Pope: Saving world from homosexuality like saving rainforests

[OphidiaPhile]

All of those things did not exist at all back then, but homosexual sex did. There's the difference.

And there was never a word for homosexual sex so who decided that the words in the bible meant something that did not exist in language form at the time.

 

[WatersMoon110]

MOD HAT ON.

Hey folks, can we maybe try to be a tad less vulgar? Please?

Thank you.

MOD HAT OFF.​

 

[angellica]

Do not use science as both the scientific and psychiatric communities agree that it is normal and natural.

They also agree that homos can't produce children on their own. No homosexual couple can have sex and produce a baby, ever. Anatomically, all you have to do is look at the woman body and man body and tell how they fit together perfectly, as if THEY WERE MADE THAT WAY!! Not so for a 2 men's bodies or 2 women's bodies.

 

[angellica]

And there was never a word for homosexual sex so who decided that the words in the bible meant something that did not exist in language form at the time.

The actual word "homosexual" wasn't mentioned, but it says a man laid with a man as he does with a woman.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I asked was it natural.

So, is it okay for a 13 year old and a 30 year old?

Again you are not reading the answer you have been given. But in some cultures it is perfectly natural, and I have no problem with two consenting 13 year olds participating together.

 

[bsd13]

That is what it's about. Every time I've seen OT scripture posted it was about sex. It wasn't about love, it wasn't about relationships. It's not about building lives together. The crux is sex and no person has any business inquiring about a person's sex life. Call me old fashioned.

Then here's one about love. Just for you.

(Exodus 34:6-8)
And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped.

And another

(Exodus 20:2)
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Still another

(Deuteronomy 30:2-4)
and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back.

And one more

(Zephaniah 3:17)
The LORD your God is with you,
he is mighty to save.
He will take great delight in you,
he will quiet you with his love,
he will rejoice over you with singing.

Fact is that the ENTIRE Bible, both old and new testaments is ENTIRELY about God's love.

I know in the heat of battle I don't always show that love as I am called to do and for that I'm sorry. But I sincerely believe if anyone rejects Christ, rejects the love of God they will go to hell for eternity. If I don't say something, with passion, with fury, and yes with love that makes me worse than any abomination mentioned in the scriptures. It's not a gay issue or a straight issue. It's an eternal issue.

 

[Aianna]

All of those things did not exist at all back then, but homosexual sex did. There's the difference.

That's because is homosexual sex *is* "natural." It happens in nature all the time. Now that has nothing to do with whether or not it's permissible as being "natural" has no connection with being "right."

Consensual homosexual sex is permissible for exactly the same reasons consensual heterosexual sex is; they cause no harm to others. Both consensual homosexual and heterosexual sex are morally neutral.

 

[WatersMoon110]

And there was never a word for homosexual sex so who decided that the words in the bible meant something that did not exist in language form at the time.

Only in Leviticus. The letters of Paul could have used any of the four Greek words for men who had sex with other men. Instead, Paul used a different word; which, as far as we know, he made up. We don't have the definition of Paul's word, but it is something that his audience presumably did know. But it wasn't a known word that could truthfully been translated as (male) homosexual, that it for sure.

 

[TheBear]

Wait a minute.

Is religion not only defining 'righteous' sex as between a man and a woman, but also dictates the physical position of the partners?

Am I hearing this right?

 

[b&wpac4]

They also agree that homos can't produce children on their own. No homosexual couple can have sex and produce a baby, ever. Anatomically, all you have to do is look at the woman body and man body and tell how they fit together perfectly, as if THEY WERE MADE THAT WAY!! Not so for a 2 men's bodies or 2 women's bodies.

Really? I find the design to be poor, to be honest. Why is the penis part of the waste removal system as well as the procreation system. This seems to be very bad design, as you would not want to confuse one with the other.

The vagina is also a bit too close to the waste removal for my comfort as well.

Would you design a house where the plumbing to bring you fresh water used the same pipes as the flow from the toilet?

 

[angellica]

Again you are not reading the answer you have been given. But in some cultures it is perfectly natural, and I have no problem with two consenting 13 year olds participating together.

Why not a 13 year old and a 30 year old? Is it simply because of legal reasons? If we lowered the consent age to 13, would you think it was then okay for the 13 and the 30 year old to have sex if they both consented?

 

[Braunwyn]

They also agree that homos can't produce children on their own. No homosexual couple can have sex and produce a baby, ever. Anatomically, all you have to do is look at the woman body and man body and tell how they fit together perfectly, as if THEY WERE MADE THAT WAY!! Not so for a 2 men's bodies or 2 women's bodies.

As has been stated 50-100 times? the point is that marriage isn't about procreation, for everybody, and neither is intimacy.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

They also agree that homos can't produce children on their own. No homosexual couple can have sex and produce a baby, ever. Anatomically, all you have to do is look at the woman body and man body and tell how they fit together perfectly, as if THEY WERE MADE THAT WAY!! Not so for a 2 men's bodies or 2 women's bodies.

The female organs that are best stimulated are external to the body and do not require male genitalia. And the other is just an opinion and one I do not agree with.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

The actual word "homosexual" wasn't mentioned, but it says a man laid with a man as he does with a woman.

That does not even remotely say sex now does it.

And like I would believe a book that says the world is flat.

 

[angellica]

As has been stated 50-100 times? the point is that marriage isn't about procreation, for everybody, and neither is intimacy.

Well obviously sex isn't about procreation for gays. It's about self-pleasure. It serves no other purpose, ever. With heteros, it does serve another purpose - that of procreation.

 

[bsd13]

That does not even remotely say sex now does it.

Then how would you interpret it? Maybe man lying with man as man lies with woman means... um, hmmm... help me out here would ya?

 

[angellica]

That does not even remotely say sex now does it.

I will not continue this argument, as it is obvious that you haven't read the passages I'm talking about. Once you read them and actually the verses surrounding them, as they set the context, I will consider continuing the argument. But right now, it's useless.

 

[Braunwyn]

Then here's one about love. Just for you.

And another

Still another

And one more

Fact is that the ENTIRE Bible, both old and new testaments is ENTIRELY about God's love.

You're obviously not understanding the post you are responding to. I was talking about OT scripture that is used to argue against homosexual marriage.

I know in the heat of battle I don't always show that love as I am called to do and for that I'm sorry. But I sincerely believe if anyone rejects Christ, rejects the love of God they will go to hell for eternity. If I don't say something, with passion, with fury, and yes with love that makes me worse than any abomination mentioned in the scriptures. It's not a gay issue or a straight issue. It's an eternal issue.

Yea, I know some of you need to witness, however annoying I find it to be. I have no idea if your heart is in the right place. I can only say that monothesism is not for me. I disagree with the bible on many counts. I disagree with religion in general. If you find peace in it, more power to you.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

As has been stated 50-100 times? the point is that marriage isn't about procreation, for everybody, and neither is intimacy.

Sex is merely what it means to the people involved, why add something when it is not there.


And as usual Braunwyn you are a logical breath of fresh air.

 

[Aianna]

Why not a 13 year old and a 30 year old? Is it simply because of legal reasons? If we lowered the consent age to 13, would you think it was then okay for the 13 and the 30 year old to have sex if they both consented?

The age of consent is an arbitrarily drawn line. Every individual is mentally ready to make such a choice at a different time; an arbitrary line is drawn at a point that the vast majority of individuals are ready because it's simply not realistically possible to judge each and every individual in a society as large as ours.