• 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.

Homosexuality - Here I stand.

Status
Not open for further replies.

one11

Veteran
Jan 3, 2009
1,319
89
✟24,395.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Its not my law. I'm not Jewish.

I was referring to this statement as a slur against the OT. If you don't have the OT, you don't have anything to relate to the NT too.

And if you don't want the law, then you don't want the Ten Commandments because "I'm not Jewish". It kinda goes together.

And if someone mentions something negative about the apocrypha in their signature and has a Catholic symbol, it makes one wonder?

Because if you don't believe in the apocrypha of the OT and put most of the OT down, one IS excommunicated from the RCC. That's just a fact, so I found it peculiar. Facts are facts.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
I was referring to this statement as a slur against the OT. If you don't have the OT, you don't have anything to relate to the NT too.

And if you don't want the law, then you don't want the Ten Commandments because "I'm not Jewish". It kinda goes together.

And if someone mentions something negative about the apocrypha in their signature and has a Catholic symbol, it makes one wonder?

Because if you don't believe in the apocrypha of the OT and put most of the OT down, one IS excommunicated from the RCC. That's just a fact, so I found it peculiar. Facts are facts.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


I'm not Jewish, I'm a Christian, and Christians are beholden to Christ, not the 10 commandments.

That is not a negative against Jews. Thats not a negative against the apocrypha. Its nothing remotely like anything you are sayi9ng I said. I will not be any further drawn by this red herring. You attempt to divert discussion from the perfectly made point that Lev 18.22 is as irrelevant to modern Christians as the Levitical condemnation of mixed fabrics or excluding injured people from church is noted, seen through, and will henceforth be ignored, by me at least.

So, address the OP please, or start a new "is LightHorseman a TRUE Catholic?" thread.
 
Upvote 0

one11

Veteran
Jan 3, 2009
1,319
89
✟24,395.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I'm not Jewish, I'm a Christian, and Christians are beholden to Christ, not the 10 commandments.

That is not a negative against Jews. Thats not a negative against the apocrypha. Its nothing remotely like anything you are sayi9ng I said. I will not be any further drawn by this red herring. You attempt to divert discussion from the perfectly made point that Lev 18.22 is as irrelevant to modern Christians as the Levitical condemnation of mixed fabrics or excluding injured people from church is noted, seen through, and will henceforth be ignored, by me at least.

So, address the OP please, or start a new "is LightHorseman a TRUE Catholic?" thread.

It's not a red herring. If you take the 10 commandments, you take the law too.

And the law does not exclude injured people from the church. Where do you read these things?
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
It's not a red herring. If you take the 10 commandments, you take the law too.

And the law does not exclude injured people from the church. Where do you read these things?
So you miss the bit where I said the 10 commandments have been superceded by Christ's new commandments?

If you take the 10 commandments, how come you are wearing mixed fibre clothing right now? Since you claim accepting the commandments means you take the whole of the law, including the Levitical minutiae, which is, I think what you are saying.

And where does it say injured people are to be excluded from the church? Why, right here... Lev 21:16-23

16 The LORD said to Moses, 17 "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy. [a] ' "
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

one11

Veteran
Jan 3, 2009
1,319
89
✟24,395.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Okay, I apologize if I have hurt you in any way. I am sorry.

As far as the OP:

1) I agree homosexuality has some aspects of temple prostitution of a type of prostituing oneself's in a homosexual way for idol temple prostitution. And God detests this.

2) The cleanliness laws and AIDS may show someone can die from this practice (anal sex). I'm not completely convinced that anal sex should be avoided at all costs because of the greater possibility of STD's. I am not in complete agree with the point on AIDS at stated in the OP and that anal sex is a large aspect of AIDS as is blood (including "shooting up" with drugs). We know most diseases are nearly deadly once they get into the blood. I was just reading in Leviticus how much God told us to keep clean our blood and ways to do it!
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Those who stand on their claim that the Bible is literal will never be convinced on anything - they have already made up their minds.
Why shouldn't I be convinced, for example, that Jesus didn't literally die and rise from the dead?

Point 1. Scientifically, we now know that HIV Aids did not originate within the homosexual community.(Aids and Compassion (1988) edited by Dr. Jim McPherson).

"When asked why gay men were the first victims of the AIDS virus, Dr.
Gallo answered, “They are homosexuals because they were the ones exposed. Forget all the other hocus-pocus. Why them? No one knows... it was acquired.” (New York Native, August 24,1984)

By the way, is there any scholarly evidence that shows heterosexuals first acquired Aids or is that just an opinion or a theory?


Point 2. Sodom was not destroyed for its homosexuality....but makes no reference as to what caused its downfall. None make mention of homosexuality as the reason.

I disagree. Homosexuality was one of the reasons; however, it was not the only reason.

Point 3. The only claim in the Bible that homosexuality could have been the reason for Sodom's destruction comes in Jude 7. But Jude was written in about 80 AD and after one Philo of Alexandria (d. cira 50 AD), a Jewsih philosopher and writer living at the time of Paul, had claimed that Sodom's sin was homosexuality. It was Philo, the only Jewish writer from antiquity that made the first claim which, in all probability, influenced later authors like Paul and Jude.

It would be more logical to believe the sin of Sodom was a case of pornea rather than solely homosexuality.


Point 4. Paul certainly mentions homosexuality as a sin but it might be worth looking at the cultural with which the early believers were surrounded.

Good point. Greeks and Romans loved orgies in their temples and their fornications. Romans and Greeks were known for their love of homosexuality. Paul told his disciples to flee from that culture and way of life.

The Roman world had come into peace under Tiberius after years of civil wars. Pax Romana bought rest and wealth to a land weary of internal fighting. Tiberius was hailed as hero and was proclaimed Augusta - God with us. The Roman Empire now spanned many cultures and one was the Hellenised Greek culture - a culture that worshiped the human body. (The Olympic Games were held nude - well, at least for the athletics). This aesthetic influenced spread to Rome and coupled with the Emperor cult and the general peace and wealth enjoyed by the citizens, together with the practice of Temple prostitution and blood sports, resulted in a culture that was in love with itself - idolatry. This was the sin Paul was concerned with - the worship of the human body as god and the practice of self-indulgence. Paul was concerned to make separate his 'believers' from a population that worshipped 'self'.

I disagree. While the O.T. has it's various laws on pornea, Jesus and the apostles preached it as a moral issue related to the heart. Paul urged followers to flee from pornea. It's quite as simple as that. Although bodily idolatry was denounced by Paul in Romans, all forms of pornea were denounced altogether, whether it be idolatry or not.

Point 5. Yet, it seems clear there is no overwhelming prerogative that the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. But what the Bible does teach time and time again is the sin of self-indulgence - where such self-indulgence becomes self-worship. That's our error - worshipping ourselves.

I believe you would err in only believing that the denouncement of pornea has only to do with self-indulgence. Pre-martial sex, for example, doesn't always appear to be self-indulgence, and could easily be classified as "love" between two individuals whom are sharing an intimate moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeena
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Okay, I apologize if I have hurt you in any way. I am sorry.

As far as the OP:

1) I agree homosexuality has some aspects of temple prostitution of a type of prostituing oneself's in a homosexual way for idol temple prostitution. And God detests this.

2) The cleanliness laws and AIDS may show someone can die from this practice (anal sex). I'm not completely convinced that anal sex should be avoided at all costs because of the greater possibility of STD's. I am not in complete agree with the point on AIDS at stated in the OP and that anal sex is a large aspect of AIDS as is blood (including "shooting up" with drugs). We know most diseases are nearly deadly once they get into the blood. I was just reading in Leviticus how much God told us to keep clean our blood and ways to do it!
I accept your apology.

However, particularly regarding your point 2... anal sex does not cause HIV/AIDS, not all homosexuals engage in anal sex, many heterosexuals DO engage in anal sex, HIV/AIDS can be transmitted through heterosexual vaginal sex, and STDs are extremely transmisable among heterosexuals.

So I don't really buy the "Leviticus condemns homosexuality as a cleanliness thing" as being particularly relevent. Once, maybe, although its not the reason I believe Leviticus says what it says. However, for the sake of argument, lets agree that it WAS a cleasnliness issue, it no longer is, since there is no reason to consider homosexual sex inherently any less "clean" than heterosexual sex. Further, even if (big if) we did agree its a cleanliness issue, and we DID agree that that homosexuals are less clean than heterosexuals... why is this part of Leviticus binding, yet we allow priests to trim their beards, or women to wear mixed fibres?
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
By the way, is there any scholarly evidence that shows heterosexuals first acquired Aids or is that just an opinion or a theory?
Please stop being so Americo-centric. Yes, the first recorded cases of HIV/AIDS were among homosexuals in America, however the disease had been extant and spreading through African populations, of both hetero and homosexuals, unreported or unidentified for considerable time previuous to that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/may/26/aids.topstories3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin
It would be more logical to believe the sin of Sodom was a case of pornea rather than solely homosexuality.
Actually the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. If you want to tie it in with the whole Lot event, then the sin was attempted RAPE. Consentually homosexuality in Sodom is never mentioned in the Bible.
I disagree. Homosexuality was one of the reasons; however, it was not the only reason.
The belief that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality is a tradition started around the 9th century from memory. It certainly is not a Biblical claim.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Facinating stuff...
1959: Congolese man
One of the earliest documented HIV-1 infections was discovered in a preserved blood sample taken in 1959 from a man from Leopoldville, Belgian Congo (now Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo).[25] However, it is unknown whether this anonymous person ever developed AIDS and died of its complications.[26]

[edit] 1960: Congolese woman

A second early documented HIV-1 infection was discovered in a preserved lymph node biopsy sample taken in 1960 from a woman from Leopoldville, Belgian Congo.[11]

[edit] 1969: Robert R.

In 1969, a 15-year-old African-American male known to medicine as Robert R. died at the St. Louis City Hospital from aggressive Kaposi's sarcoma. AIDS was suspected as early as 1984, and in 1987, researchers at Tulane University School of Medicine confirmed this, finding HIV-1 in his preserved blood and tissues. The doctors who worked on his case at the time suspected he was a prostitute, though the patient did not discuss his sexual history with them in detail.[27][28][29][30][31]

[edit] 1969: Arvid Noe

In 1976, a Norwegian sailor named Arvid Noe, his wife, and his nine-year-old daughter died of AIDS. The sailor had first presented symptoms in 1969, eight years after he first spent time in ports along the West African coastline. A gonorrhoea infection during his first African voyage shows he was sexually active at this time. Tissue samples from the sailor and his wife were tested in 1988 and found to contain the HIV-1 virus (Group O).[32][33][34]

[edit] Spread to the western hemisphere

HIV-1 strains are thought to have arrived in the United States from Haiti in the late 1960s or early 1970s.[35] HIV-1 is believed to have arrived in Haiti from central Africa, possibly through professional contacts with the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[36]
Because of the long incubation period of HIV (up to a decade or longer) before symptoms of AIDS appear, and because of the initially low incidence, AIDS was not noticed at first. By the time the first reported cases of AIDS were found in large United States cities, the prevalence of HIV infection in some communities had passed 5%.[37] Worldwide, HIV infection has spread from urban to rural areas, and has appeared in regions such as China and India.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
why is this part of Leviticus binding, yet we allow priests to trim their beards, or women to wear mixed fibres?

It isn't whether Leviticus is binding or not, but where the heart stands morally on this issue. Internally---the heart----when homosexual tendencies are played out in peoples lives is what defiles someone.


Being straight forward, it has to do more with your body being God's temple than an issue about Leviticus. Pornea defiles God's temple. God didn't raise you up so you could "self-indulge" or erotically love others in that way. Intellectually, you were not designed for that purpose just as individuals were not intellectually designed for indulging in premartial sex.


My argument lies more in recognizing homosexuality as a form of pornea and helping people to understand this rather than unloading a chernobyl nuclear-meltdown sermon on my brethern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeena
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
It isn't whether Leviticus is binding or not, but where the heart stands morally on this issue. Internally---the heart----when homosexual tendencies are played out in peoples lives is what defiles someone.


Being straight forward, it has to do more with your body being God's temple than an issue about Leviticus. Pornea defiles God's temple. God didn't raise you up so you could "self-indulge" or erotically love others in that way. Intellectually, you were not designed for that purpose just as individuals were not intellectually designed for indulging in premartial sex.


My argument lies more in recognizing homosexuality as a form of pornea and helping people to understand this rather than unloading a chernobyl nuclear-meltdown sermon on my brethern.
The tone of your post is reasonable, and I admire the chernobyl bit... however, here is my crux issue.

If it is right and proper for a heterosexual couple who love each other to be in a monogomous sexual relationship, I don't see why a homosexual couple in a loving monogomous relationship should be any different. Pornea/agape/whatever aside, I don't see any inherent difference in the relationships.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Please stop being so Americo-centric. Yes, the first recorded cases of HIV/AIDS were among homosexuals in America, however the disease had been extant and spreading through African populations, of both hetero and homosexuals, unreported or unidentified for considerable time previuous to that.

Despite your mounting evidence, only theories and suspicions are proposed concerning the origins of Aids. Nothing is exactly set in stone.
I would like to note that no one knows who first exactly contracted Aids or how it was first spread. I welcome that you changed your position to include "both hetero and homosexuals".

People only suspect SIV is related to AIDS. Rest assured, I would rather believe in the NWO conspiracy theories that AIDS was an engineered virus that was released for either population control or as an experiment.

Nope. It was a variety of things, but specifically the Angels caught Sodom red-handed with an attempted gay rape. That was the most infamous known reason for its destruction, but not it's only one nor it's only prime reason. It was the final straw as we do know the Angels went down to Sodom to check things out in case their was one righteous man alive.

If you want to tie it in with the whole Lot event, then the sin was attempted RAPE. Consentually homosexuality in Sodom is never mentioned in the Bible.

Justice is mentioned. Wasn't it unjust for the people of Sodom to attempt to rape the Angels? By the way, there is a similar episode at the end of Judges where another rape is attempted. In response to it, the Israelites united together and sought justice against the Benjamites(I think it was them but correct me if I am wrong) for their actions.

The belief that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality is a tradition started around the 9th century from memory. It certainly is not a Biblical claim.
I disagree. The text clearly depicts an unjust episode of pornea---one of the reasons why God had the final straw with the people of Sodom.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
The tone of your post is reasonable, and I admire the chernobyl bit... however, here is my crux issue.

If it is right and proper for a heterosexual couple who love each other to be in a monogomous sexual relationship, I don't see why a homosexual couple in a loving monogomous relationship should be any different. Pornea/agape/whatever aside, I don't see any inherent difference in the relationships.

Sometimes we are like Pilate, asking Jesus and others, "What is truth?" Sometimes the truth is never clear to anyone. Like children of God, we tend to stray from Him and seek our own ways and do as we feel is right like Israel in the Book of Judges.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Despite your mounting evidence, only theories and suspicions are proposed concerning the origins of Aids. Nothing is exactly set in stone.
I would like to note that no one knows who first exactly contracted Aids or how it was first spread. I welcome that you changed your position to include "both hetero and homosexuals".

People only suspect SIV is related to AIDS. Rest assured, I would rather believe in the NWO conspiracy theories that AIDS was an engineered virus that was released for either population control or as an experiment.
Um... I didn't change my position at all. The first cases of HIV could have been in hetero or homosexuals, since either hetero or homosexual;s can be bush meat hunters.

And yes, while it is always possible new information will come to light disproving the current scientific consensus, as far as ANY theory (including stuff like, you know, gravity and atoms) is ever proved, that HIV/AIDS is a zoonomic disease spread from chimps to Humans in Western Africa is proved.
Nope. It was a variety of things, but specifically the Angels caught Sodom red-handed with an attempted gay rape. That was the most infamous known reason for its destruction, but not it's only one nor it's only prime reason. It was the final straw as we do know the Angels went down to Sodom to check things out in case their was one righteous man alive.
raping strangers is pretty inhospitable, wouldn't you say? Although God had condemned Sodom BEFORE the angel incident, you'll recall, the Angels were only there looking for a handful of righteous people to save it. Where the sin of Sodom is actually specifically given (in Ezekiel maybe? I'm not 100% sure) it is specifically given as "inhospitality and haughtiness".
Justice is mentioned. Wasn't it unjust for the people of Sodom to attempt to rape the Angels? By the way, there is a similar episode at the end of Judges where another rape is attempted. In response to it, the Israelites united together and sought justice against the Benjamites(I think it was them but correct me if I am wrong) for their actions.
I have no problem with just retribution against rapists. Believe me, I wish there were a great deal more in the world. However, my issue here is that I think it is BRUTALLY wrong to look at an example of attempted homosexual rape, and conclude that it is the homosexual part of the offence that is the crime, rather than the rape part. Yet this is what anti-homosexuals who cite the Sodom incident do time and again.
I disagree. The text clearly depicts an unjust episode of pornea---one of the reasons why God had the final straw with the people of Sodom.
But is the pornea in question the rape element or the homosexual element?
Sometimes we are like Pilate, asking Jesus and others, "What is truth?" Sometimes the truth is never clear to anyone. Like children of God, we tend to stray from Him and seek our own ways and do as we feel is right like Israel in the Book of Judges.
Well, as far as determining the "truth" as far as human inter relations are concerned, I try to use Christ's second new commandment as my yardstick... and as such, I can't see condemning ANY mutually consentual, non-third party harming activity as wrong, so as far as homosexuals in consentual relationships are concerned, I really think we are not to interfere in any way. Further (and heres a big if) even if homosexuals are sinning, and lets assume for the sake of argument they are, even if, under Christ's new commandment to us, since consentual homosexual intimacy is a non-third party harming activity, even if it IS a sin, it is not the place of you, me or anyone but the two people involved to discuss it as such, and absolutely never anbyone else's place to condemn it (let him without sin cast the first stone, mote in thy neighbours eye, etc)
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Um... I didn't change my position at all. The first cases of HIV could have been in hetero or homosexuals, since either hetero or homosexual;s can be bush meat hunters.

Sorry LightHorseman, I confused you with Wayseer....lol

I originally replied to him then to you, and in response for some reason I forgot I replied to his first post in this discussion to begin with.

I remember directing my first post to him (about how aids was first recognized in homosexuals, thus suggesting it may have started in homosexuals as well).

I just wanted to clear things up :p
I stand corrected you never changed any position to begin with----ho ho ho ^_^


And yes, while it is always possible new information will come to light disproving the current scientific consensus, as far as ANY theory (including stuff like, you know, gravity and atoms) is ever proved, that HIV/AIDS is a zoonomic disease spread from chimps to Humans in Western Africa is proved

You know what, I don't know whether it originated from gays or straights, but I am one of the few people out there that suspect that the NWO theories surrounding Aids may be true, indeed, contrary to the opinions of many :thumbsup:
I saw a video called Blueprint For Global Enslavement, and that was shocking when it discussed what the western governments did to their own populations on health grounds.

.raping strangers is pretty inhospitable, wouldn't you say?
LOL.^_^

Although God had condemned Sodom BEFORE the angel incident, you'll recall, the Angels were only there looking for a handful of righteous people to save it.

BEFORE the angel incident, it is logical to believe that Sodomites were no different than those actors in internet videos like 2girls1cup, Kids in a sandbox, Mr. Hands dies-by-a-horse-dick, ect? Sodom hands down was pretty bad, wouldn't you say and is quite logical they probably did a lot of immoral and other evil things?


Where the sin of Sodom is actually specifically given (in Ezekiel maybe? I'm not 100% sure) it is specifically given as "inhospitality and haughtiness". I have no problem with just retribution against rapists. Believe me, I wish there were a great deal more in the world. However, my issue here is that I think it is BRUTALLY wrong to look at an example of attempted homosexual rape, and conclude that it is the homosexual part of the offence that is the crime, rather than the rape part.
Perhaps, but I am presenting my argument to show that homosexuality and gangrape were contributing reasons, but not the only reasons.

[/QUOTE]
Yet this is what anti-homosexuals who cite the Sodom incident do time and again.[/QUOTE]
It is easy to interpret it that way because men wanted to have sex with men just before the city was burned to a crisp ;)
I mean, come on man! When I first read the bible and I came across to this chapter, it was shocking!!!! I couldn't believe that an actual attempted rape scene was depicted in the bible. It was shocking for me to see that.


But is the pornea in question the rape element or the homosexual element?
Clearly, it would be more logical to deduce rape, but from how YHWH lays down the rules via two mediators, Moses and Jesus, it is clear it may have been both. From that bold episode in Sodom, who knows what else they may have done.

Well, as far as determining the "truth" as far as human inter relations are concerned, I try to use Christ's second new commandment as my yardstick... and as such, I can't see condemning ANY mutually consentual, non-third party harming activity as wrong, so as far as homosexuals in consentual relationships are concerned, I really think we are not to interfere in any way. Further (and heres a big if) even if homosexuals are sinning, and lets assume for the sake of argument they are, even if, under Christ's new commandment to us, since consentual homosexual intimacy is a non-third party harming activity, even if it IS a sin, it is not the place of you, me or anyone but the two people involved to discuss it as such, and absolutely never anbyone else's place to condemn it (let him without sin cast the first stone, mote in thy neighbours eye, etc)
A classic liberal case presented by Trudeu, the prime minister of Canada; that is that politics stays out of the bedroom.
There is a case where homosexuality is harmful. Paul argues that those who partake in pornea harm themselves. The apostles argued that we are God's Temple and pornea defiles that it.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Sorry LightHorseman, I confused you with Wayseer....lol

I originally replied to him then to you, and in response for some reason I forgot I replied to his first post in this discussion to begin with.

I remember directing my first post to him (about how aids was first recognized in homosexuals, thus suggesting it may have started in homosexuals as well).

I just wanted to clear things up :p
I stand corrected you never changed any position to begin with----ho ho ho ^_^
No worries, happens to all of us.
You know what, I don't know whether it originated from gays or straights, but I am one of the few people out there that suspect that the NWO theories surrounding Aids may be true, indeed, contrary to the opinions of many :thumbsup:
I saw a video called Blueprint For Global Enslavement, and that was shocking when it discussed what the western governments did to their own populations on health grounds.
Think we may have to agree to disagree on this one.
LKaughter is prayer. Glad I could inspire you thus.
BEFORE the angel incident, it is logical to believe that Sodomites were no different than those actors in internet videos like 2girls1cup, Kids in a sandbox, Mr. Hands dies-by-a-horse-dick, ect? Sodom hands down was pretty bad, wouldn't you say and is quite logical they probably did a lot of immoral and other evil things?
Um... I'm happy to accept it as read that the inhabitants of Sodom were generally sinful... making assumptions about the exact typoes or severity of those sins, or even assuming that any or a majority of them were inherently sexual seems, to me, Biblically unsupported supposition.
Perhaps, but I am presenting my argument to show that homosexuality and gangrape were contributing reasons, but not the only reasons.
I still don't see any part that says that homosexuality was a contributing factor at all.
It is easy to interpret it that way because men wanted to have sex with men just before the city was burned to a crisp ;)
I mean, come on man! When I first read the bible and I came across to this chapter, it was shocking!!!! I couldn't believe that an actual attempted rape scene was depicted in the bible. It was shocking for me to see that.
I don't think it would have been any more shocking had it been an attempted heterosexual rape. But hey, for the sake of argument, lets agree that the homosexuality aspect makes this a death worthy sin... it STILL doesn't suggest that CONSENTUAL homosexual sex is.
Clearly, it would be more logical to deduce rape, but from how YHWH lays down the rules via two mediators, Moses and Jesus, it is clear it may have been both. From that bold episode in Sodom, who knows what else they may have done.
Where did Jesus mention homosexuality?
A classic liberal case presented by Trudeu, the prime minister of Canada; that is that politics stays out of the bedroom.
There is a case where homosexuality is harmful. Paul argues that those who partake in pornea harm themselves. The apostles argued that we are God's Temple and pornea defiles that it.
Rather a circular agrgument... homosexuality is pornea, pornea is bad, therefore homosexuality is bad... the obvious step that would sell me is missing./.. i.e. explicitly in what way is homosexuality harmful to those engaging in it? Conversely, again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and for the sake of argument, lets agree that homosexuality IS bad because it "defiles God's temple". So I can take it that you and others who subscribe to this point of view will spend as much time and energy condemning smoking, alcohol, classical ballet and professional athletics as you do condemning homosexuality?
 
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
36
Indiana
✟28,939.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Dr (and I use the term loosely) Schlessinger is not exactly the best example of consistent morality to look to for guidance. However, even though she is a self proclaimed orthodox Jew, the Leviticus 18.22 canard is quite often the first thing the anti-homosexual Christian will reach for when questioned about homosexuality, and I think the points raised about the other Levitical silliness that show how silly it is for "Dr. Laura" to cite Lev 18.22 without regard to context or contemporary ethics are equally applicable to Christians who make the same errors.

Nay, Christians are blessed with the NT which clearly makes the latter (at least most of them, I would have to go back over to be exact) okay.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Lighthorseman,

I appreciate you bringing up your views about Soddom. I was also shocked when the girl was raped in the book of Judges by the Benjamites. I just happened to be shocked more by the Sodom episode because I didn't expect to see that kind of scene in the bible and it was the first explicit one I came across. I actually started at genesis when I began reading the bible, rather than the gospels.


"homosexuality" may or may not be mentioned in the New Testament or by Jesus, but Jesus and the apostles also didn't use the word "beastiality" either. Hands down, beastiality was sexually immoral on moral grounds. Premarital sex was also hands down morally wrong. Clearly, the word used for such things was pornea.

Lighthorsemen, it would be logical to agree that this case is true: that beastiality is also not mentioned in the new testament. So you will have to agree with me that we can't just think of biblical terms from an English perspective, simply because, were talking about a greek text here. Now, the greek word for sexual immorality is pornea. When Jesus mentioned it, it would be safe to believe that it referred to a lot of sexual immoral things like premarital sex, foreplay before marriage such as [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]s, various other fornications, beastiality, incest (like father-daughter relationships for example or mother-son relationships). Can we agree on this, Lighthorse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeena
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.