Can People Be Born Homosexual?

[tankgirl]

God didn’t create the world primarily for our benefit, he did it for his glory. He created a world that would display his glory most fully and most perfectly. That is to say, every aspect of God’s character could be shown in its most extreme form. If God had created a world in which no one sinned, what aspects of his character could he have shown? His creative power, his loving-kindness, his provision for his people. But what about his mercy? Or his justice? Or his wrath? And would we have seen even his creative power to its fullest extent if there had been no death and therefore no resurrection?

Furthermore, in this self-sacrifice God demonstrates the perfection of His holiness, the sinfulness of sin, the proof of God's righteousness, the victory over the evil one, and the guarantee of the saved with whom He can shed His love and glory forever. In this, God is glorified.

We could come up with a variety of possible reasons why God made people knowing they would sin and we probably can never fully answer this. But, knowing that they would sin is no reason that God shouldn't make them, especially if His plan includes the acts of sinners so that others would be redeemed.

With so much going on in my life, I have been questioning my spirituality, and I want to thank you, your post, has really opened my eyes so much. This seriously reminds me why I can not believe in a Christian God, I mean the whole thing is so silly. Who is God impressing? Is he just one of the Giant Kids in the Twilight Zone, playing with us? Are there other Gods, he is trying to impress? Why did he have to create our "little world in a jar", to show off his coolness? Are we for "Show in Tell"??

Also I find it hilarious how many give God less power, while saying he is so grand. I mean if Satan can out do God's work, doesn't that mean Satan is also a equal God? If sin only happens outside of God's bubble, how is God all powerful? It just doesn't make sense.

Lastly, it is ridiculous that people really think, you can call all sin equal. The same people who want to do horrible things to Homosexuals, just magically forgive a woman who has an abortion, but want to jail her doctor. How are the sins not equal, in your mind? So in a gay relationship, does only the top go to jail? Seriously I know you would love to say, you want all the woman jailed, but can't cause you won't win votes, or is it us woman have too weak of minds to know better? Do we need help from Daddies and Hubbies, so we don't hurt our lil brains? Besides the fact, most of them think it's hot, I suspect that is why you don't see lesbians targeted as hard against, they are just two "girls" who don't know better, and just need a man to help them to leave that sin behind. Basically any religion that thinks eating a shrimp and murder is equal to the same thing, I just can't get behind, sorry.

[emmiedahl]

Another thing you can't just assume is true. When AFDC was replaced by time-limited TANF benefits under Clinton, the welfare rolls shrank dramatically. (Also thanks to a good economy). There has been an uptick since the recession but I'd be surprised if we are at an all-time high in the number of welfare recipients. Also, do you have any idea what percentage of the US budget goes toward welfare and social programs?

11% last year, and that includes all social programs. Most poor people are not getting a check every month; they are getting food, baby formula, discounts on housing, college grants, immunizations, and other good things that are difficult to do without. The majority of the people receiving those benefits are working families. Cash aid is a drop in the bucket as a percentage of welfare expenditures in the US, and even less of a big deal when seen as part of the overall budget.

I have never received TANF--cash aid--but my family and a lot of other working families are helped out with food stamps, free school lunches and children's health care. And when people argue to get rid of "welfare", it is those working families who they are advocating to hurt.

[keeperrox]

My other beliefs (that you know) are pro-life and limited government. Wow, I sound like such a lunatic. Those are such extreme views!

Wow, I know this was pretty much overlooked, but you realize those two things completely contradict each other, right? If you can't see what a giant hypocrite you are, then I'd say lunatic is spot on.

[wtfrenchtoast]

God didn’t create the world primarily for our benefit, he did it for his glory. He created a world that would display his glory most fully and most perfectly. That is to say, every aspect of God’s character could be shown in its most extreme form. If God had created a world in which no one sinned, what aspects of his character could he have shown? His creative power, his loving-kindness, his provision for his people. But what about his mercy? Or his justice? Or his wrath? And would we have seen even his creative power to its fullest extent if there had been no death and therefore no resurrection?

Furthermore, in this self-sacrifice God demonstrates the perfection of His holiness, the sinfulness of sin, the proof of God's righteousness, the victory over the evil one, and the guarantee of the saved with whom He can shed His love and glory forever. In this, God is glorified.

We could come up with a variety of possible reasons why God made people knowing they would sin and we probably can never fully answer this. But, knowing that they would sin is no reason that God shouldn't make them, especially if His plan includes the acts of sinners so that others would be redeemed.

So God created the world because he needs trillions of low-life, depraved humans to stroke his ego? Really? Sounds like he's kind of a dick, in my opinion? I mean really, if God is just completely perfect, why does he need glory? Isn't it glorious in and of itself to simply be perfect? Why isn't that enough for him? And why does he need to display his ultimate grace and mercy by comdemning billions upon billions of immortal souls to hell for an eternity? Wouldn't it be an even greater display of mercy to say "Okay, I know you guys are humans and you screw up sometimes. But you know what, I'm just gonna remove your sins from you when you die, and grant you entrance to heaven to live with your loved ones in a state of perpetual happiness forever." I seriously don't understand why Jesus needed to die for the sins of mankind. God is all powerful, he can do whatever the fuck he wants. So it should be a snap for him to look at a 'lying, murdering, adulterous blashpemer' (which is 99.9999% of the population apparently) and just let them into heaven. This eternal punishment for finite sins bullshit is, well, bullshit and I'm not buying it and if it lands me in hell, fine. I don't want to worship asshole god anyway.

[formergothardite]

Jericho is apparently confused about her beliefs. I found where she originally said that not just doctors should be held responsible for abortion. Her words are:

A. I know this is the question that abortion rights people use to try and trap up pro-lifers, but the answer must be one of tough love. I believe the woman and the doctor should be held to the same laws as murder. If not then the whole argument for life is invalid.

This is totally different than what she is saying in this thread, where you punish the doctor but just show the women compassion. Either jericho is a troll, confused, or just an idiot.

[Renting with Raggles]

Wow, I know this was pretty much overlooked, but you realize those two things completely contradict each other, right? If you can't see what a giant hypocrite you are, then I'd say lunatic is spot on.

How does Jericho reconcile the fact that countries with the lowest rates of abortion (Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, etc) have the most extensive government run/ free healthcare and social service systems in the world? Feel free to provide an example of a nation (current or historical) where abortion rates have decreased without some major intervention by the state.

Will you just ignore the facts and prove you're a damned coward and a liar whose concern for 'life' is just an excuse to give you opportunity to exercise power over women (for the cheap thrills or whatever pitiful excuse you'd come up with) - or will you step up and address the hypocrisy people here call you on?

[jericho]

Wow, I know this was pretty much overlooked, but you realize those two things completely contradict each other, right? If you can't see what a giant hypocrite you are, then I'd say lunatic is spot on.

They do not contradict. If I said NO government it would be a contradiction. Obviously we need government for certain things such as protecting lives.

[keeperrox]

They do not contradict. If I said NO government it would be a contradiction. Obviously we need government for certain things such as protecting lives.

So let me get this straight. You want the government to have control over private medical decisions, but not much else? And you're not going to give them any money in which to actually enforce this? Yet you don't see any contradiction there? Yup. Lunatic.

[jericho]

Jericho is apparently confused about her beliefs. I found where she originally said that not just doctors should be held responsible for abortion. Her words are:

A. I know this is the question that abortion rights people use to try and trap up pro-lifers, but the answer must be one of tough love. I believe the woman and the doctor should be held to the same laws as murder. If not then the whole argument for life is invalid.

This is totally different than what she is saying in this thread, where you punish the doctor but just show the women compassion. Either jericho is a troll, confused, or just an idiot.

Truth is, this forum has made me have to think hard on some things and my view has changed since I wrote that. If going to a forum that I found interesting and getting questioned on something that 99% of members disagree with me on makes me a troll, then call me a troll.

[formergothardite]

Truth is, this forum has made me have to think hard on some things and my view has changed since I wrote that. If going to a forum that I found interesting and getting questioned on something that 99% of members disagree with me on makes me a troll, then call me a troll.

That is great you have changed your mind, but can you please explain why you now believe that a fetus isn't as human as a child who is already born? If a baby is a full person before birth, then they deserve to be treated equally to a person who hires someone to murder their two year old.

Your old stance made a great deal more logical sense than your new one to be honest.

[jericho]

So let me get this straight. You want the government to have control over private medical decisions, but not much else? And you're not going to give them any money in which to actually enforce this? Yet you don't see any contradiction there? Yup. Lunatic.

No. I want to government to protect life. The only medical decisions the government should make is when it protects people. I would be for a limited budget to help enforce the law if abortion was illegal.

[emmiedahl]

That is great you have changed your mind, but can you please explain why you now believe that a fetus isn't as human as a child who is already born? If a baby is a full person before birth, then they deserve to be treated equally to a person who hires someone to murder their two year old.

Your old stance made a great deal more logical sense than your new one to be honest.

And then he can explain why it is more "pro-life" for all of these children to die from a lack of food, shelter and supervision because there are no social services.

[formergothardite]

So let me get this straight. You want the government to have control over private medical decisions, but not much else? And you're not going to give them any money in which to actually enforce this? Yet you don't see any contradiction there? Yup. Lunatic.

Since we are giving the government the right to control private medical decisions, why not have forced organ donations? It will save a life. If a woman is required to give up her uterus and risk her life for nine months to save a life, why shouldn't others be forced to give up a kidney to save a life? If you have a matching kidney and refuse to give it up and no other can be found, you are killing somebody. So why not force it? Makes as much sense as having the government be all up in women's bodies under the idea of saving lives.

[Renting with Raggles]

How do you reconcile the fact that countries with the lowest rates of abortion (Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, etc) have the most extensive government run/ free healthcare and social service systems in the world?

Please provide an example of a nation (current or historical) where abortion rates have decreased without some major intervention by the state. Please do not waffle on about 'some' vs 'major' government intervention - all the states above have healthcare that is completely government run. Remember, there are no equivocators in heaven.

[formergothardite]

No. I want to government to protect life. The only medical decisions the government should make is when it protects people. I would be for a limited budget to help enforce the law if abortion was illegal.

So you are cool with the forced organ donations then? It would be protecting lives and saving people!

[Guest Anonymous]

Christians do not believe we were created sinners. We were created in God's perfect image. Sin came later and corrupted humanity and the world.

Oh goodie, jericho's back. Because what we needed around here was another slimy, lying, disingenuous fundie. Do mind the rugs, cupcake.

[keeperrox]

No. I want to government to protect life. The only medical decisions the government should make is when it protects people. I would be for a limited budget to help enforce the law if abortion was illegal.

Oh, okay. I see now. You are fine with the government using tax money to pay for things that align with your own agenda, but not anything you personally disagree with. Gotcha, lunatic.

[emmiedahl]

Jericho should be required to give up any organ at any time, not to mention blood, bone marrow, etc, even if it is painful or makes him lose work (or a job). And he should be required to pay all the medical expenses as well. Because that is the right thing to do--give up everything for a life. Right, jericho? It's the same thing you would ask of a rape victim, you would do it yourself surely.

Are you on every organ donation registry in the country? Are you donating blood as often as the Red Cross will allow you?

[jericho]

That is great you have changed your mind, but can you please explain why you now believe that a fetus isn't as human as a child who is already born? If a baby is a full person before birth, then they deserve to be treated equally to a person who hires someone to murder their two year old.

Your old stance made a great deal more logical sense than your new one to be honest.

Well its neither here nor there really. Abortion is still legal and no decision on criminal charges needs to be made at this time.

[formergothardite]

Well its neither here nor there really. Abortion is still legal and no decision on criminal charges needs to be made at this time.

Don't try and weasle out of answering. If abortion was illegal, why do you no longer think women should be charged with murdering a child? Why do you now just think they need compassion. There has to be a reason you have changed your mind.

I'm going to say your a liar because you are trying to weasle out of answering this. Only a liar would do that. People whose beliefs have changed as much as you have claimed yours have, are able to at least attempt to give a reason why.

[jericho]

Oh goodie, jericho's back. Because what we needed around here was another slimy, lying, disingenuous fundie. Do mind the rugs, cupcake.

I don't understand why people make posts like this. Why can't we be respectful? I have done my best to not attack people on here just because I don't agree with them.

[formergothardite]

I don't understand why people make posts like this. Why can't we be respectful? I have done my best to not attack people on here just because I don't agree with them.

Well you did at one point say you wanted to charge women who had abortions with murder, not really respectful on your part.

[Renting with Raggles]

Still can't explain why countries with massive government social programmes and safety nets have lowest rates of abortion. Still have not provided an example of criminalisation reducing abortion rather than major intervention programmes outlined above.

Jericho hates the babies - she just gets a kick out of telling other women what they can or can't do. She missed her calling a a dominatrix and is angry at us all.

[thoughtful]

I'm still waiting to hear Jericho's opinions on homosexuality.

[Guest Anonymous]

I don't understand why people make posts like this. Why can't we be respectful? I have done my best to not attack people on here just because I don't agree with them.

Because you're a jackass who would take away my reproductive rights in a second if you had the power to do so. That's a damn sight worse than me pointing out that you're a weaselling liar. I think false niceness is bullshit. Why is it better to be two faced and pretend that it's okay for someone to try to take away other people's freedom than to call that excrement out for what it is?

**Edited to make my sentence flow better, and for fuck you.