Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yes, I called the actions sins, because they are. However, these are not the sins the people were condemned for, nor were they the end results of the condemnation. They were simply a side note. Also, they were not sins simply by way of being homosexual acts. These acts were clearly fueled only by lust and physical desire, which is condemned everywhere else in the bible as well. Gay sex within the confines of a loving, committed homosexual relationship is never condemned, and the bible potentially DOES touch upon an appropriate homosexual relationship - David and Jonathon.

As for not participating in the debate at this time, that's fine. Formally, this is only a one-on-one with CW Hart anyways. However, you're welcome to join in the future, as long as you don't argue anything that I have already thoroughly refuted. ^-^ That pisses me off to no end, and if anyone starts doing it, I WILL start insulting their intelligence.




Please do! I appreciate any pointing out of flaws in my logic, as it helps me learn what not to argue in the future.



I'm not sure I grasp what your adjective-noun analogy means, could you explain it? As for my reply to the blog entry, I simply don't want to take the discussion off on a tangent. Not judging others is definitely a tangent.




I don't deny that he probably would have given us the apple of knowledge freely in time. However, statistically, making a man and woman makes sense, as homosexuals make up only 2-10%(different studies) of the population. If he HAD made Adam and Steve for the garden, would you take it as a blanket condemnation of all heterosexuals?



I like you. ^-^ You seem openminded.



I don't mind bluntness. It's stupidity I detest, and you've shown none of that.



I try not to minister to non-Christians unless they ask for it. However, if they do ask, I will tell the truth.

Right. emo I'm all alooooooone.

On the road agaain, I'm on the road agaiin.

Kuroi... said
"Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only direct references to same-gender sex in the Old Testament. They are both part of the Old Testament Holiness Code, a religious, not a moral code; it later became the Jewish Purity Laws. ["Abomination" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate sins that involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. The word relates to the failure to worship God or to worshiping a false god; it does not relate to morality.] Professor Soards tell us, "Old Testament experts view the regulations of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people's identity in relation to God."B-4 This is because God was so determined that his people would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship. (The laws say nothing about women engaging in same-gender sex; probably this had to do with man's dominance, and such acts by the subservient had nothing to do with religious impurity.)"
My Response
Yes, I am aware that this is the old covenant, which is why I posted new testament verses as well that say the same thing.
Kuroi...said
It is almost a moot point, but Paul is not listing sins for which God will condemn anyone, he is listing sins that occur because people have forsaken Him. These are acts committed by those who have turned away from God and so become "consumed with passion." All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living--homosexual or heterosexual--stand condemned by the Bible. This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God.
My Response
Complete and total bullcrap speculation.
Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

They abandoned "natural relations with women" and in the unnatural relationships that ensued they had "lust for one another."
It's made very clear.

Tell me, which Gay Christian website did you copy and paste that nonsense from? I can assure you, it is incorrect. This is just yet another attempt to take the Bible vastly out of context to suit one's own means. Thus You, my freind, are what is referred to as "a religious spirit." After all, your bias is abundantly clear. You want to sin and still claim to know God. That's the same reason cults like mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses exist.

Also this:
Some excuse homosexuality claiming that it is either a psychiatric or genetic disorder. It is neither. The American Psychiatric Association does not recognize homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder any longer. Moreover, there is no sound scientific evidence that homosexuality is a genetic disease. Again, the APA admits that: "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."

Defending a wicked sin, manipulating the meaning of the Bible, and openly confessing in pride to hate ones own mother...
Forgive my bluntness, but those that do such things make it abundantly clear by the fruit that that they bear that they are not of my Father.

Matthew 7:15
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

Matthew 15:7-9
You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
"'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.

I am unafraid to make such bold claims. God has gifted me with the spiritual gifts of wisdom, discernment, and revelation. The very fact that people are arguing for this sin should send us all into awe. It fills me with a godly anger to see such a detestable and vile practice encouraged!

Kuroi, just stomp the biggot already and let's go do something else. Damn, it's almost like having Hussein back.

either way, trounce the ********, i'm gettign really sick of these idiots and as all my arguments were pretty much garnered form your posts it only seems fitting that you be the one to beat him down.

Yes, it has been mentioned in the bible, but not as a sin. ^-^



It was simply something stated by Paul as an example of lust in action, and has no real bearing on the passage it was written in. (Referring to Romans.)

Also, I would believe that God does not think it was a sin, based on the covenant David and Jonathon made with Him.

Pardon me running through, but I would like your take on Romans 3:23 in consideration of you admiting that calling homosexuality a sin wasn't a mistake. Are you saying that even though you call it a sin it is exempt from Romans 3:23? Sorry, its just bothering and if you don't think it is worth a response right now say so and I'll try to get something better to chew on this weekend.

The way I see it is a sin is a sin and if you don't repent you are going to Hell for it.

And Lazarus, do you consider yourself a Christian? If so please refrain from cussing. It is something that I personally feel is wrong and I am struggling with. It is not needed in the circumstances and while I do admit that sometimes the strength of a word is needed I still don't think words that strong should be used. If I wasn't struggling with it at this time I wouldn't say anything, but I hope you understand.

Ah are you saying I'm a non christian? (Has cussed a Sh!tload in this debate). Well I guess it's true anyhow. I know this is a debate on homosexuality, but as far as cussing goes, I think there's a differance between straight up telling someone '******** you' and saying 'what the ********?' One is insulting someone, while the other is simply saying the word with no hatred behind it. It isn't the word that's wrong. It's how you use it. To me atleast. The only argument that you could use is the idea that those words will make a man feel uncomfortable, and this is what I think... I'll eat pork infront of a jew. I'll eat beef infront of a hindu, and I'll use cuss words casually infront of a priest. It isn't my fault they get a hissy fit over it. It's their's.