|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 1:24 am
CCubed SinfulGuillotine CCubed See, right there. Gen 19: 5-8 : and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." See where it says, "I have two daughters who have not known man," that confirms the fact that all the men wanted to know the messengers who were male. It also says, "But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house." it was all men. So where do you get heterosexual from that? They most certainly didn't break down Lot's door in order to have tea with his visitors. Even in the case that "yada" (the Hebrew word meaning "to know") is used in a sexual sense (which it very well could be), gang rape is still significantly different from consentual homosexual sex. ...Still you're missing the point, they were destroyed for homosexual acts. There are not seperate levels here, that was what they were destroyed for. Calling a fish a perch still makes it a fish, just that a Perch is a type of Fish. Gang rape is Gang rape. Homosexual sex is homosexual sex. The two are completely different and cannot be related. Using your analogy, let's say a perch(gang rape) was sinful. Does this make every other fish sinful too? No. That would be stupid and a logical fallacy entitled "guild by association" or "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I believe you are a genetic mistake and euthanasia would be the best option for you, simply so that your low intelligence would never have a chance of being passed on. This does not mean that I support euthanasia for all humans. Just you. See? Consistency. ^-^
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 5:11 am
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori CCubed SinfulGuillotine CCubed See, right there. Gen 19: 5-8 : and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." See where it says, "I have two daughters who have not known man," that confirms the fact that all the men wanted to know the messengers who were male. It also says, "But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house." it was all men. So where do you get heterosexual from that? They most certainly didn't break down Lot's door in order to have tea with his visitors. Even in the case that "yada" (the Hebrew word meaning "to know") is used in a sexual sense (which it very well could be), gang rape is still significantly different from consentual homosexual sex. ...Still you're missing the point, they were destroyed for homosexual acts. There are not seperate levels here, that was what they were destroyed for. Calling a fish a perch still makes it a fish, just that a Perch is a type of Fish. Gang rape is Gang rape. Homosexual sex is homosexual sex. The two are completely different and cannot be related. Using your analogy, let's say a perch(gang rape) was sinful. Does this make every other fish sinful too? No. That would be stupid and a logical fallacy entitled "guild by association" or "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I believe you are a genetic mistake and euthanasia would be the best option for you, simply so that your low intelligence would never have a chance of being passed on. This does not mean that I support euthanasia for all humans. Just you. See? Consistency. ^-^ That kinda hate is unnecessary. Keep your disgust for someone out of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 5:35 am
Also, another observation. I love how this happens, but... The two people defending homosexuality here are kinda antagonizing the others. Everyone is entitled to their own perception of fact. Whether it's right or wrong, it's still their choice.
As a question to Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori, how are you so sure that homosexuality is NOT a sin, hmm? Fact: You can study the Bible forward and backward. Fact: Sin is falling short of. Fact: There is no concrete Biblical proof that you can assign that tells us where we should encourage such lifestyles.
So tell me, what makes things okay? I mean, isn't there that natural tendancy for those who aren't homosexual that it is morally wrong? Well what's that mean? It means, yes, psychiologically people concieve it to be wrong; but with our current culture, to go against what we know is right and wrong is just an everyday thing. But think of it. How is it right?
(I really did want to stay out of this, but man. This is really ticking me off how two guys defending themselves are actually the bullies)
And by the way, if you pick this apart, I'm gonna blow a few sparkplugs. Seriously, that gets annoying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:13 am
The Noble Protoman.exe Also, another observation. I love how this happens, but... The two people defending homosexuality here are kinda antagonizing the others. Everyone is entitled to their own perception of fact. Whether it's right or wrong, it's still their choice. Yes, but their opinions can and often do lead to discrimination, hatred and mistreatment. That isn't something that any good person should accept. The Noble Protoman.exe As a question to Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori, how are you so sure that homosexuality is NOT a sin, hmm? Fact: You can study the Bible forward and backward. Fact: Sin is falling short of. Fact: There is no concrete Biblical proof that you can assign that tells us where we should encourage such lifestyles. It doesn't look like that. No one has any proof that homosexuality isn't a sin, just like we don't have proof that flying on an airplane isn't a sin, or that using the Internet isn't a sin. If the Bible doesn't say it's a sin, then you can't assume that it is. The Noble Protoman.exe So tell me, what makes things okay? I mean, isn't there that natural tendancy for those who aren't homosexual that it is morally wrong? No. That's a cultural tendency. Big difference. How isn't it right? The Noble Protoman.exe And by the way, if you pick this apart, I'm gonna blow a few sparkplugs. Seriously, that gets annoying. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:44 am
I'm not even gonna bother reading that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:49 am
And by the way, when I ask a question, I want an answer. Not more questions to complicate things... And leave your bias out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:37 am
The Noble Protoman.exe And by the way, when I ask a question, I want an answer. Not more questions to complicate things... And leave your bias out of it. Oh, shut up. Your question was based on an incorrect premise. Sorry, let me simplify that. Your question was stupid. The point you are trying to get across is incorrect, and I was demonstrating why. Stop holding your ignorance as a shield and either confront these topics like a rational, intelligent human or bugger off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:30 am
The Noble Protoman.exe Also, another observation. I love how this happens, but... The two people defending homosexuality here are kinda antagonizing the others. Everyone is entitled to their own perception of fact. Whether it's right or wrong, it's still their choice. ...where have I ever been nasty? confused I think I've been pretty civil. And honestly, I've stopped caring if people believe homosexuality is a sin or not. I'm at peace with God and with myself, so as far as I'm concerned, what other people think doesn't matter much. However, I still have a problem with faulty logic, and when someone uses it, I'm going to call them on it. Maybe I'm a little blunt, but I certainly don't think I've been mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:42 am
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori CCubed SinfulGuillotine CCubed See, right there. Gen 19: 5-8 : and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." See where it says, "I have two daughters who have not known man," that confirms the fact that all the men wanted to know the messengers who were male. It also says, "But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house." it was all men. So where do you get heterosexual from that? They most certainly didn't break down Lot's door in order to have tea with his visitors. Even in the case that "yada" (the Hebrew word meaning "to know") is used in a sexual sense (which it very well could be), gang rape is still significantly different from consentual homosexual sex. ...Still you're missing the point, they were destroyed for homosexual acts. There are not seperate levels here, that was what they were destroyed for. Calling a fish a perch still makes it a fish, just that a Perch is a type of Fish. Gang rape is Gang rape. Homosexual sex is homosexual sex. The two are completely different and cannot be related. Using your analogy, let's say a perch(gang rape) was sinful. Does this make every other fish sinful too? No. That would be stupid and a logical fallacy entitled "guild by association" or "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I believe you are a genetic mistake and euthanasia would be the best option for you, simply so that your low intelligence would never have a chance of being passed on. This does not mean that I support euthanasia for all humans. Just you. See? Consistency. ^-^ ...Okay, your analogy is a logical fallacy. I'm refering to categories, where Fish is a Type of Thing and Perch is a Breed of Fish. However, that's irrelevant, because you've called it gang rape. Gang Rape is a sin, however, what did the Gang Rape consist of in this case? it consisted of Homosexual acts. Thus, it's like an apple is composed of several parts that are each their own entity that make up a larger thing. In this case, the parts that made up the Gang Rape were homosexual acts. Don't try to pull the covers over what THEY DID and call it one thing to disguise the actual acts involved in that one thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:55 am
CCubed ...Okay, your analogy is a logical fallacy. I'm refering to categories, where Fish is a Type of Thing and Perch is a Breed of Fish. However, that's irrelevant, because you've called it gang rape. Gang Rape is a sin, however, what did the Gang Rape consist of in this case? it consisted of Homosexual acts. Thus, it's like an apple is composed of several parts that are each their own entity that make up a larger thing. In this case, the parts that made up the Gang Rape were homosexual acts. Don't try to pull the covers over what THEY DID and call it one thing to disguise the actual acts involved in that one thing. Nobody is "pulling the covers" over anything. What THEY DID was (as I believe) gang rape, which is not related whatsoever to any sort of consentual sex, homosexual or otherwise. You're throwing two completely unrelated things into the same bag. It's like saying that because heterosexual sex between married couples is okay, then all sex between heterosexual married couples is okay, including a husband raping his wife. Rape is not consentual sex. Rape cannot be compared to consentual sex. Rape is rape. Consentual sex is consentual sex. Seriously. It's a little offensive anf frankly worrying that you refuse to make a distiction between the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 12:17 pm
CCubed Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori CCubed SinfulGuillotine CCubed See, right there. Gen 19: 5-8 : and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." See where it says, "I have two daughters who have not known man," that confirms the fact that all the men wanted to know the messengers who were male. It also says, "But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house." it was all men. So where do you get heterosexual from that? They most certainly didn't break down Lot's door in order to have tea with his visitors. Even in the case that "yada" (the Hebrew word meaning "to know") is used in a sexual sense (which it very well could be), gang rape is still significantly different from consentual homosexual sex. ...Still you're missing the point, they were destroyed for homosexual acts. There are not seperate levels here, that was what they were destroyed for. Calling a fish a perch still makes it a fish, just that a Perch is a type of Fish. Gang rape is Gang rape. Homosexual sex is homosexual sex. The two are completely different and cannot be related. Using your analogy, let's say a perch(gang rape) was sinful. Does this make every other fish sinful too? No. That would be stupid and a logical fallacy entitled "guild by association" or "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I believe you are a genetic mistake and euthanasia would be the best option for you, simply so that your low intelligence would never have a chance of being passed on. This does not mean that I support euthanasia for all humans. Just you. See? Consistency. ^-^ ...Okay, your analogy is a logical fallacy. I'm refering to categories, where Fish is a Type of Thing and Perch is a Breed of Fish. However, that's irrelevant, because you've called it gang rape. Gang Rape is a sin, however, what did the Gang Rape consist of in this case? it consisted of Homosexual acts. Thus, it's like an apple is composed of several parts that are each their own entity that make up a larger thing. In this case, the parts that made up the Gang Rape were homosexual acts. Don't try to pull the covers over what THEY DID and call it one thing to disguise the actual acts involved in that one thing. Funny, isn't it, how God will answer my prayers for patience dealing with idiots, but he won't give me a better laptop. Okay, as far as I can see here, Fish = Homosexual Acts and Perch = Homosexual Gang Rape. If it's the other way around, I'll get to that next. Now, Sodom condemns gang rape. So, Perch is sinful. However, that does not make Trout, or Bass or Shark sinful. That's a guilt by association fallacy. That's what's wrong with that premise. Now, if Fish = Gang Rape, and Perch = Homosexual Acts, this would still be flawed. This would only be a valid analogy if ALL homosexual acts were inherently non-consentual. If they are consentual, that opens up a whole range outside of gang rape. You cannot fit all homosexual acts under "Gang Rape".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 12:28 pm
The Noble Protoman.exe Also, another observation. I love how this happens, but... The two people defending homosexuality here are kinda antagonizing the others. Everyone is entitled to their own perception of fact. Whether it's right or wrong, it's still their choice. And your point is? I have no issue with people having their own opinions. I do, however, have an issue with people telling others they are going to hell for something they cannot change. I do have an issue with people making opinions into restrictive laws. Quote: As a question to Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori, how are you so sure that homosexuality is NOT a sin, hmm? Because we are ruled by faith, not the law, and I have faith that God loves me and supports me the way he made me. Quote: Fact: You can study the Bible forward and backward. Fact: Sin is falling short of. Wow, I didn't know that. Congrats, you've opened my eyes to how obviously sinful my lifestyle of sitting at home being teh ghey truly was. Quote: Fact: There is no concrete Biblical proof that you can assign that tells us where we should encourage such lifestyles. There is no concrete biblical proof we should use computers. There is no concrete biblical proof that basic psychology works. Concrete biblical proof is not needed to encourage something; it is needed in order to condemn something. And I have never seen concrete biblical proof that homosexuality is sinful. Quote: So tell me, what makes things okay? I mean, isn't there that natural tendancy for those who aren't homosexual that it is morally wrong? Well what's that mean? It means we have an inborn instinct to stick to our preferred gender(s)? Many homosexual people think heterosexual relationship are sick. Does that make it true? Quote: It means, yes, psychiologically people concieve it to be wrong; but with our current culture, to go against what we know is right and wrong is just an everyday thing. But think of it. How is it right? Actually the APA, the leading psychological association in America (the world, even?) has realized that it is neither harmful nor changeable. Quote: (I really did want to stay out of this, but man. This is really ticking me off how two guys defending themselves are actually the bullies) The Jews are at fault for the Holocaust! We wouldn't hate them if they didn't deserve it! Quote: And by the way, if you pick this apart, I'm gonna blow a few sparkplugs. Seriously, that gets annoying. My heart bleeds for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 12:30 pm
The Noble Protoman.exe And by the way, when I ask a question, I want an answer. Not more questions to complicate things... And leave your bias out of it. Oh, that horrific bias of neutrality. We should outlaw it, because it's obviously morally wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 1:38 pm
Romans 1: 24 - 32: [24]
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26]
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28]
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
Right there, St. Paul says blatantly that those men and women who engaged in indecent acts with one another were filled with EVIL. You cannot deny that scripture.
P.S. I've attached the latin version since you think the greek is flawed, fyi, the latin version was the first translation.
Vulgate Romans 1: 24 - 32:
24 propter quod tradidit illos Deus in desideria cordis eorum in inmunditiam ut contumeliis adficiant corpora sua in semet ipsis 25 qui commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacio et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori qui est benedictus in saecula amen
26 propterea tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiae nam feminae eorum inmutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam 27 similiter autem et masculi relicto naturali usu feminae exarserunt in desideriis suis in invicem masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes et mercedem quam oportuit erroris sui in semet ipsis recipientes 28 et sicut non probaverunt Deum habere in notitia tradidit eos Deus in reprobum sensum ut faciant quae non conveniunt 29 repletos omni iniquitate malitia fornicatione avaritia nequitia plenos invidia homicidio contentione dolo malignitate susurrones 30 detractores Deo odibiles contumeliosos superbos elatos inventores malorum parentibus non oboedientes
31 insipientes inconpositos sine affectione absque foedere sine misericordia 32 qui c** iustitiam Dei cognovissent non intellexerunt quoniam qui talia agunt digni sunt morte non solum ea faciunt sed et consentiunt facientibus
Want a translation even? i can do that too but know that I've already done the translation and it comes out to be the english i've listed up top. Also, since i expect you to make your own translation, know that words like the and of are included in the ending of the words. For example, Victoriae means either The victory or of the victory, but if you just look up the word it's victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 1:43 pm
CCubed Right there, St. Paul says blatantly that those men and women who engaged in indecent acts with one another were filled with EVIL. You cannot deny that scripture. Sure can't disagree with that. Of course, I can disagree with your definition of "indecent acts". These men and women "gave up their natural relations". It does not describe what "natural relations" are. Men "committed shameless acts with men", but it does not describe what the shameless acts are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
