Why does everyone dislike homosexuality so much?

[IzzyPop]

How are they natural? They are unnatural occurrences outside of normal.

Couple of things here.

First, natural and normal are not interchangeable words.

Second, you are moving the goal posts. You stated, "Natural marital relations don't produce bad results." Ectopic pregnancies are a bad result that happen from natural marital relations. Whether or not they are natural has nothing to do with whether or not they happen to heterosexual married couples

 

[Floatingaxe]

You are using the world natural in place of the word normal. Abnormal does not mean unnatural. They are not interchangable.

Oh, and about God not doing things in nature that might be bad:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.


There's also the flood story, the various plagues of Egypt, the plague that hit the Assyrians outside of Jerusalem. If God did none of that, the Bible is pretty misleading.

LOL! Those things are supernatural.

 

[b&wpac4]

LOL! Those things are supernatural.

Well, hey, I prefer my world where God is in charge of everything, not yours where, apparently, He isn't.

 

[Floatingaxe]

God has given man dominion.

 

[b&wpac4]

God has given man dominion.

So, we created the ebola virus?

 

[Floatingaxe]

So, we created the ebola virus?

Sin in the world tainted everything.

 

[OllieFranz]

So, we created the ebola virus?

Well, there are those who do claim that both Ebola and AIDS viruses were created by men -- specifically by the Western governments, especially the United States, to wipe out black people.....

<staff edit>

 

[KCKID]

God has given man dominion.

Over what? And, if so ...then why do you repeatedly condemn choices and decisions that are made by God-ordained 'dominant' men?

Or am I missing your point?

What IS your point?

 

[b&wpac4]

Sin in the world tainted everything.

Tainted it out of God's control?

 

[Bampot]

Inability to procreate naturally, disease, shortened life span, unhappiness.

Some heterosexual women and men are not able to procreate naturally. STDs/STIs are contracted by heterosexuals.

In what way are their lifespans shorted and in what way are they unhappy?

 

[beechy]

It's unnatural because we were not created to put things in the behind for fun, nor behave lustfully or sexually with the same gender.

So "unnatural" means when a person uses her body parts for something other than what they were "created for". Did I get that right?

Do you agree that ears were created for hearing? Is it therefore unnatural to use them to hold up your glasses?

Do you agree that feet were made for walking? Is it therefore unnatural to use them to tap along to music, or to kick a soccer ball, or to dance en pointe?

Unnatural is bad because it has bad results

I guess my response to this depends on your response to what I've posed above.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Or just your reasoning.

I tend to go for the more reasonable one, but of course, you don't have to... yet.

and how do you know your view is more reasonable? especially when it is contradicted in Scripture?

and what makes your reasoning superior considering your just as much a layman as the next one?

 

[KCKID]

It's unnatural because we were not created to put things in the behind for fun, nor behave lustfully or sexually with the same gender. We were created to have sexual intercourse with a married partner of the opposite sex.

No we were not. Getting married to someone of the opposite sex is not mandatory. It's an option that is available for those who choose it. When are some of you hardliners going to catch on that people are NOT programmed robots ...?

Furthermore, if God is so implicit as to what the use of sex is for (procreation) then 'fun sex' is out for whoever might perform it. Agreed? And - something that I just can't get my head around and no one seems to be able to answer - if 'fun sex' IS alright with God, then why should it make any difference who the 'fun sex' is with as long as both adults are consenting? Either sex was provided solely for a means to procreate OR it was provided both as a means to procreate as well as to provide a pleasurable experience for both participants as 'recreation'. There is no logical reason as to why the latter need be confined to those of opposite gender ...now is there?

Unnatural is bad because it has bad results.

Recreational sex - or 'fun sex' as you called it - cannot be unnatural as long as both adult participants derive pleasure from it ...whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. The 'results' of recreational sex are the same, i.e. no procreation taking place.

Why would something unnatural and detestable by our God be good?

Oh, here we go again ...profaning the Sabbath is also detestable to God, FA. I'll bet you didn't give appropriate observance to the Sabbath today (Saturday 16 May).

Where do we draw the line pertaining to the 'abominations of God' and when does reason start to kick in, FA?

 

[lawtonfogle]

and how do you know your view is more reasonable? especially when it is contradicted in Scripture?

and what makes your reasoning superior considering your just as much a layman as the next one?

Because my view is the logical one derived from the basic socialized values (such things as assuming other people do, in fact, exist).

Also, my views hold roots in post enlightenment, his (or hers) held roots in a time called the dark ages. They didn't just pick those names out of a hat.

And as to contradicting the Bible... so? Outside the fact that no one has proven I have in fact contradicted the Bible, what is wrong with doing such? Saying that Pi does not equal 3, but 3.14... contradicts the Bible. Even the Bible contradicts the Bible in some ways:

"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4

"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10





"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18






"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19






"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..." -- Deuteronomy 27:22

"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...." -- Leviticus 20:17

[But what was god's reaction to Abraham, who married his sister -- his father's daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12

"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife...I bless her, and give thee a son also of her..." -- Genesis 17:15-16






"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5











"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1

Really convenient half-logic* in 3... 2... 1...



*And that is a compliment.

 

[Floatingaxe]

No we were not. Getting married to someone of the opposite sex is not mandatory. It's an option that is available for those who choose it. When are some of you hardliners going to catch on that people are NOT programmed robots ...?

Those who have sex outside of marriage are fornicators--same penalty applies to them as to homosexuals--who are also fornicators.


2! 2! 2 sins in one!

Furthermore, if God is so implicit as to what the use of sex is for (procreation) then 'fun sex' is out for whoever might perform it. Agreed? And - something that I just can't get my head around and no one seems to be able to answer - if 'fun sex' IS alright with God, then why should it make any difference who the 'fun sex' is with as long as both adults are consenting? Either sex was provided solely for a means to procreate OR it was provided both as a means to procreate as well as to provide a pleasurable experience for both participants as 'recreation'. There is no logical reason as to why the latter need be confined to those of opposite gender ...now is there?

It's great with God--within the framework of heterosexual marriage ONLY.

Recreational sex - or 'fun sex' as you called it - cannot be unnatural as long as both adult participants derive pleasure from it ...whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. The 'results' of recreational sex are the same, i.e. no procreation taking place.

Keep rationalizing.

Oh, here we go again ...profaning the Sabbath is also detestable to God, FA. I'll bet you didn't give appropriate observance to the Sabbath today (Saturday 16 May).

Where do we draw the line pertaining to the 'abominations of God' and when does reason start to kick in, FA?

You have to know God to be able to properly reason at all.

 

[beechy]

<staff edit>

I thought you were defining "unnatural" to mean when a person uses a body part for something other than what it was created for. Did I misunderstand you? If so, a clarification would be appreciated: When you say something is "unnatural" what do you mean by that? How do you define "unnatural"?

 

[Floatingaxe]

I thought you were defining "unnatural" to mean when a person uses a body part for something other than what it was created for. Did I misunderstand you? If so, a clarification would be appreciated: When you say something is "unnatural" what do you mean by that? How do you define "unnatural"?

I don't think that those who defend the sin of homosexuality are so uninformed that they need to have such a thing explained any further.

That said, I answered the OP more than adequately and I am pleased that the title was composed such that it wasn't conveyed that Christians dislike homosexual people. We love them because God loves them. We are against the sin, as God is. He came in the form of a man--Jesus--to suffer and die for that sin so people can be free of it and come into relationship with Him--a relationship of love like none other. Preferring one's sexual perversion over Jesus is one's choice, but in the end, one stands to be judged.

I'm done here now, as further debate just brings heaps abuse, and I won't stand for it.

Unsubscribing.

 

[beechy]

I don't think that those who defend the sin of homosexuality are so uninformed that they need to have such a thing explained any further.

That said, I answered the OP more than adequately and I am pleased that the title was composed such that it wasn't conveyed that Christians dislike homosexual people. We love them because God loves them. We are against the sin, as God is. He came in the form of a man--Jesus--to suffer and die for that sin so people can be free of it and come into relationship with Him--a relationship of love like none other. Preferring one's sexual perversion over Jesus is one's choice, but in the end, one stands to be judged.

Uh, yeah. You said homosexuality is unnatural. I don't understand what you mean by "unnatural", and you now seem unwilling or unable to explain your use of the term. Maybe you meant to use a different word?

I'm done here now, as further debate just brings heaps abuse, and I won't stand for it.

I haven't abused you in the slightest.

Unsubscribing.

Buh bye.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I haven't abused you in the slightest.

I think that was in response to me, actually. Because I am the only one that has even come remotely close to doing so, as far as I have seen.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Because my view is the logical one derived from the basic socialized values (such things as assuming other people do, in fact, exist).

what kinda "socialized" values? There are different types of values all over the world. Capitalism? socialism? anarchy? Marxism? imperialism? what exactly? too vague

Also, my views hold roots in post enlightenment, his (or hers) held roots in a time called the dark ages. They didn't just pick those names out of a hat.

Of course, and produced people like Napoleon and later in the Modern Era, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Karl Marx. Which resulted in the deaths of more people than nearly all of the Middle Ages combined.

Now I'm not to say the middle ages weren't a tough time, far from it. But it was due more to technological reasons and medical reasons.

And as to contradicting the Bible... so? Outside the fact that no one has proven I have in fact contradicted the Bible, what is wrong with doing such? Saying that Pi does not equal 3, but 3.14... contradicts the Bible. Even the Bible contradicts the Bible in some ways:




Really convenient half-logic* in 3... 2... 1...



*And that is a compliment.

This is a horrid cherry picked post that completely ignores an enormous amount of things related to biblical exegesis.

Here this proves you probably haven't studied hermeneutics or/and the types of the narratives used, grammar, exegesis, word meaning(considering many words have more than one meaning), historical background, and context of the verses written. For instance when the bible talks about the "corners of the earth" it doesn't actually mean the earth has corners and is flat, but rather is an emotional usage describing a form of power from an oncoming army or divine power that cannot be escaped( 4 corners meaning being trapped and unable to escape)



<staff edit>


Pain is the body's natural response to tell the person to stop what they are doing. The only time pain is acceptable is during surgery or for medical reasons.