Polycarp_fan
Well-Known Member
Yes, STD represent new word groupings, but not used to decieve the meanings of them.
Two wrongs make a wrong, no matter the person's sexual proclivity.
OK:
Upvote
0
-
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.
- Status
Yes, STD represent new word groupings, but not used to decieve the meanings of them.
Two wrongs make a wrong, no matter the person's sexual proclivity.
OK:
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Um... yeah... quoting Corinthians doesn't really make your case... I want an explanation of what, precisely, about consentual homosexuality is inherently sinful... you are working from the assumption that it already has been shown so.
Corinthians tells us the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Adulterers, murderers, thieves, fraudsters... them I all see why they are considered unrighteous. Their actions can clearly be shown to harm other, non consenting people who have a reasonable expectation not to be harmed by them.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is different. It does not cause harm to other, non consenting individuals, so, where is the harm?
And if there is no harm, what's unrighteous about it?
(This is me working of the theory that ALL of God's laws are about helping people to get alon and love one another, and live in harmony. Just saying "The Bible SEZ!" does not, in itself, constitute a complete argument. Now, as always, I am open to persuasion and reasoned discussion. It is more than possible that you can explain to me a completely secular, logical reason to consider homosexuality "wrong", in which case, I shall renounce it at once. Uncomentated, misapplied Bible quotes aren't going to do it though)
Corinthians tells us the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Adulterers, murderers, thieves, fraudsters... them I all see why they are considered unrighteous. Their actions can clearly be shown to harm other, non consenting people who have a reasonable expectation not to be harmed by them.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is different. It does not cause harm to other, non consenting individuals, so, where is the harm?
And if there is no harm, what's unrighteous about it?
(This is me working of the theory that ALL of God's laws are about helping people to get alon and love one another, and live in harmony. Just saying "The Bible SEZ!" does not, in itself, constitute a complete argument. Now, as always, I am open to persuasion and reasoned discussion. It is more than possible that you can explain to me a completely secular, logical reason to consider homosexuality "wrong", in which case, I shall renounce it at once. Uncomentated, misapplied Bible quotes aren't going to do it though)
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
I do. If its misuse of the sexual reproductive organs, if animals do its also against nature for animals. Nature has physically given each and every human, by default, male or female reproductive organs. What humans do with them is either functional or dysfunctional. If its use is dysfunctional it is against nature. I would reject the idea that what is nature is merely acting on desires, otherwise all kinds of sexual perversions would be natural and according to nature.
Why don’t you think it means what I have described?
I do. If its misuse of the sexual reproductive organs, if animals do its also against nature for animals. Nature has physically given each and every human, by default, male or female reproductive organs. What humans do with them is either functional or dysfunctional. If its use is dysfunctional it is against nature. I would reject the idea that what is nature is merely acting on desires, otherwise all kinds of sexual perversions would be natural and according to nature.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
May I?
Actually I wouldn’t give it, 1 Corinthians is just one Bible verse that we offer as the reason homosexual unions are sinful, because those who live by them it says will not inherit the Kingdom. We cant tell you what you don’t believe and wont accept.
But, having presented what we go by as the truth, now its up to you to present what you go by.
At present some who support homosexual unions seem intent on grilling those
Who cite the Bible unwilling to accept the Bible says what it says, and unwilling to ether accept whatever evidence is given or offer any to support their case themselves.
My position, that of many more millions of Christians than gays and lesbians is the God made woman to be united with man, (Genesis 2, Matt 19, Mark 7, Eph 5,) so excluding homosexual unions, along with celibacy as the only alternative (Matt 19, 1 Corinthians 7) and homosexual unions as specifically condemned (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, Judges 19, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1)
None of the objections to these passages convince me.
The passages of David and Jonathan are no less in OT covenant than the Leviticus passages the objectors reject as OT. Yet they seem happy to offer the David and Jonathan story regardless, and even seemingly oblivious to the fact that wouldn’t have been the monogamous union they propose. If we want to see if David had sex with anyone we can see he had sex with women and married.
That the Centurion whose ‘pais’ servant might have been in a sexual relationship with him, doesn’t mean that just because Jesus heals someone He condones their sin. It is a guess, and the centurion was a soldier employed to fight and kill, one has to logically assume Jesus is condoning killing way before we can guess He is condoning homosexual practice. I cant accept that at all.
So its at least 15-1 obvious that homosexual unions are not acceptable to God.
Any more to bolster the 1 ?
May I?
Actually I wouldn’t give it, 1 Corinthians is just one Bible verse that we offer as the reason homosexual unions are sinful, because those who live by them it says will not inherit the Kingdom. We cant tell you what you don’t believe and wont accept.
But, having presented what we go by as the truth, now its up to you to present what you go by.
At present some who support homosexual unions seem intent on grilling those
Who cite the Bible unwilling to accept the Bible says what it says, and unwilling to ether accept whatever evidence is given or offer any to support their case themselves.
My position, that of many more millions of Christians than gays and lesbians is the God made woman to be united with man, (Genesis 2, Matt 19, Mark 7, Eph 5,) so excluding homosexual unions, along with celibacy as the only alternative (Matt 19, 1 Corinthians 7) and homosexual unions as specifically condemned (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, Judges 19, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1)
None of the objections to these passages convince me.
The passages of David and Jonathan are no less in OT covenant than the Leviticus passages the objectors reject as OT. Yet they seem happy to offer the David and Jonathan story regardless, and even seemingly oblivious to the fact that wouldn’t have been the monogamous union they propose. If we want to see if David had sex with anyone we can see he had sex with women and married.
That the Centurion whose ‘pais’ servant might have been in a sexual relationship with him, doesn’t mean that just because Jesus heals someone He condones their sin. It is a guess, and the centurion was a soldier employed to fight and kill, one has to logically assume Jesus is condoning killing way before we can guess He is condoning homosexual practice. I cant accept that at all.
So its at least 15-1 obvious that homosexual unions are not acceptable to God.
Any more to bolster the 1 ?
Upvote
0
Hmmm... I'm learning some interesting things in these forums:
Bats are birds.
Some of the natural activities of certain animals are unnatural.
Gay theology arose owing to witchcraft.
Human females lay eggs.
Darwinists are responsible for racism.
Atheists have no morals.
Homosexuals are responsible for STDs.
It seems that the universe I inhabit is very different from the one inhabited by BrightMorningStar and Polycarp_Fan. In my universe, words retain their meanings from one end of a sentence to another, Aristotelian logic applies, and facts are facts. I begin to believe that it is actually not possible to argue with people like BMS and PCF. Their world views are so totally different from my own.
WiccanChild, EnemyPartyII and HaloHope, I applaud everything you've said in your last posts -- I think you're very brave to try to argue with people whose understanding of reality is so completely bizarre.
Bats are birds.
Some of the natural activities of certain animals are unnatural.
Gay theology arose owing to witchcraft.
Human females lay eggs.
Darwinists are responsible for racism.
Atheists have no morals.
Homosexuals are responsible for STDs.
It seems that the universe I inhabit is very different from the one inhabited by BrightMorningStar and Polycarp_Fan. In my universe, words retain their meanings from one end of a sentence to another, Aristotelian logic applies, and facts are facts. I begin to believe that it is actually not possible to argue with people like BMS and PCF. Their world views are so totally different from my own.
WiccanChild, EnemyPartyII and HaloHope, I applaud everything you've said in your last posts -- I think you're very brave to try to argue with people whose understanding of reality is so completely bizarre.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To Andreusz,
But all this is just opinion of the posters views again, not really the reasoning why we belev what we believe.
If the activities of animals are not natural they must be unnatural J You haven’t really said anything here. I have explained that. If the male sex organ is used dysfunctionally in a male it is unnatural. Consequently same sex desires are also unnatural.
I agree in the sense that all things contrary to God is witchcraft.
I don’t think anyone has said that except you, I think what was said is that the human female has an egg whichis fertlised by the human male… though mostly not by homosexuals it would seem.
They are, just as heterosexuals are.
It does doesn’t it. But I follow Jesus Christ’s teaching, who said His Kingdom is not of this world.
But all this is just opinion of the posters views again, not really the reasoning why we belev what we believe.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
It simply never occured to you that homosexual use of said sexual organs is JUST as natural and functional as heterosexual ones, did it?
Yet the male rectum has orgasmic nerve cells in the rectum, and the female [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is located externally for ease of manual stimulation. Coincidence?
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Apparently you may not. I ask for a NON Biblical, purely logical reason to consider homosexuality wrong, and all I get is a mouthful of "The Bible SEZ!" I told you the verse I base my idea of morality on, Jesus, Sermon on the mount. John 13. Check it out.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
It occurs to me it isn’t and is wrong thinking for the reasons I have laid out.
Irrelevant as you can see from what I said. Besides an animal could insert its penis in the rectum of a man and give him an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], so no not natural.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
TO EnemyPartyII
As to a purely logical, non Biblical reason I have given it. It is based on the physical biological function and not whatever desires people have. I have given it.
Well my contention is Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and believe the Bible so I think you need to accept that we show and argue that homosexual practice is wrong from the benchmark of the Bible which we believe is the truth and God’s word.
As to a purely logical, non Biblical reason I have given it. It is based on the physical biological function and not whatever desires people have. I have given it.
Upvote
0
Technocrat2010
Relax - it's the Cross of St. Peter
Opposite of a naturalistic fallacy?
The naturalistic fallacy claims that what is natural is good, and what is unnatural is evil. Since you are claiming that your view is contrary to the naturalistic fallacy, you would be essentially arguing that what is natural is evil and what is unnatural is good. Are you sure you want to stick with that view?
The naturalistic fallacy is essentially a derivative of the is-ought problem. You can claim that heterosexual intercourse is inherently good and therefore the only proper way of conducting sexual acts, but if you use the fact that the majority of humanity is heterosexual, combined with the observation that human reproduction occurs through heterosexual acts, then you are guilty of committing the fallacy, since you are conflating what "is" (the observations that I mentioned earlier) with what you think "ought" to be (the claim that heterosexual sex is the only proper way of conducting sexual intercourse).
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To Technocrat2010
My claim is that homosexual practice is not natural or good.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
a. Homosexuality serves perfectly appropriate physical biological functions
b. Yes, Christians DO follow Christ... however, Christ never said anything about homosexuality, and all his teachings about accepting one another and loving our neighbours suggests to me that he's OK with homosexuality.
No. Believing the Bible is the literal word of God or inerrant, or any of that mumbo jumbo is NOT a prerequisite of Christianity. Check your Nicene Creed. Biblical inerrancy is never mentioned
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Yet other than "The Bible SEZ!" you seem to have difficulty supporting your claim
Upvote
0
Polycarp_fan
Well-Known Member
Apostolic testimony is reality. There is not one place anywhere in scripture where gay sex is promoted, encouraged or supported. Where it is mentioned, it is opposed. Being correct and consistent is not a hate crime.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Your interpretation anyway. I don't recall any of the apostles ever directly mentioning it. But hey.
But my question stands... ASIDE from a subjective Biblical interpretation, is there any reason to consider mutually consentual homosexual relationships harmful or wrong?
Upvote
0
Technocrat2010
Relax - it's the Cross of St. Peter
That's all fine and dandy, but what I am contesting is that you are using a naturalistic fallacy to back up your claim. If you make a claim, it's pointless unless you can back it up. Using a naturalistic fallacy is not a way to back up a claim. In other words... find something other than a naturalistic fallacy that you can use to back up your claim.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
