Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How "illogical" something is?? Well the statement "you cannot tell something is right or wrong with out bible" is totally illogical. There are many people in the world that are not christian and thus, do not use the bible. You're saying they can't deteremine wrong from right? that's ridiculous. Also, many Christians respect the bible, but don't follow it, and they too can't determine the difference between wrong or right? Again, that's totally ridiculous.Actually I'm showing how illogical your position is. What you are basically stating is that we should recognize right or wrong without the bible..that it's "evident." Well you are wrong, you cut off the bible then you have nothing, ethics go down the drain. You cannot tell something is "right or wrong" without the bible...get that in your head.
Wow that proved nothing. Again how do you know that their ethics system is coherent? You are making an arbitrary system without justifying your claim. Your argument is basically" most people do this that's why it's right." FYI most people in the world are irrational and their ethics system violate the laws of logic most specifically the law of contradiction.How "illogical" something is?? Well the statement "you cannot tell something is right or wrong with out bible" is totally illogical. There are many people in the world that are not christian and thus, do not use the bible. You're saying they can't deteremine wrong from right? that's ridiculous. Also, many Christians respect the bible, but don't follow it, and they too can't determine the difference between wrong or right? Again, that's totally ridiculous.
Oh please tell me what questions it "opens". Especially since without scripture there is no such thing as ethics.
BTW if you want to define "tolerence" as denying sin then I'm the most intolerant person in this website. You hippies can try to pervert Gods commands as much as you want but it's not going to happen here. Not only that but you are close minded as well since homosexuality cannot possibly be wrong.
Aside from the fact that might not be possible considering the Biology is different, having sex with a chicken is a disease fest waiting to happen. Beastality is what led to AIDS. I can only imagine how bad the bird flu would be under those circumstance.
Condoms don't always work. Any idiot can yell you that. Again, the biological difference make it where, you can use the same chicken, but you're still just as likely. Humans share the same biology.Not if you wore a condom. Remember, you keep telling us homosexual behavior is SAFE if you use a condom. Plus, I'd always use the same chicken. I'm a 'one chicken man'. There is nothing in the Bible about a monogamous chicken-man relationship.
Honestly, that's a terrible comparison. You could at least come up with something better?
Dont knock it til you tried it sister. I've heard roosters make pretty good lovers. Oh I forgot, you're gay, so you would rather have a hen.
By the way, it's very intolerant of you not to accept my love for my chicken. Love is good...legalism is not. Stop judging me. I love my chicken!
I did already you just don't want to accept it. Without the bible there is no such thing as right or wrong. How complicated is that? I don't know who your god is but my god is the God of the bible.
Seriously. Give me a reason homosexuality should be wrong. Assume for a second the Bible never ever mentions homosexuality. Under that circumstance, what consequences of homosexuality make it so horrible.
Some debunkings before hand:
1 - No babies/unnatural sex: So what? Does this mean those who can't have children shouldn't get married either? I should hope not. Then define unnatural. So some people, being left handed is unnatural. To others, wearing clothes is unnatural. To say something is unnatural is very personal since nature is so difficult to define. (Besides, natural ultimately means it exists in nature. And we've already determined that homosexuality definitely exists in nature.)
2 - HIV/AIDS: You're not going to get HIV/AIDS in a monogamous relationship. Because HIV/AIDS doesn't magically appear. It's contracted.
So besides that, what have you got? I've asked this question, along with many others, and we're ALWAYS ignored or we're given the same old verses. WHAT CONSEQUENCES ARE THERE?
However there is a significant lack of the nuclear family in the bible. What is presented is usually polygamous marriages with many biblical rules for how to treat first and secondary wives. There are also biblical rules for concubines and sex slaves as well as levirate marriages there are also numerous example of women forced into marriage through rape.So, assuming the Scriptures never mention homosexuality as a sin...
God has specifically blessed the nuclear family as the fullness of his image. Creation was not complete until the man had his female companion, and the very first command given to them was to be fruitful and multiply (no, I am not a creationist; no, I do not believe in a literal Eve; but the thematic emphasis of the passage remains authoritative).
God the Father has a self-image. That image is the Son, the image of the invisible God. Their love together eternally generates the third person, the Spirit. Together this Trinity is family- a self-contained community of love.
The nuclear family is God's reflection on earth. It is the basic covenant unit of our eschatological community. The image of God represents God in his fullness through the coming together of husband and wife and their rearing of children.
And I would never make the argument that the practices of the patriarchs are a guide for morality, or that the Levitical law is a strictly moral code.However there is a significant lack of the nuclear family in the bible. What is presented is usually polygamous marriages with many biblical rules for how to treat first and secondary wives. There are also biblical rules for concubines and sex slaves as well as levirate marriages there are also numerous example of women forced into marriage through rape.
you of course will not get an answer.
And there in lies the problem of trying to use scripture to justify hatred and prejudice. People can cherry pick verses from the bible and say their hatred of a particular minority is justified .but the only way to achieve this justification is to ignore the message of and teachings of Jesus.
The extended family is much more the norm.And I would never make the argument that the practices of the patriarchs are a guide for morality, or that the Levitical law is a strictly moral code.
Your assertion of course ignores the fact that gays and lesbian couples form families, nuclear and extendedAnd within the Judaism Christ practiced, the nuclear family was very much indeed a social norm.
"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:36-40I seem to remember Jesus' message being somthing like, "Repent! The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" At least, that's how matthew chose to sum up his ministry.
it doesnt change? Ever?Sin is sin, and does not change, and the use of the Gospel as a license to sin is roundly condemned in the bible as a greater sin yet.
it doesn’t change? Ever?
Hmm…so eating shellfish must still be a sin
Along with cutting your hair still being a sin
And shaving
And wearing clothing made of different fabrics
And attending Church while wearing glasses
I do not deny that verse, however Jesus first word in public ministry was "repent," and Jude speaks with derision over people who use the gospel to excuse or ignore sin.
"For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality"
These are harsh words. The church is without excuse when it does not weight them solemnly when considering what they preach...
"For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality"
So what is a sin doesnt ever change unless it does...I do not deny that verse, however Jesus first word in public ministry was "repent," and Jude speaks with derision over people who use the gospel to excuse or ignore sin.
"For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality"
These are harsh words. The church is without excuse when it does not weight them solemnly when considering what they preach.
No, it never changes, and on this we must stand, lest we do not know from what were we redeemed.
The law and sin were never directly congruent. If it is your contention that shellfish eating was sin, then yes, it still is sin, because right and wrong do not change.
Most of us just realize that the ceremonial law is about ritual cleanliness, which of course includes "no sin," since we have a holy God, but contains much else.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?