Gay Sex in Politics

[SkyWriting]

False. The bible explicitly condemns homosexual acts.

Only one translation uses that word. The correct classification is "sexual promiscuity."

The best explanation of "strange flesh" is "the neighbors wife".

 

[SkyWriting]

False. The bible explicitly condemns homosexual acts.

Please list these acts.

Ezekiel 16
48 "As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not that private: "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain".

Did any of them sleep around much? That spreads disease.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't think the scholars who provided us with the NIV were all homophobic, and it does seem pretty clear:

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

That is spelling out promiscuity for you. Sex with both.
Or perhaps both at the same time is the observed issue.


New American Standard Bible
'Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you.

King James Bible
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Everything in the water that does not have fins and scales will be detestable to you."

 

[SkyWriting]

Nope.. the scriptures clearly reveal it is about men having sexual intercorse with men and that it is an abomination to God and thus a sin..

So clear that you don't recall the verse?
Let's research abomination:


New American Standard Bible
'Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you.

King James Bible
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Everything in the water that does not have fins and scales will be detestable to you."

Uh oh. You've lost your case scripturally:

Proverbs 6
16 There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't think the scholars who provided us with the NIV were all homophobic, and it does seem pretty clear:

Seems so
if you have such fears.

But if you loose those fears, as I have living in a gay neighborhood,
and you think about what people of those times were actually concerned about
then "Sexually promiscuous" or "Orgies" with both men and women, or
sleeping around first women, then men,
seem like the actual fears causing tension, misery, and disease.

And this is more biblical as this type of activity is not treating others
as they would wish to be treated by those others.

You can dislike such activities because promiscuity causes harm.
Sexual preferences are not the focus of scripture.

Lets check again on these core items:
16 There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.

So I would say that "promiscuity" could fit the last one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Pretty clear; All the men, of all ages, were wicked, sinners, with grievous sin.

Nope. Perhaps there was only women:
And the sins are listed:

16 There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.

I think Sodom had the "Haughty eyes" problem:

48"As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Heterosexual sex has the potential to create life. It is acceptable to God. You are fighting a losing battle. God's instructions won't change to suit your desires.

That is exactly true. Loose your fears.
Matthew 19:19 Honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.'
Matthew 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments."
Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Galatians 5:14 The entire Law is fulfilled in a single decree: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

 

[SkyWriting]

Gay sex is always sterile. Is is a violation of God's plan for sex.

The birth rate for gays is five times that of peers.
I should hear cheering about now.

 

[Jenny_8675309]

Show me one case where homosexuality is mentioned and not condemned as wrong.

I'm not the one making the claim. I'm just saying not everyone interprets them that way.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I'm not the one making the claim. I'm just saying not everyone interprets them that way.

Not everyone accepts that the infinite series of the sum of terms of the form 9(1/10)^n (n ranging from 1 to infinity) converges to 1.

 

[Jenny_8675309]

Not everyone accepts that the infinite series of the sum of terms of the form 9(1/10)^n (n ranging from 1 to infinity) converges to 1.

OK

 

[MoonlessNight]

OK

The point is that if someone is mistaken about a position, it doesn't affect whether that position is true or not. What I posted was an inescapable mathematical fact (once the definitions are understood), but I still see people argue against it frequently. Am I to think that the position is questionable simply because people argue against it?

There are times when there really is no room for interpretation, but even in those cases you still won't get a universal agreement about what a passage means. Since the Bible has been discussed in such detail and for so long, that's true for literally every passage of scripture.

Therefore merely stating that people argue the position is irrelevant. If you want to say that there are alternate plausible interpretations, it is incumbent on you to provide them.

 

[Jenny_8675309]

The point is that if someone is mistaken about a position, it doesn't affect whether that position is true or not. What I posted was an inescapable mathematical fact (once the definitions are understood), but I still see people argue against it frequently. Am I to think that the position is questionable simply because people argue against it?

There are times when there really is no room for interpretation, but even in those cases you still won't get a universal agreement about what a passage means. Since the Bible has been discussed in such detail and for so long, that's true for literally every passage of scripture.

Therefore merely stating that people argue the position is irrelevant. If you want to say that there are alternate plausible interpretations, it is incumbent on you to provide them.

I'm not debating this point. I'm arguing against the claim that "everyone agrees".

 

[SkyWriting]

were all of the men of Sodom homosexuals? All of them?

Gen 13 [13] But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

Gen 18 [20] And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

Unfortunately your pet peeves are not listed. But Sodoms sins are:

48"As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. 50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Unfortunately your pet peeves are not listed. But Sodoms sins are:

48"As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. 50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Nothing suggests that that list is comprehensive. In fact, unless you want to argue that rape was not a sin to be guilty of, it is clear that the list is not comprehensive by what else we know of Sodom.

Similarly you will find many words of the Prophet which denounce Israel for its idolatry, and many which denounce it for its treatment of the poor. These words are not in conflict since in fact Israel was guilty for both sins.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not everyone accepts that the infinite series of the sum of terms of the form 9(1/10)^n (n ranging from 1 to infinity) converges to 1.

Math concepts are the only field with proofs.

 

[Jenny_8675309]

Nothing suggests that that list is comprehensive.

Interesting how sometimes the Bible is absolutely definitive and nothing may be added to it (like a description of how marriage works) but other times we can just throw in whatever extra stuff we like (yeah, it says XYZ, but it doesn't say not ABC...)

 

[SkyWriting]

. In fact, unless you want to argue that rape was not a sin to be guilty of,

That depends on the sketchy idea of consent and legal issues of age.
If a person is known to be underage, that makes it worse.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Math concepts are the only field with proofs.

Not technically true, as there is also philosophy.

But even in mathematics you'll find people doubting proofs.

The point of the example was that doubt proves nothing. If you say that a position cannot be known to be true merely because people doubt it, you can't accept anything to be known to be true, because people doubt everything, even provable results like the one I posted. (In fact, you wouldn't even be able to accept the proposition that "if people argue against a position we can't accept that position as true" since people like me argue against that proposition and hence it is self-defeating).