Make sure you take part in a contest for among the ideal blogs on the internet. I will suggest this webpage!

[url=http://www.shopsredbottoms.com]red bottom shoes[/url]

thanks for "Pope's Comments On Homosexuality Demonstrate Ignorance Of Individual Rights" thos good info
gambar lucu || pengertian www || kata kata lucu || kode bank bca

Nowadays, it is going on conversations about homosexuality; some are against it and some on behalf of it. The right answer we can find from the word of God (the Bible).

The Lord Jesus is the Messiah, Redeemer from sins and the Saviour. Jesus' must fulfilled the whole law of God and believed all what the Old Testament taught, that He could be the Saviour. He did fulfill and believe all the law. In the Old Testament were commandments, which teach that homosexuality is a sin. Because the Lord Jesus had to believe all commandments of the Old Testament, so He also believed that homosexuality is a sin. The Bible teaches that homosexuality was a sin in the order of the Old Covenant and is valid in the order of the New Covenant. Like this way Jesus also believed that homosexuality is a sin, and He also condemned homosexuality by this way.

For the sake of sodomites' abomination acts, God destroyed Sodom as Ezekiel 16:49,50 shows for us. Ezekiel uses 16:50 Hebrew word towebah, which is the same Hebrew word in Lev 18:22 (and Lev 20:13) that describes homosexuality as abomination. It is very clear that in Ezekiel 16:50, abomination means homosexuality acts as the reason for destroying of Sodom. Sodomites pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness and hardened hearts towards poor and needy were sins, but destruction came for the sake of homosexuality, and the New Testament confirms this:

Jude1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Apostle Paul wrote very clearly that homosexuality (men having sex with other men; women having sex with other women) is a sin. Ro 1:27 is word error, which is in Greek plane, which means error, to deceive, deceit, one led astray from the right way, error which shows itself in action, a wrong mode of acting. In this place, the Bible in the New Testament shows very clearly that same-gender sex is a sin and aberration from the right way. Apostle Paul taught very clearly that homosexuality is unnatural sin.

Many scientists believe that homosexuality is congenital, a matter and orientation that can't be changed as heterosexual. Paradoxical is that many scientists don't believe in God of the Bible, and they proclaim that God of the Bible is not existed. Nevertheless, God of the Bible is capable of change homosexuals individuals to be as heterosexuals.

Arsenos means male and koiten means bed. Lev 18:22 and 20:13 teach that a man cannot lie (sexual act) with another man as he lies with a woman. The origin of the word arsenokoites means homosexual activity and homosexual. Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prove very clearly that arsenos koitenmeans homosexuality sex, because the Jews scribes translated words' arsenos koiten to describe men who have sex with another men (homosexuality), which is a sin and against the will of God. Apostle Paul didn't make up the word arsenokoites, but it was already as the concept in the Old Testament, where it meant homosexuality.

It is very clear that the words' arsenos koiten meant homosexuality (man who had sex with another man) to Jews of the Old Covenant era. In the same way arsenokoites meant homosexuality (man who had sex with another man) to Jesus' disciples in the New Covenant era.

Jewish philosopher Philo lived in the same time as Jesus Christ and Philo has said that arsenokoites meant shrine prostitute (male temple prostitute), and not homosexual. Some people have made from this a conclusion that the word arsenokoites meant a male temple prostitute. Philo's interpretation was totally wrong, because the Bible proves this undisputedly and shows that Philo erred.

Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13 doesn't use temple prostitute word, but words in which is denied that a man can't lie sexually with another man. Always when the Bible speaks for temple prostitutes, so the Bible uses words gedeshah and gadesh. If Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13 told for temple prostitutes, so verses would mention them, but there isn't, because in those verses, the Bible forbids homosexuality. It is very clear and undisputable in the light of the testimony of the Bible, that arsenokoites means homosexuality.

According to words of the Lord Jesus, Jesus' disciples can judge righteous judgement. If somebody is stealing, living in adultery or is lying, so we have the right to say sin as a sin. According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin and so Jesus' disciples have the right to say what the Bible teaches. Jesus' disciple has a right to say that living in sins lead people to eternal damnation. Jesus' disciple doesn't judge to damnation, but tells that God shall judge sin maker to hell.

God loves also gay-people, but not sinful act of homosexuality, and therefore, God calls gay-people repentance and receives salvation by believing in the Lord Jesus. In other words, God loves sinners, but not sins. The gospel and its changing power is meant also for gay-people, because the Lord Jesus can set you free you from your sins.

I don't condemn homosexuals, but love them by the love of God. The love of God also holds on from the truth, and therefore, I must say that homosexuality is a sin, it is not condemning, but telling the truth. God has authority to judge, not a man. God judges in His word homosexuality as a sin. I can tell about judgements that what God does, and I don't condemn, but tell who judge.

I don't support discrimination of homosexuals, because they are valuable as my neighbors. However, homosexuality is a sin. It is possible to integrate from homosexuality and get rid of it. The Lord Jesus can save and give freedom to you. I recommend for you to read the Bible, because there God teaches for natural sexuality and salvation by believing in the Lord Jesus.

Reference: http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/homosexual.html

As a gay man, I'm still scratching my head as to why - oh why - our self-appointed spokespeople seem so intent on presenting us as carbon copies of heterosexuals, particularly when it comes to such a dubious institution as marriage. I don't get the insistence on calling it "marriage". It seems somewhat craven to me. Please understand that I don't mean to say gay partnerships (civil unions) should be legally inferior to straight ones. There should be parity in the law with, say, registry office marriages. But why all the hullabaloo about calling it "marriage"? It's petty and antagonistic. Let straight people keep marriage!

Apart from the outward, public demonstration of commitment to one another, it should be important that in instances where, for example, a man has been disowned by his family, the family cannot emerge from out of the woodwork and claim his estate off his long-term partner in the event of his death. This seems to happen a lot and civil partnerships should serve to guard against such situations.

But this scramble to import religious trappings and terminology and ideas about the "sanctity" of marriage and all the rest. It just seems like we're bending over backwards to capitulate, it seems like a failure of the imagination on the part of gay people. I spent long enough coming to terms with the fact that being gay makes me "different". I am now perfectly happy (and in many ways relieved) that I am different in this way. I feel no urge to go brown-nosing for the "marriage" moniker and nor do I particularly want to be subsumed into a society which still, to a not inconsiderable extent, rejects fundamentally what is a fundamental condition of my being.

For what it's worth, I am quite gratified that this "problem" - which is entirely of their own making - is causing huge trouble for some churches. But the scramble by gay people to become invisible, or "integrated" or whatever you want to call it, looks a lot to me like the tyranny of the majority alive and well and hard at work.

We have an opportunity for creative living here and to cut our own paths. Speaking personally (although I know I'm not the only one), I don't want to be yoked to the flattening, dead-weight straight model of marriage which was only held up as a "sanctified" institution in the first place because it kept the masses subdued, as any reading of the history of collaboration between church and state will lay bare.

I have no problem with the Catholic Church telling practicing LGBT Catholics they can't marry, but why do they insist on imposing what's obviously a matter of faith on people who're not Catholic?

Presumably, if enough Catholics could vote on it, they could and would ban birth control from non believers too. This makes almost as much sense as Jews and Muslims clubbing up to ban pork.

What's so special about this sin that makes it important enough to tell non Catholics that they have to follow Catholic dogma? It's not like murder or theft, or assault. no one is getting killed, robbed, or beaten. It's pretty much the same as using birth control according to A.G. But it's apparently so horrible it gets its own classification.

So I'd have to circle back and say that, on the evidence, it's irrational bigotry, despite the fact that yes, it's a sin if you're a Catholic.

Let the bigots be bigots. "The problem is that Catholics continue to be so close-minded about the subject that they won't even consider the interpretation of years ago might just be flawed." The sanctimonious Pope is no match for the U.S. federal judiciary. (Perry v Brown and 7 DOMA challenges) It is about to lay down law that Catholic Inc., can't touch. If they don't like it, I don't mind.

The author would do well to research the actual position of the Church on homosexuality as laid out in the catechism. It recognizes that we don't know everything about how sexual orientation is formed, and that being born gay is not a choice and not inherently sinful. Homosexual acts-- closed to the possibility of new life-- are deemed sinful, as are acts between heterosexuals that are not open to the possibility of reproduction. On matters of sexual ethics, the Church is very consistent. The Holy Father's view that gay marriage is a threat to the future of humanity rests on a larger condemnation of moral relativism where ancient, sacred traditions like marriage are trivialized in the name of "equality." Personally, I think those in favor of same-sex marriage ought to desist from calling faithful Catholics "ignorant" and learn the big picture of the Church's social teaching. Objecting to the sudden redefinition of marriage is not in and of itself homophobic or ignorant-- it is the scrutiny that ought to be applied when such radical proposals are thrust upon society.