|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:50 pm
In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. Aren't you Jewish? And isn't it most often said that it the thing against homosexuallity is from the "bigotted" Old Testament even though it is explictedly stated as a sin in both books? And are you religiously Jewish or just a Jewish ethnicity?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:06 pm
Nines19 Why do people always use this "sex = love" thing when they talk about homosexuality? Just because I like (the idea of) ******** women doesn't mean I'm in love with them. I'm completely romantically devoted to my husband. ZimGangster This is one thing I've always taken issue with; equating a sexuality to love. Yes, gay people fall in love, but being gay is having a sexuality. It's being attracted to a person of your same gender. Sorry, that's just a pet peeve of mine. Mine as well. Nebulance I'm not going to rant that homosexuals are going to hell (all unsaved sinners will). There's no Scriptural support for this statement unless by "hell" you mean "Sheol," which makes your comment totally irrelevant anyhow, because if you're talking about Sheol, everyone goes there. Intelligent Gaian Christians heart Boxy and rmcdra. tobiwants2cookies arguing never gets any one anywhere Bullshit. All lawyers everywhere disprove this statement. Nebulance Great! And one of my points was that by that exact same logic, child sacrifice is not a sin either! So I'll be calling the police on you now... Even if IMR didn't believe that child sacrifice was a sin, that doesn't mean she's going to go out and do it, or that she has. Your police would laugh their asses off at you. But thanks for letting us know how childish you are. mrgreen Imitation Stradivarius Homosexuality is wrong. I've gotten over my shame and I'm willing to admit that I've experienced it first hand. Levitican law forbids it, and in Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus says (in a nutshell) that not only did He fulfill the OT laws, but that every letter of it is to be kept until the day He returns. So you don't eat bacon or cheeseburgers and you kick your sister/mother/wife/girlfriend out of town when she's menstruating, right? comfortably_dumb Ahkmill I'm not much a fan of the Bible itself, as much as I am in Jesus himself. Good thing you're "Christian" then, eh? That's like the Christian that doesn't think they have to go to church because they want to do it at home so they have a "personal relationship with God one-on-one." Could you please explain why it is Christians must attend church? Side note: What the hell is up with people trying to use a ******** metaphorical myth to justify, "HOMOS R BAD, MKAY?" (Circa pages 5-7) That's like a Hellenic trying to say rape is okay because, "ZOMG, ZEUS DID IT!!!1" Or the (sadly not so) rare Asatruar that try to claim that the Norse pantheon are tied by bloodlines and use that to justify their own personal racism. A. I was being sarcastic about calling the police to make a point. B. I've already demonstrated the Scriptural basis for Hell in another thread on this forum in response to a similar challenge: Thread with discussion of basis of HellSee especially pages 1 and 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:25 am
In Medias Res IV Imitation Stradivarius In Medias Res IV Imitation Stradivarius In Medias Res IV Imitation Stradivarius According to whose philosophy are you getting this from? God tells us to embrace who we are: the new creation in Him. Not the old one that we used to be. ... I'm not a Christian. Then why are you debating a tangent of Christian doctrine if you don't know Jesus? Now would be a great time to start. mrgreen *headdesk*, really? What comes to mind when you see Leviticus? Torah! What comes to mind with Torah? JEW! JEWISH! I don't need Jesus, he is not my moshiach, I have Hashem. Jeez....Excuse me for barging in and not reading all 18 pages of this thread. Lazy Mexican right here. Facepalm* *tilts head to the side* you sure do like hitting yourself....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:08 am
Totrue-Tufaar In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. Aren't you Jewish? And isn't it most often said that it the thing against homosexuallity is from the "bigotted" Old Testament even though it is explictedly stated as a sin in both books? And are you religiously Jewish or just a Jewish ethnicity? Leviticus is used by Jewish Priests. -.- Not everyone else. Some Jewish laws are no longer followed because they no longer apply in this day and age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:20 am
Totrue-Tufaar In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. Aren't you Jewish? And isn't it most often said that it the thing against homosexuallity is from the "bigotted" Old Testament even though it is explictedly stated as a sin in both books? And are you religiously Jewish or just a Jewish ethnicity? It is not stated as a sin in the NT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:05 pm
Nines19 Why do people always use this "sex = love" thing when they talk about homosexuality? Just because I like (the idea of) ******** women doesn't mean I'm in love with them. I'm completely romantically devoted to my husband. That's called being bisexual, Nines. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:08 pm
alteregoivy Nines19 Why do people always use this "sex = love" thing when they talk about homosexuality? Just because I like (the idea of) ******** women doesn't mean I'm in love with them. I'm completely romantically devoted to my husband. That's called being bisexual, Nines. ^_^ I know. It still applies, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:50 pm
Nines19 alteregoivy Nines19 Why do people always use this "sex = love" thing when they talk about homosexuality? Just because I like (the idea of) ******** women doesn't mean I'm in love with them. I'm completely romantically devoted to my husband. That's called being bisexual, Nines. ^_^ I know. It still applies, though. Maybe it's because I would never ever be able to have sex with someone I wasn't in love with, but I don't understand the difference you (and ZimGangster) are trying to make between sexuality and love. They are inextricably bound. You can't enjoy sex if you aren't attracted to someone, and you can't have a healthy, lasting, romantic relationship without having good sex, IMO. At least, every relationship I've ever seen that's defunct in the bedroom is well on its way out the door. Therefore, heterosexual limits you to falling in love with those of the opposite sex, and homosexual limits you to falling in love with those of the same sex. I just think romantic love can't really be realized without at least a modicum of physical attraction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:15 pm
alteregoivy Nines19 alteregoivy Nines19 Why do people always use this "sex = love" thing when they talk about homosexuality? Just because I like (the idea of) ******** women doesn't mean I'm in love with them. I'm completely romantically devoted to my husband. That's called being bisexual, Nines. ^_^ I know. It still applies, though. Maybe it's because I would never ever be able to have sex with someone I wasn't in love with, but I don't understand the difference you (and ZimGangster) are trying to make between sexuality and love. They are inextricably bound. You can't enjoy sex if you aren't attracted to someone, and you can't have a healthy, lasting, romantic relationship without having good sex, IMO. At least, every relationship I've ever seen that's defunct in the bedroom is well on its way out the door. Therefore, heterosexual limits you to falling in love with those of the opposite sex, and homosexual limits you to falling in love with those of the same sex. I just think romantic love can't really be realized without at least a modicum of physical attraction. But physical attraction isn't necessarily romantic attraction. If a woman is homosexual, she's sexually attracted to women, in general. That doesn't mean she's in love with women, in general, just that she's sexually attracted to them. I absolutely understand the mentality of not wanting to have sex with anyone you're not in love with, and agree that romantic love without sex is...at the very least, boring. But not everyone feels that way, pure and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:21 pm
quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. When was Leviticus raped? I think the book made the subject plain and clear. Too many people substitute the word love for lust. If you think about the anatomy of the male and female there's a good reason the body parts are made diffrent; kinda like a lock and key and the mix does help the reproduction of mankind. I was taught that the a**s was the elimination canal of the body (created for elimation). It seems like our creator had an excellent idea as to our construction. If we would only follow HIS instructions we would have less physical and mental ailments. GOD also gave us the freedom to do with our lives as we choose, but with some freedoms there is a cost; one called by the name of consequences and some of those are deadly to the mind, spirit and or body. So whatever your cup of tea is; You have the GOD given right to choose your lifestyle. Oh please don't edit this. 1 I have chosen not to follow god and Christianity, I am mentally and physically fine. so much for that belief. 2) sexual orientation is NOT a choice, I did NOT choose to be gay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:51 pm
why they have too against the rule of nature...
>>...love is never a sin
but then again there still boundaries in love ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:16 am
ya know, this argument seems like it could easly be solved by simply finding a verse in the Bible that specifically says that homosexuality is a sin. if one cannot be found, then end-game.
of course, we all know that too many people are unwilling to accept that, based on the arrogant and judgemental teachings ingrained in them by pastors and reverends at their churches, who insist that where it is not specifically worded it is implied to mean so-and-so, as if they know God's Will better than everyone else and are an expert on it.
"well, what the Lord means to say is..."
for crying out loud, are you implying that God makes mistakes that you are able to correct? rolleyes superiority complex-much! xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:09 am
Chieftain Twilight ya know, this argument seems like it could easly be solved by simply finding a verse in the Bible that specifically says that homosexuality is a sin. if one cannot be found, then end-game. of course, we all know that too many people are unwilling to accept that, based on the arrogant and judgemental teachings ingrained in them by pastors and reverends at their churches, who insist that where it is not specifically worded it is implied to mean so-and-so, as if they know God's Will better than everyone else and are an expert on it. "well, what the Lord means to say is..." for crying out loud, are you implying that God makes mistakes that you are able to correct? rolleyes superiority complex-much! xd Uh no, I am implying that people make mistakes and that homosexuality during the time of the Bible being written was absolutely not an issue of homosexuality but passive men. So to translate Leviticus as homosexuality is blatantly wrong because homosexuality in the context we have it today simply didn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:08 am
In Medias Res IV Chieftain Twilight ya know, this argument seems like it could easly be solved by simply finding a verse in the Bible that specifically says that homosexuality is a sin. if one cannot be found, then end-game. of course, we all know that too many people are unwilling to accept that, based on the arrogant and judgemental teachings ingrained in them by pastors and reverends at their churches, who insist that where it is not specifically worded it is implied to mean so-and-so, as if they know God's Will better than everyone else and are an expert on it. "well, what the Lord means to say is..." for crying out loud, are you implying that God makes mistakes that you are able to correct? rolleyes superiority complex-much! xd Uh no, I am implying that people make mistakes and that homosexuality during the time of the Bible being written was absolutely not an issue of homosexuality but passive men. So to translate Leviticus as homosexuality is blatantly wrong because homosexuality in the context we have it today simply didn't exist. oh no, sorry, that wasn't directed at yoU! xd i was directing that at the example pastor i quoted who said that on the filmd "Religulous".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:32 am
Chieftain Twilight In Medias Res IV Chieftain Twilight ya know, this argument seems like it could easly be solved by simply finding a verse in the Bible that specifically says that homosexuality is a sin. if one cannot be found, then end-game. of course, we all know that too many people are unwilling to accept that, based on the arrogant and judgemental teachings ingrained in them by pastors and reverends at their churches, who insist that where it is not specifically worded it is implied to mean so-and-so, as if they know God's Will better than everyone else and are an expert on it. "well, what the Lord means to say is..." for crying out loud, are you implying that God makes mistakes that you are able to correct? rolleyes superiority complex-much! xd Uh no, I am implying that people make mistakes and that homosexuality during the time of the Bible being written was absolutely not an issue of homosexuality but passive men. So to translate Leviticus as homosexuality is blatantly wrong because homosexuality in the context we have it today simply didn't exist. oh no, sorry, that wasn't directed at yoU! xd i was directing that at the example pastor i quoted who said that on the filmd "Religulous". Ooooh, okie dokie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
