Pope: Saving world from homosexuality like saving rainforests

[OphidiaPhile]

You have yet to show me where He condones homosexuality at all, so I will assume that He does not because I have never seen anything like that in the Bible and you fail to show me where.

I do not read the bible as it means nothing to me as a book and even less as a way to live, all I know are the passages that I have seen on here and none of those have been anything but extremely vague.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Do you plan on getting married, and if so, for what reason?

No.

Then why do you care what the legal definition of marry is?

 

[angellica]

Then why do you care what the legal definition of marry is?

I may get married later on, but not right now.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I may get married later on, but not right now.

You were asked if you EVER plan on getting married and why.

 

[angellica]

I do not read the bible as it means nothing to me as a book and even less as a way to live, all I know are the passages that I have seen on here and none of those have been anything but extremely vague.

So you don't even know the context of those passages, much less anything else about what the Bible says. That's like me reading one sentence of a survey and then making claims about the findings of it.

 

[angellica]

You were asked if you EVER plan on getting married and why.

Then I guess the answer is I don't know.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

The benefits are based on the fact that heterosexual couples can, in general, procreate without outside assistance. Homosexuals can NEVER procreate on their own. Then why not ban marriages where they don't have kids, you ask. Because that would be too hard to weed out all those marriages. The fact remains that homosexual couples can't reproduce. That's the foundation of the family, marriage, the benefits for a family.

So reproduction means you are elligible for an entitlement program?

No way! You do not deserve special rights. ANd we will fight to make sure we either have equal rights, or you will have your special rights removed.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

So you don't even know the context of those passages, much less anything else about what the Bible says. That's like me reading one sentence of a survey and then making claims about the findings of it.

You are the one using the bible to justify your stance so the onus is on you to state which passage or passages are relevant to said stance.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

And yet He does speak of heterosexual relationships, giving guidelines and such. Why does He not speak of homosexual relationships except when He condemns that behaviour?

He does not condemn the behavior. Are you not comprehending?

 

[angellica]

You are the one using the bible to justify your stance so the onus is on you to state which passage or passages are relevant to said stance.

The onus is on whoever said I was in error when I said the Bible does not condone homosexuality. No one has yet shown me anywhere that the Bible condones such behaviour.

 

[bsd13]

You are the one using the bible to justify your stance so the onus is on you to state which passage or passages are relevant to said stance.

Without knowing what the Bible says and the context it is used in you can't determine if a persons stance is valid or not.

 

[Nihilismus]

Any stance based on scripture is invalid in terms of U.S. legislation.

 

[angellica]

He does not condemn the behavior. Are you not comprehending?

Romans 1:24-28

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."

 

[Garyzenuf]

You are using the Bible as a basis to deny someone rights. That is contrary to your country's constitution.

Give em time, they'll figure that out.

*

 

[SiderealExalt]

Any stance based on scripture is invalid in terms of U.S. legislation.

This.

And I could care less about a book that also says shellfish is naughty.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Romans 1:24-28

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."

And when we read the verse above that it explains:
Romans 1:21-23
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

Paul is obviously talking about Christians ("for although they knew God") and what did they do? They exchanged God for: "images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." Therefore He allowed those Christians to participate in Roman Sex Rites - which often involved sex acts between people of the same gender.

Speaking of not looking at things in context...

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Romans 1:24-28

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."

This passage has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with faithful, monogamous gay relationships.

Context, darlin'. Context!

 

[angellica]

This.

And I could care less about a book that also says shellfish is naughty.

Come back when you've read it and understand the types of laws mentioned and which ones were specific to certain tribes or were ceremonial for a particular group of people. Your opinion about the book is invalid when you haven't read it and don't understand the context or history behind it.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I do not read the bible as it means nothing to me as a book and even less as a way to live,

Fair enough, for you.

all I know are the passages that I have seen on here and none of those have been anything but extremely vague.

Vague? "Extremely vague?"

Not even close pal. If you can understand sentence structure in a Mad Magazine, you can see the plain reality of this :

Matthew 19

"Haven't you read," Jesus replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?

So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

And what is He (Jesus) talking about? He is referencing Genesis, not just arguing with political appointees.

It was about something that divorce breaks apart. That would be a MARRIAGE.

A MARRIAGE consisting of a man and a woman. The ONLY form of "marriage" there is.

That is what we call "in context," when we read Bible stuff. And here it is further . . .

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

That's just about as unvague as it gets. And most certainly, absolutely, UN "extremely vague."

This Pope is just saying what a Christian only can say about "marriage." You may think the Bible is worthless, but you should be honest about what it does describe in detail.

What is EXTREMELY vague, to the point of impossiblilty to be established, . . . is gay theology.

The next major issue of contention next for the historic Christian Church, is dealing with this so-called Gay and Lesbian Christian movement.


----- We need to pray for The Church like never before.

 

[angellica]

This passage has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with faithful, monogamous gay relationships.

Context, darlin'. Context!

If it was okay to be homosexual with ONE person, it would say so. It doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible that being gay is okay if you're only gay with one person. And I am not your darlin' so don't talk down to me with terms like that. I find it patronizing.