borne out of their conscious choices? It is alright for someone to make a claim that God created him or her in a certain way, but if we look in the Bible (speaking as a Christian now) and find that He did not create them that way, who would be lying?

Except perhaps, he isn't going to punish them for being homosexuals. Taking into account the many testaments of Homosexuals, who have stated explicitly that they have been attracted to the same sex as far back as they can remember, and coupling that with the occurence of homosexuality in other animals, it would seem to me that a christian would be justified in stating "God made them this way".

It is true that Jesus preached love and commitment - but just what do these terms mean if one still parades a lifestyle that the Bible openly discountenances? Your reasoning here does not make a strong point. If Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, does that in itself make it an OK lifestyle? Again, it is also true that Jesus had nothing to say about abortion; but does that make abortion a happy-clappy thing to pursue?

I'm sure Jesus would have pro-choice too, and I believe he would have supported a woman whose only choice was abortion (but that's another thread).

Just because Jesus seemed to have said nothing about one issue or another does not justify an act in itself. "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." [Gal. 5:18]. My question then is, who would really be claiming they are led of the Spirit if they were holding a lifestyle that Rom.1:27 does not approve of?

Homosexuals were around in Jesus' time, if he didn't think the love between two consenting adults of the same sex was worth condemning, then, It's also a good thing that homosexual christians are not living a lifestyle condemned in Romans, they can therefore be led of the Spirit (big S).

Anyone could claim just about anything - but if they were referring to the Christian God as responsible for their preferred lifestyles while excusing themselves as not consciously choosing to do so, I'd call their bluff and challenge their lies by asking they point out their beliefs or convictions from the Bible itself.

Once again, lying is too strong a term. you may disagree with their premise, but it would be a tad self-righteous to condemn it as lies. Just out of curiousity, did you choose to be attracted to the oppposite sex?

choce.A My post said the same thing you seem to be saying: "That God did not make this boy gay" based on simple logic.

Simmy's post:  [Logic is so limited when it comes to morals.
i'm just curious, I wonder how atheists i.e people who don't believe in the existence of ANY kind of God (god) explain the concept of morals. How can there be good/evil if there is nobody up there to decide that this is good;this is evil]

I made reference to the law of "moral choice". When the law says you can not rape someone and go scot-free (i.e. non consensual sex), itis not based on religion. The point is that human society is built on the principle that your freedom to stretch your hand stops where my nose begins.

Furthermore, in a democratic society  (essentially a dictatorship of the abstract "Majority", the law is what the majority says it is. In other words, something is wrong if the majority agree its wrong. Thats why homosexuality may be allowed in America today having convinced the Majority but wrong in Saudi Arabia. The so called "Moral majority". So you see morality does not require religion.

By the time a child that lives with other human beings is 2 years, he gets an idea of this principle. (Even if his parents are atheist). So a lot of morality is logical. Of course there are always grey areas. Even with a religious view of morality.

Once again, let me make my opinion clear: God did not make this boy gay. He did it by himself.

Very freaky stuff

t4cash:

BTW There is no such thing as a "christian God". God with a capital G, implies monotheism. Correctly, you shouls say a "Christian concept of God".

And I certainly hope you're not being childish in supposing that monotheism is synonymous with Christianity alone (or, besides Islam and Judaism). The Zoroastrians speak of belief in one God called 'Ahura Mazda' (meaning 'Wise Lord' see here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian/beliefs/index.shtml) - and I've met English speaking Zoroastrians who often refer to their deity as 'God'; Sikhism preaches just about the same monotheistic deity [here also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/sikhism/beliefs/index.shtml], and Bahá'ism is fundamentally a monotheistic religion [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bahai/beliefs/god.shtml ].

When you say "God with a capital G, implies monotheism" you'd need to qualify that statement because most people would immediately point their fingers at the Christian deity in issues like the present topic - and that is what the debate seems to be moulding into. [KAG - "GOD = christian God"__"the christian God is often referred to simply as GOD" https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-8351.0.html]

And spikedcylinder, why has it suddenly become tough for you to state what faith/religion you belong to? Your responses of late seem that you've become deflated and can no longer carry forward your argument - like t4cash puts it.

t4cash:

Once again, let me make my opinion clear: God did not make this boy gay. He did it by himself.

aye, point noted.

t4cash:

I wonder how atheists i.e people who don't believe in the existence of ANY kind of God (god) explain the concept of morals. How can there be good/evil if there is nobody up there to decide that this is good;this is evil

Most of our morals have evolved over a long time, but it seems more likely that it all started with the ability to empathise, coupled with the need for self presevation, especially in group or herd. That in turn either gave rise to, or was coupled with the simplistic "do unto others as you'll have them do to onto you"

By the time a child that lives with other human beings is 2 years, he gets an idea of this principle. (Even if his parents are atheist).

Atheists are not necessarily immoral.

Once again, let me make my opinion clear: God did not make this boy gay. He did it by himself.

What you posted above just reminded me of a wonderful christian man, who also happens to be anon-practising homosexual. He, like many others, states that he has been attracted to the same sex since he was a little boy. He is now a christian, and has been for a long time, and he also believes homosexuality is wrong. However he acknowledges that despite that, he is still attracted to men. In my opinion, and taking into account his protestations that his homosexuality is most likely a "thorn in his flesh", he really didn't choose to be gay, and he would gladly do anything to be straight and not be a lonely celibate for the rest of his life. Perhaps GOD didn't make him gay, but it sure would look like that to the haunted christian.

How about someone that was born and raised by gay parents and eventually became gay,who's doing is that?

am still asking abt the religion thingy

To answer your question lioness,I believe in GOD ALMIGHTY but not in a christian way,if christians feel i dont serve the same God as them,their God probably isnt the Almighty one i know.Am not a religious person.Simple.

spikedcylinder:

How about someone that was born and raised by gay parents and eventually became gay,who's doing is that?

Funny enough, most cildresn raised by gay parents end up being straight. Why? Because nobody lives only in the home with their parents. You know the saying "it takes a village to raise a child". In a mordern society you interract with so many others physically and electronically via the Internet and other electronic media.

You CHOOSE your sexuality based on all these.

spikedcylinder:

To answer your question lioness,I believe in GOD ALMIGHTY but not in a christian way,if christians feel i don't serve the same God as them,their God probably isnt the Almighty one i know.Am not a religious person.Simple.

I understand what you mean by this. but mind that believing in this your concept of God Almighty = having a religion. Infact being an atheist = having a religion. An atheist's deity is= "No God"  Some atheists are fanatical about their atheism 

You havent answered anything dearie. This is not a comparism of gods. Christain or not christain.
I only asked for a religion because it is common that any one who believes in God or god should have a doctrine that backs up its god. Which one is in christain way sef

And this thread says  God Made Him Gay?? Its good for us to know WHICH God since its begining to seem like we've got several gods.

But for the record i know just one God.

[To answer your question lioness,I believe in GOD ALMIGHTY but not in a christian way,if christians feel i don't serve the same God as them,their God probably isnt the Almighty one i know.Am not a religious person.Simple./quote]

The concept of being non-religious means that you dont follow the tenents of a particular religion.It does not neccessarily mean you dont believe in God, which is the same in my case.

God can neva make anyone in HIS likeness. We were all created in the image of God then why then should God make him gay.It's not right. I believe he needs deliverance and i pray that God would deliver him.

huh?God can never make anyone in his likeness?Who's side are you on?

I googled "define: religion"

Definitions of Religion on the Web: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny

KAG:

Rom 1:27, is not condemning homosexuals, but is instead condemning the Roman heterosexuals, who unnaturallly decided to partake in lustful homosexual practices, something that was prevalent in ancient Rome. Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

The fact that you're trying to interpret the Bible as a non-Christian is forgiveable, but that still does not carry the point that homosexuality is an OK lifestyle from the Christian point of view. If you read Romans in the Bible, you'll see that God was not focusing merely on "the Roman heterosexuals" but on everyone in every place engaged in the practice condemned in Rom.1:27. The scope of Romans is "for obedience to the faith among all nations" - (Rom.1:5); and when God says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (ch.3:23), you certainly would not suppose that was limited to just the "Roman sinners", would you?

KAG:

There was no need to, Lev 20:13 is a mosaic law, and has been superceded by the love of christ. This is also clear freom the other mosaic laws that have been disregarded, like, the recommended punishment for many practises, the belief that eating certain animals would make you unclean, the keeping of the sabbath day free, and the law condemning the wearing of a garment made of two different materials.

So, let me ask: does the love of Christ pass the bill for promoting what the Mosaic Law forbids? I don't think so. The ten commandments are part of the Mosaic Law; by the same reasoning that we are not under the Mosaic Law, does that mean it is okay for anyone today to kill, steal, commit adultery, and bear false witness against one's neighbour? (Exo.20:13-16). The fact that Christ came preaching grace and love does not mean that the implications and significance of the Law is thrown overboard wholesale.

KAG:

I'm sure Jesus would have pro-choice too, and I believe he would have supported a woman whose only choice was abortion (but that's another thread).

Your opinion. But putting words in Christ's mouth does not help the argument.

KAG:

Homosexuals were around in Jesus' time, if he didn't think the love between two consenting adults of the same sex was worth condemning, then, It's also a good thing that homosexual christians are not living a lifestyle condemned in Romans, they can therefore be led of the Spirit (big S).

Good to note that homosexuals were around in Jesus' time. But just because He apparently did not say anything on the issue does not mean that He gave His consent. Leviticus is part of Jesus' assertion in Matt.4:4 - "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." He definitely shamed those who felt that God's Word could be relaxed just to suit people's appetites for whatever they chose (Matt.15:1-9). Anyone carefully studying Jesus' teaching would know what to do with Lev.20:13 - would Jesus have nullified that warning simply because He came to preach love?

KAG:

Except perhaps, he isn't going to punish them for being homosexuals. Taking into account the many testaments of Homosexuals, who have stated explicitly that they have been attracted to the same sex as far back as they can remember, and coupling that with the occurence of homosexuality in other animals, it would seem to me that a christian would be justified in stating "God made them this way".

No Christian would be justified in stating that God made them gay or homosexual - Eccl.7:29 refutes that notion: "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

KAG:

Once again, lying is too strong a term. you may disagree with their premise, but it would be a tad self-righteous to condemn it as lies. Just out of curiousity, did you choose to be attracted to the oppposite sex?

I apologise for my strong verbiage in calling their bluff as straight lies. But I still maintain that people choosing to be gay or homosexuals or whatever does not mean that God made them so - from the Christian point of view. Nowhere is that thought sustained in the Bible as far as 'man + man = homosexuality' is a discountenanced lifestyle in God's eyes.

Ok,and?

in my opinion, God did not make him gay. thats was the boy's choice to choose. God gave us choices he did not fix anything on us only the oppourtunity to choose the way we live our lives and so the boy obviously chose to be gay and he has no excuse but to blame it on God which by the way, i think is really lame, the excuse that is.

freelance:

God can never make anyone in HIS likeness. We were all created in the image of God then why then should God make him gay.It's not right. I believe he needs deliverance and i pray that God would deliver him.

why are u dividing the statement? in the bible the whole statement goes thus, Genesis 1:26
 "let us make man in our  image
   in our likeness and let them rule over, "

so what exactly are u talking about?

that was directed at t4cash.
Some people seem to be fogetting that chapters of the bible are based on the opinions of people who lived before and after jesus christ and not jesuse himself.

I recognise only 1 GOD. and there is only TRUE GOD. although there might be other lesser gods.The brother needs counselling and deliverance but with GOD all things are possible.GOD created adam for eve and not adam for another adam. GOD LOVES U AND CARES FOR U.peace outttttttt

@ Spikecylinder
when you say you believe in the Almighty God, the word Belief is a claim based on a spiritual foundation.
So you cant say you believe in God but you've got no Spiritual foundation for believing in God    So how do you know him or assertain your spirituality

[Insert Quote
The concept of being non-religious means that you don't follow the tenents of a particular religion.It does not neccessarily mean you don't believe in God, which is the same in my case./quote]

spikedcylinder:

Some people seem to be fogetting that chapters of the bible are based on the opinions of people who lived before and after jesus christ and not jesuse himself.

No chapter in the Bible was based on the opinions of people who lived before and after Jesus Christ. First, you're not a Christian; second, you can't sustain that opinion based on verifiable an historical facts. You might brush away certain chapters you don't like - but there's just not one chapter that fits your opinion above.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" [II Tim. 3:16].

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." [II Pet. 1:21].

Yea,yea,yea, they were inspired by God just as all Nigerian pastors are inspired by God today.

Lioness,i don't need you to justify my religious and spiritual beliefs,i have told you the basic part of it;I believe in the one true God Almighty but am not a christian or better still,i dont believe God Almighty should have a son and i dont believe that so called son is divine.Thats all that will be said on that.

@SPIKE,
u need to stop fooling urself. really.


CHIRSTIAN= CHIRST-LIKE.
who is chirst? the son of God.

so how can u call urself a chirstian and say u dont believe in God's son?

if god wanted us to be gay maybe he would have made eve a guy and adam would have banged eve from da backside git it

Rolly,you need to open your eyes,really.
Where did i ever call myself a christian?