On the sinfulness of the LGBT path.

[SilverBear]

The sinfulness of homosexual behavior is the topic of the thread. Is there some particular problem with agreeing with the word of God?

you called homosexuality an abomination....it isn't

 

[SilverBear]

ade


So you are saying at the 'beginning ' , God made homosexuals ,because that is the logic of what you are saying ?

how is what you are saying logical?

 

[SilverBear]

nouvreeginning

Difficult for Americans ,but humanity is intrinsically interdependant ,and the idea that we have at all times to right to do as we please is not only wrong but in the end will back fire one everyone .Since someone who is only concerned with their own feelings ,their own life lacks the light of the Spirit ,they cannot see the conséquences of their own actions .They are dependant on the heterosexual for their survival and the more enlightened ones realise that, and do not mock so much ,while the the activists who hate God wish like Lucifer to make creation in their own image .That ,after all is what he was thrown out of Heaven for .

All of Creation is interactive and our actions affect the health of all ,directly or indirectly .The room for manouver is in fact quite small ,and applies strictly to our private life .The problem here is the recognition of the promotion of a lifestyle, which includes making babies ,and imitating marriage .WE can never
accede to this ,as it is the ultimate Lie ,and those who are pushing it, know that , but not all people are fooled .

so people who cannot biologically reproduce shouldn't be allowed to marry?

 

[Phil 1:21]

you called homosexuality an abomination....it isn't

No, here is what I said. Do you agree or disagree with the bolded statement??

Except having blue eyes or being left handed are not abominations to God.

neither is being gay.

Engaging in homosexual intercourse is.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think it is sinful or harmful. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, but then again, I would make that statement about straight relationships as well.

 

[Rubricnigel]

There are many Christians who see the LGBT lifestyle as a natural aspect of life, and many who see it as a sin. Do you view it as sinful? Are there any reasons outside of the bible why you would view it as inherently a bad or good (or neutral) thing? Thanks!

Homosexuality is a sin in the bible.
Its perverse, and sterile.
Outside the bible, as in How could anyone put aside their presuppositions?

Its bad because its sterile, no life can come from it. Its putting sex above the act of life creation.

I read down a little ways where you have a gf who's a lesbian. If she feels no physical attraction to you, you need to figure out if your willing to be a doormat or not. Her telling you that was a red flag.
But thats your life and your free will choice. Id weigh the pro's and cons of them carefully, because sadly we dont have many days on earth and if you want a family, etc you need to act.

I cant as a Christian, tell you to be an enabler to her sinful ways, so i wont, but you have a huge decision to make.

Pray seek guidance from your priest.

 

[SilverBear]

Homosexuality is a sin in the bible.

so is having a tattoo.

Its perverse, and sterile.
Outside the bible, as in How could anyone put aside their presuppositions?

Its bad because its sterile, no life can come from it. Its putting sex above the act of life creation.

just like a whole lot of heterosexual couples

 

[Rubricnigel]

so is having a tattoo.

just like a whole lot of heterosexual couples

Tattoos are, and your point is?

You cant equate heterosexual couples who cant conceive a child because of an medical issue, etc with 2 men or 2 women where its PHYSICALLY impossible to.
It doesn't work like that, ones possible naturally unless there is a medical issue or they choose not to, and ones impossible since the beginning of time because God chose to make it sterile.
Natural vs unnatural if you will.

 

[Kylie]

Its bad because its sterile, no life can come from it. Its putting sex above the act of life creation.

You say this like the only purpose of sex is to create children.

I am incapable of having another child. Am I allowed to continue having sex with my husband? If yes, why am I allowed to, considering that "no life can come from it"?

 

[Rubricnigel]

You say this like the only purpose of sex is to create children.

I am incapable of having another child. Am I allowed to continue having sex with my husband? If yes, why am I allowed to, considering that "no life can come from it"?

You HAVE HAD a child, you cant now but under certain circumstances you DID.
That's NATURAL.

Im talking about UNNATURAL sex, where its PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to conceive a child.

Sex is between a man and a women. Its used to create the next generation, even if a women cant, or a man cant, its NATURAL still.
While the other option is ALWAYS sterile, ALWAYS will be forever.

See my point?

 

[Kylie]

You HAVE HAD a child, you cant now but under certain circumstances you DID.
That's NATURAL.

Im talking about UNNATURAL sex, where its PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to conceive a child.

Sex is between a man and a women. Its used to create the next generation, even if a women cant, or a man cant, its NATURAL still.
While the other option is ALWAYS sterile, ALWAYS will be forever.

See my point?

It is physically impossible for me to have a child now. I don't see why it is different in my case.

And what about people who have always been sterile? The procreation argument is incredibly weak.

 

[Belk]

You HAVE HAD a child, you cant now but under certain circumstances you DID.
That's NATURAL.

Im talking about UNNATURAL sex, where its PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to conceive a child.

It is physically impossible for me and my wife to convenience a child. It is physically impossible for me to conceive a child with anyone.

Sex is between a man and a women. Its used to create the next generation, even if a women cant, or a man cant, its NATURAL still.
While the other option is ALWAYS sterile, ALWAYS will be forever.

See my point?

No I do not see your point. I fail to see a non arbitrary distinction between myself and a homosexual couple.

 

[FireDragon76]

The back and forth about what is natural and unnatural just shows that the traditional Christian ideas about sexuality emerged at a time when human beings in general were ignorant about how human reproduction actually takes place. This is why, for instance, some of the fathers equate masturbation with murder.

 

[SilverBear]

Tattoos are, and your point is?

Don't see you going around calling people with tattoo perverse and disgusting names. Why not?

What about wearing poly cotton blend clothes? That is a a sin too. Do you go around calling people who wear polo shirts perverts?

You cant equate heterosexual couples who cant conceive a child because of an medical issue, etc with 2 men or 2 women where its PHYSICALLY impossible to.

Of course you can. Couple A can't conceive a child because of a biological condition. Couple B can't conceive a child because of a biological condition.
Both are sterile and according to you must also be perverse

It doesn't work like that, ones possible naturally unless there is a medical issue or they choose not to, and ones impossible since the beginning of time because God chose to make it sterile.
Natural vs unnatural if you will.

and here is a fine example of the logical fallacy Special Pleading. You want to attack and condemn people because they can't have children, BUT you want the condition of not being able to have children to be a justification for prejudice only in the people you want to attack and condemn.

 

[Rubricnigel]

Don't see you going around calling people with tattoo perverse and disgusting names. Why not?

What about wearing poly cotton blend clothes? That is a a sin too. Do you go around calling people who wear polo shirts perverts?


Of course you can. Couple A can't conceive a child because of a biological condition. Couple B can't conceive a child because of a biological condition.
Both are sterile and according to you must also be perverse

and here is a fine example of the logical fallacy Special Pleading. You want to attack and condemn people because they can't have children, BUT you want the condition of not being able to have children to be a justification for prejudice only in the people you want to attack and condemn.

Wrong.

A man and women can have kids.
A man and man cant.
A women and women cant.
Thats so simple to see, a man and women by the powers given by GOD can conceive a child. 2 men cant, 2 women cant.
You simply saying 2 men/2 women, can't because of a biological condition is being obtuse.

 

[SilverBear]

Wrong.

A man and women can have kids.

unless they can't

A man and man cant.
A women and women cant.
Thats so simple to see, a man and women by the powers given by GOD can conceive a child. 2 men cant, 2 women cant.
You simply saying 2 men/2 women, can't because of a biological condition is being obtuse.

the biological condition is their gender.


again you are engaging in special pleading. you want to apply an arbitrary rule: infertile = perversion without any justification for this outside of your own personal prejudice and you further want to create an exception to your rule to be applied to a specific case, without any justification of why there should be an exemption.

 

[loveofourlord]

Wrong.

A man and women can have kids.
A man and man cant.
A women and women cant.
Thats so simple to see, a man and women by the powers given by GOD can conceive a child. 2 men cant, 2 women cant.
You simply saying 2 men/2 women, can't because of a biological condition is being obtuse.

And? It's not like we don't already have a population problem on the planet, and we are beyond animalistic needs of just must have kids.

 

[Robert65]

There are many Christians who see the LGBT lifestyle as a natural aspect of life, and many who see it as a sin. Do you view it as sinful? Are there any reasons outside of the bible why you would view it as inherently a bad or good (or neutral) thing? Thanks!

I have seen no evidence that the LGBT is harmful in and of itself. We are all a slave to our biology including neurobiology. If God does not like gays then He should not have created them... assuming the possibility that a God even exists.

 

[Kylie]

The back and forth about what is natural and unnatural just shows that the traditional Christian ideas about sexuality emerged at a time when human beings in general were ignorant about how human reproduction actually takes place. This is why, for instance, some of the fathers equate masturbation with murder.

*nods*

They used to think that the father shot little miniature people into the mother, and the mother served as an incubator only. They never realised that the mother contributed half the child's genetic material as well.

 

[Kylie]

Wrong.

A man and women can have kids.
A man and man cant.
A women and women cant.
Thats so simple to see, a man and women by the powers given by GOD can conceive a child. 2 men cant, 2 women cant.
You simply saying 2 men/2 women, can't because of a biological condition is being obtuse.

What about two women and a man? https://www.gaystarnews.com/article...iological-mothers-one-father-born/#gs.S57Dtbw