Homosexuality

[Gusoceros]

Really? says who? Where does God say that Paul's writings carry the weight of scripture?

Because- that is what the Bible is- Scripture. This is what it means to be an Apostle- that you represent Christ in these matters.

G

 

[Gusoceros]

Haven't read the whole thread.

But if homosexual behavior is unnatural, why is it found so much in nature ?

Animals eat their dung, and kill their young- they arent role models for humans, nor do they represent the natural model as it applies to humans.

humans != animals

G

 

[pgp_protector]

Animals eat their dung, and kill their young- they arent role models for humans, nor do they represent the natural model as it applies to humans.

humans != animals

G

Then how do we define it as unnatural ?

 

[Gusoceros]

I don't see any of these attributes of marriage as out of reach of my partner and I.

Perhaps you should read the post I made- it explains why same sex couples, and married couples are different. Surely, you are not suggesting they are the same??

Bigoted.nonsensenonsense, plus if your "homosexuality=bad because they can't procreate" argument is to have any merrit, I would expect you to make similar statements about the sin of infertile couples, or couple who choose not to have children

Homosexuality isnt "bad" because they cant procreate- that is how same sex couples are different. The homosexual act is bad, because it is a sin.

Infertile couples do not change the design of married couples- nor do they define what is or is not a married couple. Neither do they change that married couples - by design- can procreate.

G

 

[Gusoceros]

Then how do we define it as unnatural ?

I dont understand the confusion- do you mean that you believe that what is natural, is defined by how animals act?

 

[MercuryAndy]

Animals eat their dung, and kill their young- they arent role models for humans, nor do they represent the natural model as it applies to humans.

humans != animals

G

dont knock it till you have tried it.

 

[Nadiine]

Then how do we define it as unnatural ?

I don't understand why anyone calls humans "animals"? I dont' think God who created us considers His children "animals".... :o

The BIBLE calls the acts unnatural - therefore, GOD considers them such. We can sit & reason things out like we're "animals" so nothing an animal does is 'unnatural' for a human either -- but I can assure you that I don't go around sniffing the backsides of people I meet or relieving myself in public.

 

[MercuryAndy]

I don't understand why anyone calls humans "animals"? I dont' think God who created us considers His children "animals".... :o

The BIBLE calls the acts unnatural - therefore, GOD considers them such. We can sit & reason things out like we're "animals" so nothing an animal does is 'unnatural' for a human either -- but I can assure you that I don't go around sniffing the backsides of people I meet or relieving myself in public.

Dont mess with the doggies!

 

[pgp_protector]

Let me explain something.

1) I believe that Homosexual ACTS are wrong as according to the Bible
2) I don't agree that using the arguments that it's natural / unnatural work, as it can't be proven unnatural.
3) I also see other sins as wrong, but don't understand why homosexuality is so big on so many* Christians list, while ignoring the sins that are more common.


*I say so many, as this is a reoccurring topic on the forums.

 

[pgp_protector]

Another argument against using it's natural / unnatural is that heterosexual acts would be considered natural, but it's still a sin outside of marriage.

 

[MercuryAndy]

Let me explain something.

1) I believe that Homosexual ACTS are wrong as according to the Bible
2) I don't agree that using the arguments that it's natural / unnatural work, as it can't be proven unnatural.
3) I also see other sins as wrong, but don't understand why homosexuality is so big on so many* Christians list, while ignoring the sins that are more common.


*I say so many, as this is a reoccurring topic on the forums.

beacuse people can make money from other sins so they arnt realy sins.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Because- that is what the Bible is- Scripture. This is what it means to be an Apostle- that you represent Christ in these matters.

The Bible is Scripture... um, well, I take issue with whether or not Paul belongs in the Bible. You know that the final decision about what texts went into the final compilation we today call the Bible was made by men, don't you? Its not as though Jesus said "these books are the Bible, and are the direct word of God"... not to mention... Paul wasn't an Apostle, and the writings of ACTUAL Apostles, like, Thomas, for example, didn't actually make it into the final cut?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Perhaps you should read the post I made- it explains why same sex couples, and married couples are different. Surely, you are not suggesting they are the same??

Yes, that is PRECISELY what I am suggesting.

Neither do they change that married couples - by design- can procreate.

Then neither do homosexual couples.

 

[angelmom01]

So God never lumps man and beast together?

And man is not a "beast"?

Isn't the number of the beast the number of a MAN?

Christ referred to the Gentiles a "dogs". We are told not to cast our pearls before "swine". And in Job man is refered to as a "worm".

Man has no preeminence over a beast. :o

Ecc 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

angelmom

 

[Gusoceros]

Question for Gusoceros: This model you describe, has it ever been denied you? That is, has there ever been a significant amount of time in your life where you believed--rightly or wrongly, because of your own beliefs or because somebody else pushed theirs on you--that you would never be able to take part in a family as you have described it?

Because you were infertile, or removed from your parents' home for some reason, etc..
Have you ever simply not had the option of taking part in even the concept of "family"?

Not really. Still- exceptions do not define the rule- that is, the difference between married couples, and same sex couples. There are differences, as I have stated.

G

 

[Gusoceros]

The Bible is Scripture... um, well, I take issue with whether or not Paul belongs in the Bible. You know that the final decision about what texts went into the final compilation we today call the Bible was made by men, don't you? Its not as though Jesus said "these books are the Bible, and are the direct word of God"... not to mention... Paul wasn't an Apostle, and the writings of ACTUAL Apostles, like, Thomas, for example, didn't actually make it into the final cut?

Perhaps you could write your own Bible- call it the EnemyParty Version of Biblical relevance.

You can take as much issue with the Bible as you want to- it doesnt change what it is, or what it says. At the end of the day- you need to decide if you will accept God's Word, or if you will cherry pick it to fit your lifestyle.

G

 

[Myriah]

So God never lumps man and beast together?

And man is not a "beast"?

Isn't the number of the beast the number of a MAN?

Christ referred to the Gentiles a "dogs". We are told not to cast our pearls before "swine". And in Job man is refered to as a "worm".

Man has no preeminence over a beast. :o

Ecc 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

angelmom

Actually, the sons of men in the OT were thought to be sons of demon angels (fallen angels). The sons of men are different than the sons of God in the NT.

Anyhow, your other ones were funny.

Job is a worm.

 

[Gusoceros]

Yes, that is PRECISELY what I am suggesting.

Then neither do homosexual couples.

Perhaps you have a much different understanding of biology than I have- I still seem to think, that in order to procreate, you need opposite sexes. Isnt that the way you understand it?

 

[pgp_protector]

Actually, the sons of men in the OT were thought to be sons of demon angels (fallen angels). The sons of men are different than the sons of God in the NT.

Anyhow, your other ones were funny.

Job is a worm.

Well I've heard that some women tend to call men dogs

 

[Gusoceros]

So God never lumps man and beast together?

And man is not a "beast"?

Isn't the number of the beast the number of a MAN?

Christ referred to the Gentiles a "dogs". We are told not to cast our pearls before "swine". And in Job man is refered to as a "worm".

Man has no preeminence over a beast. :o

Ecc 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

angelmom

Are you suggesting that we should take our natural cues from animals?