Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[EnemyPartyII]

While it's nice to see all this scripture being quoted, wasn't the point of this thread about discussing evidence of why homosexuality is "wrong" without using the bible as reference (which unfortunately means everything Jesus said is out as well?).

They can't do it. I've asked very similar questions to the OP before

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Homosexuality is immoral because it is a perverted form of sexuality.

What is that even supposed to mean?

 

[ReformedChapin]

What is that even supposed to mean?

That it's a perverted form of God's design.

 

[ReformedChapin]

What is that even supposed to mean?

That's called a waste of time since you cannot have ethics without a transcendent truth. I'm pretty sure I stated that already that's why the topic changed.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That it's a perverted form of God's design.

Oh.

Well, thats a false statement then. Clearly homosexuality is inherent in God's design.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I haven't condemned anyone on here (to death and condemned anyone because of sins they've done). I've just pointed out what is a sin and asked people to repent.

You have repeatedly called it perverted. This is an insult and, thus, qualifies as 'casting stones'.

Repent means to changes ones heart/attitude towards something.

I'll admit, I did not know that. I always assumed it was 'beg forgiveness, lest you burn', etc.

God Almighty is not some dichotomy that contradicts himself.

A dichotomy, false or otherwise, is not necessarily self-contradictory. A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy whereby an 'either/or' situation is set up where none exists. It is form of strawman, and is common enough to get it's own name.
In this case, you falsely (or, at least, irrationally) stated that there is either man's wisdom or God's wisdom. This dichotomy is rife with flaws, not least of which is the unproven presumption that God is not defined (let alone shown to exist).

The Spirit does exist

Your subjective opinion, nothing more. You may be correct, but from my point of view there is no reason to consider it as more than just a possibility.

and I would be careful to blasphame against the Holy Spirit, because God will not forgive you for that. God will forgive you if you turn to him and repent for being a pagen believer, but he won't forgive you if you deny the works of the Holy Spirit within others.

I have denied such works on countless occasions. You are interesting, artybloke: no other Christian has denied me entrance to their heaven.

If you do not believe in God, explain prophecy if you are so inclined.
Prophecy is a proof that Yahwah exists.

Some thoughts (again):

1. One must make the distinction between true prophecy and self-fulfilled prophecy; the latter is not evidence of supernatural phenomena. For the sake of this
2. You have cited no alleged 'true prophecy'. How can I carry out your request?
3. Assuming a true prophecy has been fulfilled, this is evidence only of divination: YHWH is not necessarily involved. To call it proof is a very high claim indeed.

Concerning 'perverted'
3. Marked by misinterpretation or distortion
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pervert

(For argument's sake, I won't question why you picked that particular definition. Let's go with it.)
So for something to be called 'perverted', one must define the 'unperverted', just as one cannot define the conjugate without first defining the 'un'conjugate.
So my next question is this: what is your definition of 'unperverted'?

I give reason according to the authority of Jesus that same-sex relations are wrong and you do not believe me.

I do not understand this sentence.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Oh.

Well, thats a false statement then. Clearly homosexuality is inherent in God's design.

Uh, NO. Clearly it's not.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That's called a waste of time since you cannot have ethics without a transcendent truth. I'm pretty sure I stated that already that's why the topic changed.

Sure you can... the ethics system is merely bassed on a different foundation of values.

I don't think much of your idea of "trancendant truth" by the way... I think your trying to dressup with big words the idea that you want to blindly follow 4000 year old, out of context, tribal doctrine

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Uh, NO. Clearly it's not.

Then why is it so wonderfully effective?

 

[ReformedChapin]

Sure you can... the ethics system is merely bassed on a different foundation of values.

I don't think much of your idea of "trancendant truth" by the way... I think your trying to dressup with big words the idea that you want to blindly follow 4000 year old, out of context, tribal doctrine

Nah, it's called logic. If you get rid of timeless truth all your are left is with arbitrary pragmatic laws which cannot be justified as right or wrong because of their subjective element.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Then why is it so wonderfully effective?

You mean to pervert God's law? Because it's sin.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You mean to pervert God's law? Because it's sin.

I'll rephrase the question... why is homosexuality so wonderfully effective at achieiving its desired outcomes if it isn't part of God's design?

 

[ReformedChapin]

I'll rephrase the question... why is homosexuality so wonderfully effective at achieiving its desired outcomes if it isn't part of God's design?

what is the desired outcome? how does that justify it ethically?

The outcome of War is death and it's pretty good at it. Should we embrace it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

what is the desired outcome? how does that justify it ethically?

The outcome of War is death and it's pretty good at it. Should we embrace it?

By your logic: yes.

 

[ReformedChapin]

By your logic: yes.

Please explain...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

what is the desired outcome? how does that justify it ethically?

The outcome of War is death and it's pretty good at it. Should we embrace it?

The outcome of war is not death, by any definition, death is a side effect of war.

Classically, war is politics by other means.

Either way, what the heck does war or death have to do with the price of fish? We're discussing homosexuality.

Nor were we talking about the ethicality of anything, we were discussing whether or not the effectiveness of something indicates its design...

 

[ReformedChapin]

The outcome of war is not death, by any definition, death is a side effect of war.

Classically, war is politics by other means.

Either way, what the heck does war or death have to do with the price of fish? We're discussing homosexuality.

Nor were we talking about the ethicality of anything, we were discussing whether or not the effectiveness of something indicates its design...

Again you refuse to see the logical implications of your statements. Your logic is simple because something is good at producing a byproduct we should embrace it. War is good at producing death, so we should embrace it.

You still haven't explained what is the wonderful byproduct of homosexuality.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Again you refuse to see the logical implications of your statements. Your logic is simple because something is good at producing a byproduct we should embrace it. War is good at producing death, so we should embrace it.

You still haven't explained what is the wonderful byproduct of homosexuality.

I'm not talking about a byproduct of homosexuality.

But homosexual activity is an excelent way of achieving intimate union between loving partners, just like heterosexual activity

 

[Wiccan_Child]

By your logic: yes.

One should embrace purpose and shun the rest. Since War carries out it's purpose, it should be embraced.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I'm not talking about a byproduct of homosexuality.

But homosexual activity is an excelent way of achieving intimate union between loving partners, just like heterosexual activity

So can two dogs. What's your point?