|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:19 am
 |
|
|
 |
jamesthelittle Let's try this from a different angle.
Quote: Science says "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST." If homosexuality is the"fittest," explain why homosexuals can't reproduce an ofspring on their own? Why can't two men having sex produce a child? Why can't two women, without any help from a man (Invetro) have a child?
That being said..... homosexuals can have children of their own.
My partner has a son. No, he didn't adopt and no, there were no turkeybasters involved. He had sex with a woman and she got pregnant. The fact that he's homosexual does not make him incapable of conceiving a child the "old fashioned way," nor does it affect his sperm count in any way, shape, or form. If I had unprotected sex with a woman, the liklihood of her getting pregnant would be exactly the same as if she was having unprotected sex with a heterosexual man.
Yes, it's true that a homosexual couple cannot have a child that is biologically related to both of them. Not yet, anyway (and frankly, the research that they're doing to try to make that possible kind of freaks me out.) However, if one of both people in a heterosexual couple is/are infertile, they also cannot conceive children of their own. Infertility, while it can be caused by many things, can be something that a person is born with and that is irreversible. It's perfectly "natural," because it occurs naturally. That doesn't make it "wrong."
Quote: A sphincter is used in areas that you want items to travel "one-way." This would mean a**l sex is going against the two sphincters in the a**s. Medically, you damage it every time you have a**l sex.
Yes, it's possible to damage the a**s during a**l sex, but it's also possible to damage a woman's v****a during vaginal sex. Why do you think many virgin women bleed the first time they have sex? It's because you're tearing the hymen, which is a piece of tissue in her v****a. First-time vaginal sex for a woman is almost always painful, even if her hymen has already been torn through non-sexual activity, because the v****a has never been stretched to the degree needed to accomodate a p***s (unless her partner happens to be hung like a tic-tac). It's also common for people (both men and women) being penetrated anally for the first time to bleed and be in a considerable amount of pain, but, much like with vaginal sex, the body adjusts. a**l sex, much liek vaginal sex, is not "medically damaging" unless a) the orifice has not adjusted yet or b) is being penetrated especially brutally.
Quote: So explain to me, with science that homosexuallity is normal. Please explain how you can prove with science that homosexuallity isn't a mutation, or something wrong?
If, by normal, you mean conforming to the majority, then no, homosexuality is not normal and I never claimed it was. It's estimated that at most, 10% of the world's population is homosexual, which puts homosexuality in the obvious minority. However, minority =/= wrong. Well, unless you were an anti-abolitionist 200 years ago.
However, if by "normal" you mean "naturally occuring," then yes, I do believe that homosexuality fits that definition. My scientific evidence has already been cited several times in this thread, and I'm not going to dig through my bookmarks again.
Also, I've never claimed that homosexuality wasn't a mutation. It could be some sort of genetic mutation, but that doesn't make it wrong or unnatural. You mentioned survival of the fittest. If you believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution and natural selection (i.e. survival of the fittest), it's because of a series of genetic mutations that every living thing you see around you is still alive and kicking on this planet (at least, that would be the reason if human beings didn't behave the way they did). Basic first-year biology. Mutation =/= wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:31 pm
|
|
|
|
SinfulGuillotine jamesthelittle Let's try this from a different angle. Does this mean you concede on the psychological issue? Quote: Science says "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST." If homosexuality is the"fittest," explain why homosexuals can't reproduce an ofspring on their own? Why can't two men having sex produce a child? Why can't two women, without any help from a man (Invetro) have a child? First of all, I never claimed that homosexuality was "the fittest" or "the way we all should be." I'm not telling you to leave your wife and go have mansex because my sexuality gives me any sort of moral and/or biological highground. That being said..... homosexuals can have children of their own. My partner has a son. No, he didn't adopt and no, there were no turkeybasters involved. He had sex with a woman and she got pregnant. The fact that he's homosexual does not make him incapable of conceiving a child the "old fashioned way," nor does it affect his sperm count in any way, shape, or form. If I had unprotected sex with a woman, the liklihood of her getting pregnant would be exactly the same as if she was having unprotected sex with a heterosexual man. Yes, it's true that a homosexual couple cannot have a child that is biologically related to both of them. Not yet, anyway (and frankly, the research that they're doing to try to make that possible kind of freaks me out.) However, if one of both people in a heterosexual couple is/are infertile, they also cannot conceive children of their own. Infertility, while it can be caused by many things, can be something that a person is born with and that is irreversible. It's perfectly "natural," because it occurs naturally. That doesn't make it "wrong." Quote: A sphincter is used in areas that you want items to travel "one-way." This would mean a**l sex is going against the two sphincters in the a**s. Medically, you damage it every time you have a**l sex. Actually, no, you're not. Yes, it's possible to damage the a**s during a**l sex, but it's also possible to damage a woman's v****a during vaginal sex. Why do you think many virgin women bleed the first time they have sex? It's because you're tearing the hymen, which is a piece of tissue in her v****a. First-time vaginal sex for a woman is almost always painful, even if her hymen has already been torn through non-sexual activity, because the v****a has never been stretched to the degree needed to accomodate a p***s (unless her partner happens to be hung like a tic-tac). It's also common for people (both men and women) being penetrated anally for the first time to bleed and be in a considerable amount of pain, but, much like with vaginal sex, the body adjusts. a**l sex, much liek vaginal sex, is not "medically damaging" unless a) the orifice has not adjusted yet or b) is being penetrated especially brutally. Quote: So explain to me, with science that homosexuallity is normal. Please explain how you can prove with science that homosexuallity isn't a mutation, or something wrong? First, you need to define "normal." If, by normal, you mean conforming to the majority, then no, homosexuality is not normal and I never claimed it was. It's estimated that at most, 10% of the world's population is homosexual, which puts homosexuality in the obvious minority. However, minority =/= wrong. Well, unless you were an anti-abolitionist 200 years ago. However, if by "normal" you mean "naturally occuring," then yes, I do believe that homosexuality fits that definition. My scientific evidence has already been cited several times in this thread, and I'm not going to dig through my bookmarks again. Also, I've never claimed that homosexuality wasn't a mutation. It could be some sort of genetic mutation, but that doesn't make it wrong or unnatural. You mentioned survival of the fittest. If you believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution and natural selection (i.e. survival of the fittest), it's because of a series of genetic mutations that every living thing you see around you is still alive and kicking on this planet (at least, that would be the reason if human beings didn't behave the way they did). Basic first-year biology. Mutation =/= wrong.
You don't get it! There is no way for a homosexual to have a child naturally without the help of the opposite sex. RIGHT? To males cannot produce a child! Two women cannot produce a child! It takes a male and a female. The natural scientific fact is normal or natural procreation occurs only with a male and a female.
No I still believe you are wrong on the psycology.
The whole sphincter thing, you are still not looking at the cold hard fact of what the natural design of the sphincter is.
You can take and twist stuff all you want to believe all you want. But there is nothing natural, or right about it. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:50 pm
|
|
|
|
jamesthelittle You don't get it! There is no way for a homosexual to have a child naturally without the help of the opposite sex. RIGHT? To males cannot produce a child! Two women cannot produce a child! It takes a male and a female. The natural scientific fact is normal or natural procreation occurs only with a male and a female.
Does that mean that infertile couples, or couples who simply chose not to have children are also worthy of social scorn?
Quote: No I still believe you are wrong on the psycology.
You still believe homosexuality is a choice? If so, where's your evidence?
Quote: The whole sphincter thing, you are still not looking at the cold hard fact of what the natural design of the sphincter is.
Quote: You can take and twist stuff all you want to believe all you want. But there is nothing natural, or right about it.
Define "natural." Because I've already proven that homosexuality fits the dictionary definition of "natural," i.e. naturally occuring.
To me, it appears that you're the one attempting to twist the facts that I'm trying to give you.
Look: If you want to believe that homosexuality is a sin, I'm not going to stop you. Spiritual beliefs, especially regarding sexual morals, are something I tread very lightly on. I have my own beliefs regarding God and sexuality that are deeply personal for me, and only me. On a religious level, I'm happy agreeing to disagree.
But when you try to tell me that I chose to be homosexual, or that it's the result of some abuse in my childhood that never took place, I'm going to call you on it. When you say that homosexuality is "unnatural" when there is strog evidence to support that it's completely natural, I'm going to call you on it. When you say that a**l sex is medically damaging when, in fact, it's not, I'm going to call you on it.
Why? Because that sort of ignorance breeds the ugliest of human behaviour. And when you've been on the receiving end of the name-calling and the punches and the kicks and the family who won't talk to you, you're going to do everything in your damn power to be recognised as a worthy human being whose emotions and whose love is just as valid as the next person's. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:35 pm
|
|
|
|
I am firmly of the belief that religion and government should not mix. It = am bad idea. Our nations' (USA) founders wisely looked at history and observed what happens when you mix religion and government and said, naw, don't really want to live with that. Most 'free' countries today celebrate a seperation of church and state.
As a Christian, I by no means want my religion to be in control of the government. I love God. Don't get me wrong. But there's a lot of crazies, and its the crazies that I don't want to get in power and give my religion a bad name.
Are y'all with me on this? that separation of church & state = am bad thing?
OK then. My point is that I don't think that there should be laws governing marriage according to any religion. I think our government should make laws to protect people, not interfere with their lives or privacy. If you wanna sin in any way that doesnt hurt people, there should be no law against it.
So, I think that homosexual people should have the same legal priveleges as anybody else.
Do I think that homosexuality is a sin? Well, I'm not sure. I can say that since I'm not sure, I'm going to stay away from it. And I will council others to do the same. Will I condemn someone because of it? Well, we all sin. So, no.
However. I wonder. And this goes for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals as well as the porn industry.
Does no-one realize that the a**s is where feces comes out of the body?? Do people just turn off the gross-o-meter in their brains? Oh, make sure you wash your hands, but then go bury your genitals or your partner's genitals in *feces*.
Diapers are gross, but a**l sex is hot. Oh yeah. I can totally see the logic here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 1:09 pm
|
|
|
|
that_fairy However. I wonder. And this goes for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals as well as the porn industry. Does no-one realize that the a**s is where feces comes out of the body?? Do people just turn off the gross-o-meter in their brains? Oh, make sure you wash your hands, but then go bury your genitals or your partner's genitals in *feces*. Diapers are gross, but a**l sex is hot. Oh yeah. I can totally see the logic here.
I mean, is semen or vaginal secretions or mentstrual fluid really all that appealing either?
When you perform oral sex, you're putting your mouth into a place that excretes urine.
So...yes, I guess that to some degree, people do just turn off their gross-o-meter when they have a**l sex, but really, the same goes for any kind of sex. Sex in general is to some degree, when you really think about it, gross. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:41 pm
|
|
|
|
SinfulGuillotine that_fairy However. I wonder. And this goes for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals as well as the porn industry. Does no-one realize that the a**s is where feces comes out of the body?? Do people just turn off the gross-o-meter in their brains? Oh, make sure you wash your hands, but then go bury your genitals or your partner's genitals in *feces*. Diapers are gross, but a**l sex is hot. Oh yeah. I can totally see the logic here. Well, the thing you have to realise is that sex is messy. It doesn't even matter what kind of sex it is, or who it's between. You're going to want to change your sheets afterward regardless. I mean, is semen or vaginal secretions or mentstrual fluid really all that appealing either? When you perform oral sex, you're putting your mouth into a place that excretes urine. So...yes, I guess that to some degree, people do just turn off their gross-o-meter when they have a**l sex, but really, the same goes for any kind of sex. Sex in general is to some degree, when you really think about it, gross.
I understand sex is messy, but there are different degrees of messyness. Kissing, for example, is messy. There is saliva and all sorts of bacteria in the mouth. However, it is less messy than throwing up. One grows accustomed to saliva in mouths. One should not become accustomed to vomit in mouths. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:38 pm
|
|
|
|
Christianity and Homosexuality
The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do.
In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket.
The Christian church has not stood idle. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the "religious bigots." But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard. Political correctness says it is okay for the homosexual community to impose its will upon churches, but not the other way around. Apparently, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians.
What does the Bible say?
The Bible, as God's word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes the morality of the Christian. There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality, taken verses out of context and read into them interpretations that are not there. Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. in order to accomplish their goal. But the truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book, and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with its agenda. But it doesn't work. The Bible does not support homosexuality as we have seen from the scriptures above.
Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-2 cool . This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
Finally, with their hardened hearts, they seek to promote their lifestyle in society. This is become more real since homosexuals are gaining strength and forcing those with opposing views into confinement and penalty. So much for fairness. It is okay to demand it for themselves, but they balk at allowing it for those who disagree.
Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?
In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.
The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethical structure.
Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."
Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image. Logic says that if homosexuality is natural and acceptable because it exists in the animal world, then it must also be natural and acceptable to eat people alive. But, this is obviously faulty thinking. Therefore, appeal to the practice in the animal world as support for homosexual practice is equally faulty.
Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.' What about ***** or bestiality? These are sexual practices. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?
Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. But, the family is the basis of our culture. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society and homosexuality is not helping the family.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.
Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they would any other person in sin. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like or not, they are made in the image of God. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Not at all. Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.
In fact the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.
"Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).
"But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).
You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him.
Objections Answered
1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.
The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.
The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.
In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.
2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God.This is a fallacious argument.
Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together -- in more ways than one. This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.
Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.
If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture. Second, it would mean that such things as ***** would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.
3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.
The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding? The first scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship and it is condemned. The second scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.
There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.
Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of the same as any other sense and the only way to receive this forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lott's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'” Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill in multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality, is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means thatat the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not then repent. Without repentance there is no salvation and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable, carries no validity.
____________________
1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as “abuser of (one’s) self with mankind” once, and “defile (one’s) self with mankind” once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)
The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:25 pm
|
|
|
|
nightshade213126 Christianity and Homosexuality
Sounds like a copy/paste job.
Quote: The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do.
I wonder what Christ tells us to do to people...sinners or not.
Quote: In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law.
Practice of homosexuality? What? Define that, please. Homosexuality is not a "practice," it is a sexual orientation.
Quote: Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places.
I doubt very highly that after ruling quotas illegal for race based issues that the SCOTUS would allow quotas for homosexuals.
Quote: There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket.
Which is unconstitutional, but not an issue to be addressed here. Come on, really.
Quote: The Christian church has not stood idle. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the "religious bigots."
Because they are being bigots about it. The thing is that they are not opposing this political legislation for any legitimate political reason, but, rather, bullshit religious reasoning.
Quote: But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard.
Far be it from a group of people to use politics to stop infringement upon their rights.
Quote: Political correctness says it is okay for the homosexual community to impose its will upon churches, but not the other way around. Apparently, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians.
For bullshit religious reason? Yeah. I think so.
Sounds even more like a copy and paste job.
Quote: The Bible, as God's word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes the morality of the Christian.
I definitely take my kids to city hall and have them stoned whenever one of them talks back to me.
Quote: There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality
Oh no! We are loving people and supporting them!
Quote: taken verses out of context and read into them interpretations that are not there.
This is just a gross misuse of the English language. Of course the interpretations are there! I interpreted it that way!
Quote: Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin.
Oh really? I've not read a single thing in the bible that condemns anyone's sexual orientation. What you're saying here is that homosexuals are going to hell by default. Sounds like a Christian thing to say.
(Either you're saying that, or you're murdering the English language.)
Quote: Let's look at what it says.
Oh boy, here we go.
Quote: Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
According to Acts 15, "It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.'"
I.e. the Mosaic Law is moot for us.
And to drive home a further point: This is a ritual impurity. To'ebah (the Hebrew word for abomination here) does not strictly mean 'abomination,' but is rather defined as "a ritual impurity." The abomination here is following a religious practice that is similar to one used by the tribes of Canaan, and the condemnation follows from the end-all-be-all statement "Do not do anything the Canaanites do."
Quote: 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
As you [this document] mention in the footnote, arsenokoites has multiple translations and really seems to refer to a prostitution practice, due to readings in historical context, rather than just biblical vice lists.
But even if the usage refers back to the LXX proclamation of Lev 18:22, it is still just a ritual impurity.
Quote: Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Ha, where did this say anything about the women doing homosexual things with each other?
This actually seems to be a condemnation of a practice where self-castrating priests would go into a**l sex orgies for the worshiping of pagan Gods.
A clearer discussion of this interpretation is presented here.
Quote: With such clear statements against homosexuality,
Define "clear."
Quote: it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality.
I find it more difficult to understand vice versa.
Quote: But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. in order to accomplish their goal.
True love is not defined.
Marriage is never set in stone.
Sex is even less so touched upon.
Homosexuality as a sexual orientation is never even addressed in the Bible.
Quote: But the truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman.
Yeah, by convention, how else was he really supposed to make his blessing ("Be fertile and multiply") work?
Quote: Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book
Yes, mine is quite heavy.
Quote: and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with its agenda.
Oh Lord Jesus Christ. Talk about murdering English. You have no concept of antecedents.
Quote: But it doesn't work. The Bible does not support homosexuality as we have seen from the scriptures above.
You have no concept of the English Language. The bible never addresses homosexuality.
Quote: Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-2 cool
You bring up these passions, right, but you don't seem to realize...it never said the women went to other women. It said the men exchanged the natural sexual use for that which is unnatural in the same way as the women.....a**l sex for the worship of pagan Gods just might be unnatural!
Quote: This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing.
Worshiping bird Gods through sexual orgies is what they were doing.
Quote: Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
Okay...
Quote: Finally, with their hardened hearts, they seek to promote their lifestyle in society.
What lifestyle? The promotion of love and peace? I'm so sorry that you aren't promoting that..
Quote: This is become more real since homosexuals are gaining strength and forcing those with opposing views into confinement and penalty. So much for fairness. It is okay to demand it for themselves, but they balk at allowing it for those who disagree.
Why do you disagree? Because you want to shove millenia old moralities down other people's throats instead giving someone equal marital and sexual rights as you? What is this, Christianity or Communism?
Quote: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?
Hm, what does equal protection of the law mean to you?
Quote: In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular.
Yeah, in a society so uppity on equality, why should we allow other groups of people the same rights? It just makes no sense to you, right? Me either...
Quote: Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.
Of course not! Equality means NOTHING to you.
Say you're in Athens, 350-400 B.C. or so, your view might just be the opposite. Homosexual love and marriages were celebrated. Only a weak man would marry a woman! He who is seduced by her is surely not as strong as he who finds comfort with another man! The armies of the Great Communist City-State of Sparta revered homosexual couples who fought in their lines. Is not an army fighting for their lovers' lives a greater force than one that fights because they must?
Obviously, men should only marry men, and women should only marry women, for they are equals to each other, and can best understand and provide for the psychological needs of the other.
Quote: The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality.
It doesn't say a thing about it.
Quote: It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned.
Yes...it really does. Because even if you can discern that homosexual sex is a sin, that does not say anything about homosexuals who might get married but not have sex.
Quote: But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth.
Praise the FSM for that!!!
Quote: Instead, it relies on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethical structure.
DUH
Quote: Homosexuality is not natural.
Uh-huh. Sure. It doesn't exist naturally, right? Oh s**t...it does.
Quote: Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple.
Girls tongues definitely fit in each other's vaginae, just as a man's p***s might fit into another's a**s.
Quote: The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."
So obviously threesomes are okay, because I can put two nuts on one screw. Fail.
Quote: Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality.
Ah, but I thought you didn't like things that were relativistic? Brutality is relative. Savagery is relative. Cruelty is relative.
Shut. Up.
Quote: Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society.
Because it's all relative.
Quote: Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas.
I don't.
Quote: They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image.
We are in the kingdom animalia. We are animals. It doesn't matter who's ******** image we were created in. Images aren't what really is. Looking like something doesn't make us that something.
Quote: Logic says that if homosexuality is natural and acceptable because it exists in the animal world, then it must also be natural and acceptable to eat people alive.
At times it has been, why don't you think about that for a while. I'd be a cannibal if I had to.
Quote: But, this is obviously faulty thinking. Therefore, appeal to the practice in the animal world as support for homosexual practice is equally faulty.
Faulty thinking=/=Faulty Conclusion.
This is a disproof by fallacy fallacy...
Watch:
64/16=X
Canceling out both sixes leaves
4/1
so X=4.
But you'd be right in saying that I can't just cancel on the sixes but is my answer wrong? (No 64/16=32/8=16/4=8/2=4/1=4)
Quote: Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous.
Of course, so political prohibition is equally ludicrous...oops, did you just say rape should be legal?
Quote: I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.'
Of course, it shouldn't have to be done because in the philosophy of the founding fathers, rights are natural. Whether they are protected or not is up to the government; but you still have them, regardless of how well they are given.
Quote: What about ***** or bestiality? These are sexual practices. Should they also be protected by law?
Why not?
Quote: If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?
On a tangent, you could say that hm...homosexual adults are legally recognized and can sign a marriage contract, savvy? Dogs and kids can't.
Quote: Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. But, the family is the basis of our culture. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society and homosexuality is not helping the family.
This is wrong on multiple levels. First of all, self is the most basic unit of society. A single person. Homosexuality has actually been observed as being healthy for families. Healthier even than many heterosexual families.
Quote: What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Not to care?
Quote: Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her).
Just because a person is a murderer, tax collector, rapist, etc. doesn't mean that you can't love them. Your redundancy is awesome.
Quote: Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.
Oh my ******** God. The Bible never talks about homosexuality. Learn to read.
Quote: Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they would any other person in sin.
Blah blah blah.
Quote: They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like or not, they are made in the image of God. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Not at all. Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.
By guilt and fear you mean tolerance and equality, right?
Shouldn't this be fun?
Quote: The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral.
Prove it.
Quote: The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.
Hardly. All of those laws were for the Levites, theocratic or not.
Quote: The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.
Tell me just where it specifies that he only fulfilled the priestly laws? And besides, its not really just Christ's doing that we no longer have to follow the Mosaic law, its his apostle's...
Quote: The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.
Read Acts 15 again. All of them are gone, save for an enumerated few...
Quote: In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law.
Not really...he just restates most of the commandments.
Quote: This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.
Where?
Quote: Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other.
Argument from silence much?
Quote: Homosexuality is always condemned.
The Bible never says anything about homosexuality. Ever.
Quote: Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order.
Surely, they don't occur naturally. Oh wait. They occur in the God created nature. Hm. Even if nature is brutal, that brutality is part of a God created order. Hm.
Quote: As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together -- in more ways than one.
As stated in my refutation, that is not a universal belief.
Quote: This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people.
There is a lot of debate over whether that is a blessing or a command. But again, its a duh situation to me...what kind of God would He be if He commanded two homosexuals to be fertile and multiply...stupid or just cruel?
Quote: Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.
He gave that command to animals and Noah's immediate family...hmm..And it exists ALL OVER His created order today.
Quote: If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture. Second, it would mean that such things as ***** would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.
What, exactly, do you find wrong with being attracted to young ones?
Quote: 3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality. The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding? The first scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship and it is condemned.
Hm. No. It refers to a ritual impurity, i.e., a**l sex is not a good ritual to worship God with.
Quote: The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality.
Absolutely not. Even the Catholics agree with this one. They see that it might refer to the homosexual prostitution of the Catamites.
Quote: And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.
Hm...it really seems like the Romans scripture refers to a**l sex rituals used to worship bird Gods...hmm...that interpretation actually fits the rest of the passage....hmm.
Quote: There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.
In what context and situation? Hm? What analysis do you provide for that?
Quote: Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists and he is the standard of righteousness.
And he has changed his standards. Acts 15.
Quote: 4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality. This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality.
Hm..."And look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in their prosperity, and they gave no help to the poor and needy. Rather, they became haughty and committed abominable crimes in my presence; then, as you have seen, I removed them." Ezekial 16:49-50
Hmm...This seems pretty damn explicit to me. It mentions NOTHING about homosexuality.
Quote: The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lott's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'” Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males.
Of course the sex was criminal. It was rape!
Quote: Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible.
Bullshit? Just maybe? Have you even read the New Testament?
"But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town." Luke 10:10-12
If a town is inhospitable, it will be worse for them on judgment day than it was for Sodom.
Did you just totally miss the whole bible?
I think so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
