PortlyLlama80

What I'm trying to communicate in that regard is that it's not that it's a deliberate decision, but an inclination that occurs in some. That inclination is not a sin. As I said, I know someone who had/has homosexual inclinations, but as they know that ACTING on those inclinations is a sin in the eyes of God, they have chosen to deny themselves for his sake, and are a better Christian than I. 

The same would apply to a man who is inclined to be a womanizer. Even though the temptation is 'straight' and 'natural,' does not make it acceptable to God. He is as much in sin if he uses a woman as a person who indulges in homosexual activity.

Grace is given to those that truly desire to deny their sinful inclinations, regardless of what they are. But God has laid guidelines and given us free will. We can choose to try out best (as feeble, though sincere, as it may be), or we can choose to ignore him.  

I am a Christian, a devout one at that, and I believe that if same-sex sexual attraction was truly a sin like some claim that it is - then God would have made it so that his children of both human and other variety could not possess or act on these attractions, nor would he have made it so that there were people that could only have these attractions and thus have to automatically "sin" if they wanted to experience the same pleasures of love, romance and companionship that anyone else does, but yet the Lord created people this way, and he also created people like me who were mentally and spiritually of one gender and put into the other gender's body (transgender people like me), and people who held a variety of attractions and feelings, he creates us all in a specific way for a reason I believe, and I believe that he loves us all the same way; no matter who we are or what we feel.

 

To say that it's not a sin because God does not stop it...is a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian faith. I would not call you a liar or ever say that you cannot possibly be a Christian because you are LGBT, but as I would any other professing Christian who boldly makes an unfounded claim about the faith, I will call you out. You are absolutely right that He loves us all equally, but you are not in that children are never justified by their parents love as long as they refuse to live in obedience. The parent will still love, but is not blind to the deviance. 

I will say this again, that the feelings themselves are not a sin, like a man who cannot feel sexually satisfied by normal methods might find that dangerous and dark places of BDSM are the only way he every feels fulfilled (yes, this is real, and yes, I am putting it nicely). For him to be drawn by that is actually natural in the same sense that homosexuality is. He is not in sin until he INDULGES IN THE ACTUAL SINFUL ACT (lustful or in this example, violently lustful thoughts, self-temptation, mini-exceptions, or the full act/embracing his inclinations.) 

Or even just an unmarried straight person. Though they may burn with desire for someone of the opposite sex, the Christian faith says that unless they are married, they cannot have sexual interaction or even fantasize about sexual interaction with another person without having sinned. 

If, however, they overcome the burning and move on without acting or dwelling on it, they have not sinned, even though they were tempted. 

As a christian, do I believe it's a sin? Yes, yes I do. I believe it's a temptation that some people have, just like some people are tempted by greed.

However, do I believe they should be denied the same rights I enjoy? No. This isn't a theocracy, and besides, it's legal to divorce, which is clearly a sin. You don't have to approve of an action to approve of it being legalized. 

So when did you choose to be a heterosexual?  

 

Not trying to be patronizing, as I would never criticize someone for supporting what the holy book of their religion states.    Just genuinely curious as to when one would make the choice to be gay or straight.  I know for one, I never chose, I was naturally attracted to those of the opposite sex.

I feel that I didn't have to choose as I never had those temptations to be gay. I feel like gay people have the temptation of being gay, just like I have the temptation of lust. I guess I kind of believe that perhaps we all have temptations, some of us have different ones, and its kind of like a lifelong test from God to see how much faith we have in him. 

What I'm trying to communicate in that regard is that it's not that it's a deliberate decision, but an inclination that occurs in some. That inclination is not a sin. As I said, I know someone who had/has homosexual inclinations, but as they know that ACTING on those inclinations is a sin in the eyes of God, they have chosen to deny themselves for his sake, and are a better Christian than I. 

The same would apply to a man who is inclined to be a womanizer. Even though the temptation is 'straight' and 'natural,' does not make it acceptable to God. He is as much in sin if he uses a woman as a person who indulges in homosexual activity.

Grace is given to those that truly desire to deny their sinful inclinations, regardless of what they are. But God has laid guidelines and given us free will. We can choose to try out best (as feeble, though sincere, as it may be), or we can choose to ignore him.  

 

So when did you choose to be a heterosexual?  

 

Not trying to be patronizing, as I would never criticize someone for supporting what the holy book of their religion states.    Just genuinely curious as to when one would make the choice to be gay or straight.  I know for one, I never chose, I was naturally attracted to those of the opposite sex.

Further more, there is no evidence that the map takes place in the 60s. And for the love of god If I even SEE the word nuke town: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A DATE IN NUKETOWN. 

Marelton's knowledge of weapons includes weapons from the 2025 era, and while we know the box can pull weapons from different times, marelton can not make quotes about knowing about guns from the future without being from a time when the futuristic guns were available. FURTHERMORE, marelton was in nuke town before the bombs hit. 

It's just so they can market it in Germany, Austria and other countries where the symbols are banned; it will be in the non-German versions once it comes out. 

 

I don't understand why you think they would add the swaztika into any version? After WaW Activision have abandoned WWII altogether and I find it highly unlikely they would go to the effort of having to release any kind of edited version of the game for something so minor or trivial. The zombie storyline has moved on a lot since the 'Nazi Zombies' days. Now it's just 'Zombies' and we don't hear anything related to Nazi's. I guess we can only wait and see but I am pretty confident they will not add it to any version of the game.