Welcome to Gaia! ::

linaloki's avatar
  • 100
  • 200
  • 200
fockerized
actually if you want more information
THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES CALLED
LEVITICUS
CHAPTER 20
Death penalty prescribed for sacrificing children to Molech, cursing father and mother, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, spiritualism, and other abominations—Divers laws and ordinances set forth.
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
linaloki
Enix Leroux
(I feel like an idiot for posting this, but the hell with it)

Okay, so I need some questions answered.

I'm pretty sure you've heard the phrase "A man must not lie with another man, same goes for women". Doesn't that contradict to the stuff you posted?

Also... Why do Christians still follow the OT?

Does the NT mention anything about Homosexuality?


Question 1: That phrase does not exist in Scripture.

Question 2: The OT is still applicable in teachings, history, and prophecy... As for why they follow certain laws, it's because they didn't read the NT carefully enough.

Question 3: Nope.


How strange... I see no "same goes for women". So, where are the lesbians?
linaloki's avatar
  • 100
  • 200
  • 200
fockerized
im only stating what God teaches in his gospel and that is that homosexuality is a abomination


Just like shrimp, right?
linaloki's avatar
  • 100
  • 200
  • 200
fockerized
didnt you learn that sodom and gomorrah are homo's aND were blown up? well here are some scriptures if you care to look them up,
PROOF GOD SAYS NO TO HOMOSEXUALITY
GEN. 19:5


Rapists, anyone? Not to mention the crowd wasn't necessarily only men, but whatever.

fockerized
LEV 18:22 (20:13)


Lesbians are where?

fockerized
DEAUT. 23:17


Shrine prostitutes! Exactly! And you know that homosexuality 1) isn't inherently physically sexual and 2) isn't shrine prostitution, right?

fockerized
ISA 3:9


Now you're just quoting anything that says Sodom in it. Really.

fockerized
( 2NEPHI 13:9)


A Mormon book, if I recognize the name... and once more, a simple "Look it says Sodom in it!" verse.

fockerized
ROM 1: 27


Idolatrous orgies.

fockerized
1 COR 6:9


Mistranslation.

fockerized
1 TIM 1:10


Same mistranslation.

fockerized
JUDE 1:7


Again, rape.

fockerized
2 NEPHI 13:9


And you already mentioned that one.

fockerized
SEE ALSO GEN 13:13


Because the only way to sin greatly is to be gay...? You'd think that'd be in the 10 Commandments, then.

fockerized
18:20


Again. Grievous sin = homosexuality... how exactly?

fockerized
ISA 3:9


You mentioned that one already. That's twice you've done that.

fockerized
EZEK 16:50


How sad that you missed Ezekiel 16:49, where it lists Sodom's sin and homosexuality is strangely not present.

fockerized
2 TIM 3:3


...what the heck does this have to do with anything?

fockerized
2 PET 2:10


Once more, relevance?

fockerized
2 NEPHI 9:40


Not only is it Mormon, but it's also irrelevant.

What, you figured we wouldn't check the verses and be scared off by the number? Stop regurgitating whatever the hell you were taught at age 6, man up and read the Bible all by yourself.
The Nowhere Man's avatar
  • 100
  • 200
There are two things that don't make sense about the issue of gay marriage. For one America is supposed to be a country founded on religious freedoms and holds to no one official religion. You may say that the USA is a Christian nation, well that's only because they white men who feel more entitled to the laws here that what ever they believe becomes a law. All of these men were christian on some sense. Be it Quaker, Prodistent or otherwise. So yes in that way it is a Christian nation, but only by default.That being said seperation of church and state dictates that what the church does is outside of the federal government and on the other side if the church is against something that has an issue with a law that is pre-existing, it won't mandate a law.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Ok well if you then look at just the legal issue of say a man getting married with another man because they do honestly love each other. In the eyes of the courts this is nothing more than a contract. A wedding is nothing more than a party or religious ceremony to commemorate the act of becoming one household. Even if you have the whole church wedding, you still need a marriage license from the courthouse to be recognized by the government and legal systems as one household. The ceremony doesn't make it real, it doesn't really matter in the eyes of he government. It's that procession that is the religious aspect of the union.

If we take this and put it into the context of Homosexual (I use the term homosexual because it does not determine gender of the parties involved thus equal) Marriage rights and we see that not only by that standard that it would be legal, but because it is now a simple legal matter that not allowing a person in engage in a legal binding contract of a Civil Union, and all the benefits that come with it such as adopting a child, shared health care and so on, based on their gender alone is nothing more than discrimination based on gender which is illegal. As stated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There is no issue here at all. It is simple Sexual Discrimination and should not be allowed. All couples get Civil Unions, it's just not referred to as such because people make a bigger deal out of the Wedding it's self. So if it's more about marriage over Civil Unions then that's up to the church's who want to provide the service of a minister for a Homosexual marriage. Now since we can see it as just a church issue, the Government should then back off about it and let the religious leaders sort this out.
xLady Tsukiyox's avatar
  • 200
  • 100
  • 100
The Nowhere Man
There are two things that don't make sense about the issue of gay marriage. For one America is supposed to be a country founded on religious freedoms and holds to no one official religion. You may say that the USA is a Christian nation, well that's only because they white men who feel more entitled to the laws here that what ever they believe becomes a law. All of these men were christian on some sense. Be it Quaker, Prodistent or otherwise. So yes in that way it is a Christian nation, but only by default.That being said seperation of church and state dictates that what the church does is outside of the federal government and on the other side if the church is against something that has an issue with a law that is pre-existing, it won't mandate a law.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Ok well if you then look at just the legal issue of say a man getting married with another man because they do honestly love each other. In the eyes of the courts this is nothing more than a contract. A wedding is nothing more than a party or religious ceremony to commemorate the act of becoming one household. Even if you have the whole church wedding, you still need a marriage license from the courthouse to be recognized by the government and legal systems as one household. The ceremony doesn't make it real, it doesn't really matter in the eyes of he government. It's that procession that is the religious aspect of the union.

If we take this and put it into the context of Homosexual (I use the term homosexual because it does not determine gender of the parties involved thus equal) Marriage rights and we see that not only by that standard that it would be legal, but because it is now a simple legal matter that not allowing a person in engage in a legal binding contract of a Civil Union, and all the benefits that come with it such as adopting a child, shared health care and so on, based on their gender alone is nothing more than discrimination based on gender which is illegal. As stated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There is no issue here at all. It is simple Sexual Discrimination and should not be allowed. All couples get Civil Unions, it's just not referred to as such because people make a bigger deal out of the Wedding it's self. So if it's more about marriage over Civil Unions then that's up to the church's who want to provide the service of a minister for a Homosexual marriage. Now since we can see it as just a church issue, the Government should then back off about it and let the religious leaders sort this out.
Except it's not a Christian Nation nor was it. I mean, Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, Ben Franklin was ab agnostic. To top it all off is the Treaty of Tripoli. neutral

However calling it a civil union is giving homosexuals special privelges. And it's not a Church issue as Loki has stated in the first page. IT'S NOT A SIN!

Re-read the first page.
gahh...that fockerized person PMed me three times.....the spelling and logic was so bad, I s**t you not...my nose started bleeding just reading it.
linaloki
fockerized
im only stating what God teaches in his gospel and that is that homosexuality is a abomination


Just like shrimp, ********]
xLady Tsukiyox's avatar
  • 200
  • 100
  • 100
Yuki The Uke
gahh...that fockerized person PMed me three times.....the spelling and logic was so bad, I s**t you not...my nose started bleeding just reading it.
How come none of the people like fockerized PM me. Why do I get left out of the fun? T.T
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden
Aino Ailill
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden
Aino Ailill
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

I don't see how him being a misogynist holds any weight when Christians are supposed to follow the Law of Agape. neutral


Saying that women and men are called to different vocations and different roles is not hateful. None-the-less, I have not claimed that one should blindly accept what Paul says; merely that the off-hand dismissal is absurd.
Those who have blindly accepted his words, have treated women like property for the past hundred years.


Good thing I didn't advocate that then, eh? biggrin

Quote:
neutral Again we are called to follow Christ's Law of Agape not Paul. Paul is not Christ.


Christ whom never condemned judgment without context; and who has praised judgment in some.

Quote:
Paul will not save us.


So he cannot possibly be enlightened. And Christ's bidding of him to go forth and teach? Pointless because, of course, he has nothing to offer. It's not he that will save us.

Quote:
And Matthew 7:1-2 still applies.

Matthew 7:1-2

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with the measure which ye measure with, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thy own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thy eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thy own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


I fail to see a blanket condemnation of judgment here.

Quote:
We are not to judge others (THEIR SOULS) or else we get his with the same punishment.


I have already spoken against such judgment. To judge a man's soul is the realm of God, and to take it upon one's self is arrogant and self-righteous. By-the-by, the Paul you so despise spoke against this. Judging something as sinful does not judge a man's soul.

Quote:
There is no such thing as "righteous judgment" neutral


John 7:21-24.
Jesus answered and said to them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.
Moses therefore gave to you circumcision; (not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers wink and ye on the sabbath circumcise a man.
If a man on the sabbath receiveth circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have restored a man to sound health on the sabbath?
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.


Here we are told to judge whether something is a sin, but judge it in the context of the Spirit of the Law, not the word of the Law. To judge it righteously.
1. Don't use KJV. We don't live in the 15th century. No need to use thees and thous.


Irrelevant. None-the-less, I shall humor you:

John 7:21-24 NIV

Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."

John 7:21-24 New American Standard Bible

Jesus answered them, "I did (Z)one deed, and you all marvel. For this reason (AA)Moses has given you circumcision (not because it is from Moses, but from (AB)the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man.(AC) If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? Do not (AD)judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

John 7:21-24 English Standard Version

Jesus answered them, "I did(AD) one work, and you all marvel at it. 22(AE) Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but(AF) from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken,(AG) are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? 24(AH) Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."

John 7:21-24 Interlinear Bible

Jesus answered and said to them, I did one work and you all marvel. Because of this Moses has given you circumcision; not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers. and on a sabbath you circumcise a man. If a man receives circumcision on a sabbath, so that the Low of Moses is not broken, are you angry with me because I made a man entirely sound on a sabbath? Do not judge according to sight, but judge righteous judgment.

If these are still unsatisfactory to you, please look here to see many other texts' version of John 7:24.

Quote:
2. I have serious doubts that the original text actually says that Jesus praised righteous judgment.


Argument from Ignorance. I invite you to prove that this is not the case.

John 7:24 <- EDIT I had misplaced this. >.<

Quote:
3. The rest of Matthew 7 provides examples on why you SHOULDN'T judge.


I disagree. I see it as giving context to judgment. That there are other places in the text that condone judgment, when it is righteous (but not self-righteous, hubristic), assists in leading me to this conclusion.

Quote:
4.Judging someone as sinful is making a judgment of their soul. If they are sinful then so is their soul.


Judging something as sinful, and judging someone as committing a sin, does not judge a person as God will.

Quote:
5. I don't get how you got judgment out of Shakespearean. I mean seriously. It's a foreign language to me. I speak modern English. talk2hand


"The career of Caxton (1476-90) is the event which arbitrarily marks the beginning of Modern English." (English Words from Latin and Greek Alements, Second Edition by Donald M. Ayers)

Shakespeare (1564 - 1616).

Shakespearean is Modern English, technically.
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden
Yuki The Uke
gahh...that fockerized person PMed me three times.....the spelling and logic was so bad, I s**t you not...my nose started bleeding just reading it.
How come none of the people like fockerized PM me. Why do I get left out of the fun? T.T
You don't have boy/boy art of you avi and an NPC
xLady Tsukiyox's avatar
  • 200
  • 100
  • 100
Yuki The Uke
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden
Yuki The Uke
gahh...that fockerized person PMed me three times.....the spelling and logic was so bad, I s**t you not...my nose started bleeding just reading it.
How come none of the people like fockerized PM me. Why do I get left out of the fun? T.T
You don't have boy/boy art of you avi and an NPC
But I could dig up some yaoi shots of SoubixRisuka and other yaoi couples..of course in most of my posts I have said that gays aren't going to hell or that homosexuality isn't a sin...but still you and Media are the lucky ones. T.T
fockerized
didnt you learn that sodom and gomorrah are homo's aND were blown up?

No, I didn't.
Didn't you learn that Sodom will be restored?
Didn't you learn that Sodom's sins had nothing to do with homosexuality?

For that matter, didn't you learn that it was just peachy back in the day to send a child or servant out into a mob to be raped to death?

fockerized
well here are some scriptures if you care to look them up,
PROOF GOD SAYS NO TO HOMOSEXUALITY
GEN. 19:5 ; LEV 18:22 (20:13)
DEAUT. 23:17 ISA 3 9 ( 2NEPHI 13:9)
ROM 1: 27 1 COR 6:9
1 TIM 1:10 ; JUDE 1:7
2 NEPHI 13:9

SEE ALSO GEN 13:13; 18:20 ISA 3:9
EZEK 16:50; 2 TIM 3:3 ; 2 PET 2:10; 2 NEPHI 9:40

Wow, that's nothing resembling proof.
Why are you arguing from Mormon scripture in a debate that is rooted in the canon? If this ends in an appeal to the authority of the LDS Church I'm going to be very disappointed.
fockerized
please note , that it was never my intention to make you feel insulted, condemned or judged i never said i hated homo's , i actually said i love them as people but i dont agree with what they are doing as a sexual abomination before God.

If you love them, why do you call them homos?

fockerized
they need to stop it. yes

No.
You have failed to establish this point, and unloading scripture that actually fails to support your point without even the courtesy of a citation and some interpretation is not a help.

fockerized
So, men shouldn't have virginal sex with men.

Prove or concede.

fockerized
that is right ,

Where does it say that, other than in your posts?

fockerized
and i also have to quote another scripture to show that homosexuality in terms of thoughts and feelings is also accounted for as a abomination

matthew 5:28 says but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a women to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. see this shows that you can't commit adultery in your mind it's not right still and your heart also

Interesting how that doesn't say anything about homosexuality.
You still have not established

I also sincerely doubt that you understand even a tenth part of the passage you are attempting to quote. Yeshua's words here are metaphorical, and concerns the Mosaic Law. If you do not follow the Mosaic Law, these have little bearing on you.

Likewise, these have little bearing on virtually anyone else.

fockerized

“We may deceive one another, and, in some circumstances, as counterfeit coin passes for that which is considered true and valuable among men. But God searches the hearts and tries the reins of the children of men. He knows our thoughts and comprehends our desires and feelings; he knows our acts and the motives which prompt us to perform them. He is acquainted with all the doings and operations of the human family, and all the secret thoughts and acts of the children of men are open and naked before him, and for them he will bring them to judgment”

“God does not judge men as we do, nor look upon them in the same light that we do. He knows our imperfections—all the causes, the ‘whys and wherefores’ are made manifest unto Him. He judges us by our acts and the intents of our hearts. His judgments will be true, just and righteous; ours are obscured by the imperfections of man”

Why are you pulling quotations from John Taylor and Joseph F. Smith without so much as the basic courtesy of mentioning their names?

Furthermore, why are you ripping pieces directly out of the Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, particularly bits that have no relevance to the debate?

If you intend to discredit those who you disagree with, consider a more fitting citation:

Quote:
“We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure. . . . Truth is at the foundation, at the bottom and top of, and it entirely permeates this great work of the Lord that was established through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith, the prophet” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 1).
[link]
Learn.
Listen.
Do not be so quick to dismiss.
There is a world of information here which you have not even scratched the surface of.
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden
Yuki The Uke
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden
Yuki The Uke
gahh...that fockerized person PMed me three times.....the spelling and logic was so bad, I s**t you not...my nose started bleeding just reading it.
How come none of the people like fockerized PM me. Why do I get left out of the fun? T.T
You don't have boy/boy art of you avi and an NPC
But I could dig up some yaoi shots of SoubixRisuka and other yaoi couples..of course in most of my posts I have said that gays aren't going to hell or that homosexuality isn't a sin...but still you and Media are the lucky ones. T.T

You want to be trolled by idiots? You're a weird one. I like you 4laugh

By the way MattXMello pairings FTW ^.~


and my God my brain hurts from the bad spellings of focker gonk
that's God's law because at the end of the chapter God himself speaks saying you must not commit any of these abominations in verse 26 i am the lord your god so why must you ask or consider im jewish?
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden
fockerized
LEVITICUS CHAPTER 18 HEAD TITLE CLEARLY STATES
THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A ABOMINATION IN THESE EXACT WORDS

THE THIRD BOOK OF MOSES CALLED
LEVITICUS
CHAPTER 18
Israel shall not live as the Egyptians and the Canaanites—Marriages to many close relatives and others forbidden—Homosexuality and other sex perversions are an abomination—Land spues out those nations which practice sexual abominations.
look up
God later declares that you must not commit any of these abominations in verse 26
Are you Jewish? Are you a Jewish priest? No? THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU FOLLOWING JEWISH LAW!

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff