Scriptures Don't Support Gay Arguments

[MercyBurst]

I brought up a subtle point that completely unravels all the gay arguments about temple prostitutions, rape, etc, etc. These arguments are used as a so-called defense to the gay lifestyle.

The counterpoints begin by conceding to their points: that God condemns gay sex ONLY when it is rape or temple prostitution (Fundies disagree but let's give gays the benefit).

Why doesn't God SPECIFICALLY condemn male-on-female sex to the DEATH PENALTY under the SAME CIRCUMSTANCES?

According to the Old Testament of Bible, these are the offenses which may have merited the death penalty for those living under the Jewish covenant and the Mosaic law.

1. Murder (Exodus 21:12, Exodus 21:15)
2. Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
3. Disobedience to parents (Exodus 21:17, Deuteronomy 21:18)
4. Juvenile delinquency - incorrigibility (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
5. Bestiality (Leviticus 20:15)
6. Violations of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15)
7. Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
8. Abominations (Leviticus 20:2)
9. Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16)
10. Incest (Leviticus 20:11)
11. Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)
12. Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
13. False prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:5)
14. Worshipping a false god (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
15. Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20)
16. Sodomy (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13)
17. Sex with a woman betrothed to another (Deuteronomy 22:25)
18. False witness in a capital crime (Deuteronomy 19:16-20)
19. Fornication by daughters of priests (Leviticus 21:9)
20. Failure to abide by a decision of the High Court (Deuteronomy 17:12)
21. Unchastity (Deuteronomy 22:21-24)
22. Cursing someone (Leviticus 24:14)
23. Negligence resulting in death (Exodus 21:29)

It is clear from the reading that male-on-male sex is in the list. As I will show, the circumstances are irrelevant whether it's rape, temple prostitution, whatever.

There is nothing in the list of capital offenses regarding prawns, mixed fabrics, etc.

FACT #1: God does not SPECIFICALLY condemn male-on-female sex WITH A DEATH PENALTY, except where adultery or certain types of unchastity are involved, as the list shows.

HOWEVER, we read that two men having sex get the death penalty according to Lev 18 and 20:

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Under the same circumstances, male-on-female sex is not a capital offense.

So it really doesn't matter if temple prostitution is involved or not, because male-on-male sex gets the death sentence EXCLUSIVELY, and not male-on-female sex UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. There is a difference.

FACT #2: The new testament affirms this positition that homosexuality is a lifestyle of rebellion against God. It is a terrible state of human depravity:

Romans Chapter 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
pleasure Psa 10:3, 1st Cor 13:6

Here the gay-affirmers tell us that temple orgies are involved. OK then, let's just concede to that point (though we disagree).

Question: Why did the temple orgies lead to gay sex EXCLUSIVELY? It must be the ULTIMATE DEPRAVITY THEN. When people get depraved, look what they do, and ALL the sex is homosexual in this bible passage.

We see male-on-female sex was abandoned -- and gay sex became the universal standard of behavior for the ultimately depraved. It's only gay sex that we see here in these verses -- it's a TOTALLY GAY AFFAIR.

vs 27 proves to us scripturally that sexual orientation can change from hetero to homo when human depravity reaches the bottom:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

At the bottom of the pit of human depravity, GAY SEX IS THERE.

FACT #3: Rape is not condemned in the bible with a death penalty UNLESS marriage vows are violated. The "angel rape' argument is commonly used by gays to defend the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

God's law has always existed. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed UNDER THE LAW. The law does not condemn rape or inhospitality with the death sentence. So a verse in Ezekial (about inhospitality in Sodom and not caring for the poor) and the "angel rape argument" are irrelevant to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which God already planned before the angels even showed up there.

rev1:

Listen to Jude 1:7

7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Note that the angels ONLY went to Sodom (where the so-called attempted angel-rape incidence occurred), but Gomorrah and the surrounding towns were destroyed as well. Gomorrah and the surrounding towns did not try to rape any angels, but they were destroyed just the same. Hence, it is quite obvious that "angel-rape" did not cause their destruction, rather it was sexual immorality and perversion as Jude 1 tells us clearly.

Also note that the souls from Sodom, Gomorrah, and surrounding towns are burning eternally as an example. That means they are burning even today. Yet some Christians claim that it's ok to be gay now since the times have changed. Oh Really? When did God put out the fire in hell?

FACT #4: Ist Corinthians 6 SPECIFICALLY condemns male-on-male prostitution as unworthy for the kingdom of heaven, but female prostitution is NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT under THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES:

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The translation of the words "homosexual offenders" as so-called "prostitutes" is not really relevant to the point -- because ALL fornication is prostitution. This includes gay sex.

None of it is acceptible christian conduct. But we see that the male-on-male sex gets the NOTORIOUS WORDS OF CONDEMNATION. Call it prostitution if you want -- but that is totally irrelevant. The fact is male-on-female prostitution is NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT as THE EXAMPLE of UNGODLINESS, whereas MALE-ON-MALE sex receive the worst words of condemnation.

FACT #5: Sodom is a spiritual depravity that threatens the church body. Those that preach this lascivious doctrine -- that gay beghaviour is righteous -- they are FALSE PROPHETS. Listen to Jude 1:

3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Our Savior says, By their fruits ye shall know them.

Please don't join the parade of the damned.

As a christian how can anyone encourage another to destruction?

Please do as the bible asks us and contend for the faith that was first given to us.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

 

[ReformedChapin]

*Goes gay supporter*

The bible is WRONG so who cares what it says.

 

[MercyBurst]

*Goes gay supporter*

The bible is WRONG so who cares what it says.

If they can't pollute the scriptures then renounce the scriptures. Yeah I get the drift.

Why don't they translate their own bible from cover-to-cover? I guess the whiners aren't really serious in following through with their so-called "interpretation of truth."

 

[MercyBurst]

It must be a slam DUNK.

 

[Miracle Storm]

Nice OP MercyBurst!

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Repeat thread would probably be the reason no one is bothering MercyBurst.

Honestly why can't anyone come up with an ORIGINAL thread idea. There's more to the homosexual/Christian controversy than right and wrong you know.

 

[davedjy]

FACT: Sodom and Gomorrah are not an example of homosexuality as one's innate sexual constitution!

FACT: The only reference to the sin of Sodom is this verse right here:

Ezekiel 16:49,50 says, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen" (NIV).


Leviticus...AGAIN, is a ritual/idolatry violation, and nothing more. Abomination = tow'ebah = ritual/ceremonial impurity.

 

[MercyBurst]

FACT: Sodom and Gomorrah are not an example of homosexuality as one's innate sexual constitution!

I never said it was. Read Fact #2. These people were hetero and changed to homo, proving that innate constitution is an irrelevant argument.

FACT: The only reference to the sin of Sodom is this verse right here:

Ezekiel 16:49,50 says, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen" (NIV).

Verse 50 says they commited tow`ebah. That's the only one that is worthy of the death sentence under the law.

Leviticus...AGAIN, is a ritual/idolatry violation, and nothing more. Abomination = tow'ebah = ritual/ceremonial impurity.

AGAIN, why are they EXCLUSIVELY GAY?

Male-on-female sex UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES does NOT receive the DEATH penalty. Why not?

ALL gay SEX is temple prostitution along with ALL fornication. Read Romans 1. Also:

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

I Thes 4:

2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
fornication 1st Cor 6:13
4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
vessel Rom 1:24, 1st Cor 6:18
5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

(a) "concupiscence" = covetous desire
Strongs #1939 epithumia - a longing (especially for what is forbidden).

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]FACT: Sodom and Gomorrah are not an example of homosexuality as one's innate sexual constitution!

FACT: The only reference to the sin of Sodom is this verse right here:

Ezekiel 16:49,50 says, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen" (NIV).

Leviticus...AGAIN, is a ritual/idolatry violation, and nothing more. Abomination = tow'ebah = ritual/ceremonial impurity[/SIZE]..

FACT: There are NO, ZERO, NONE, NADA facts in the great majority of dave's posts. Only cut/paste emesis from homosexual websites, which in turn have NO, ZERO, NONE credible evidence for any of the nonsense posted.

FACT: dave, who could not locate a Hebrew verb if his life depended on it, claims to know more about the Hebrew scriptures than ALL the Hebrew scholars since the time of Moses.

And OBTW as one of my Hebrew professors said, "Locate the verb does not mean open a Hebrew OT, point and say, 'Here it is!'"

Here is what REAL, qualified, educated Jewish scholars say.

From the time of Moses, ca. 1200 BC, the Talmudic scholars interpreted the scriptures as condemning ALL homosexuals acts; by ALL persons, male and female; in ALL places, under ALL circumstance, at ALL times, NO exceptions.

The Talmudic scholars did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,” “temple prostitution,” pagan temples and/or religious activities!

Talmud -- Sanhedrin 54a

MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS BESTIALITY ARE STONED. . . . Our Rabbis taught: If a man lieth also with mankind, as the lyings of a woman,29 both of them have committed on abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,]. . . [Note: All upper case appears in the original]

Sanhedrin 54b

This teaches the punishment: whence do we derive the formal prohibition? — From the verse, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[sup]1[/sup] . . . whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person who permits himself thus to be abused? — Scripture saith: There shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel:[sup]2[sup] and it is further said, . . .

Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits himself to be thus abused — R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he is liable to two penalties, one [for the injunction] derived from thou shalt not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating the prohibition,] There shall not be a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. . . .

for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind. [sup]13[/sup] . . .

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Jewish Encyclopedia - Dog

The shamelessness of the dog in regard to sexual life gave rise to the name ("dog") for the class of priests in the service of Astarte who practised sodomy ("kedeshim," called also by the Greeks &#954;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#943;&#948;&#959;&#953;, Deut. xxiii. 19 [A. V. 18]; compare ib. 18 [17] and Rev. xxii. 15; see Driver ad loc.), . . .(see "C. I. S." i., No. 86).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=415&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Chastity

(e) The unnatural crimes against chastity, sodomy and pederasty, prevalent in heathendom, were strictly prohibited (Lev. xviii. 22, 23; xx. 13, 15, 16; Deut. xxvii. 21).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=386&letter=C

Jewish Encyclopedia - DIDACHE -

Dependence upon Jewish Custom.

2: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. xx. 14). (This includes: "Thou shalt not commit sodomy nor fornication.") "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. xx. 15). . . .

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=341&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Crime

In three cases the person on the point of committing a crime may be killed: where he pursues a neighbor in order to kill him; where he pursues a male to commit sodomy;

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=301&letter=L

Jewish Encyclopedia - The 613 Commandments,: 3347-53.

Adultery, sodomy, etc. Lev. Xviii. 7, 14, 20, 22, 23.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=689&letter=C​

"We Can't Legitimate Homosexuality Halakhically" (USCJ Review, Spring 2004): Joel Roth

The two verses in the book of (Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) which deal with homosexuality are really quite clear, despite the efforts of some to call their clarity into question. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 absolutely forbid homosexual intercourse between males. The Rabbis, in the Sifra (Aharei Mot 9:8), also understand the Torah to forbid lesbianism. The Torah&#8217;s prohibitions, let it be clear, are against actions, like male homosexual intercourse, not against fantasies or attractions.

The Torah and the Rabbis do not distinguish between types of homosexuals in any way... The Rabbis were well able to conceive of monogamous and loving relationships between members of the same sex, and I quote in my paper the texts that prove this beyond reasonable question. But their words cannot possibly be read to imply that such monogamous or loving gay relationships are in a different halakhic [Jewish legal] category than any other relationships between members of the same sex. The prohibition is clear and total.&#8221;​

http://www.uscj.org/POINTRoth6331.html

Naomi Grossman, freelance journalist, states in her April 2001 article in Moment Magazine, "The Gay Orthodox Undergound":

"The Torah strictly forbids homosexual sex, and rabbis have consistently upheld that prohibition through the ages... The prohibition against homosexual sex comes from Leviticus: 'Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence' (18:22). In biblical times, the punishment for violating that code was clear. 'If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -&#8212; their bloodguilt is upon them' (Leviticus 20:13). The Talmud extends the prohibition to lesbian sex [Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 21:8]."

Official Orthodoxy makes no distinction between the sex act, which the Torah flatly prohibits, and homosexuality as a sexual identity. "Homosexuality is not a state of being in traditional Judaism; it's an act," Freundel says. "Desires are &#8230; not relevant."​

http://members.aol.com/gayjews/moment.html

Jewish Encyclopedia-Abomination

Rendering in the English versions of different Biblical terms denoting that which is loathed or detested on religious grounds and which, therefore, is utterly offensive to the Deity. These terms differ greatly in the degree of the abhorrence implied and should be distinguished in translation, as follows:

(1)
[size=+1]&#1514;&#1493;&#1506;&#1489;&#1492;[/size] (to'ebah):Abomination of the highest degree; originally that which offends the religious sense of a people. Thus (Gen. xliii. 32): "The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians." The reason is that the Hebrews, as foreigners, were considered an inferior caste. According to Herodotus, ii. 41, no Egyptian would kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or even taste meat cut with a carving-knife belonging to a Greek. But especially as shepherds the Hebrews were "an abomination unto the Egyptians" (Gen. xlvi. 34). The eating of unclean animals is a religious offense called to'ebah: "Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing" (Deut. xiv. 3). This is the introduction to the laws prohibiting the use of unclean animals (see Clean and Unclean Animals). Still more offensive to the God of Israel is the practise of idolatry. The idol itself is called an Abomination: "for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house and thus become a thing set apart [tabooed= [i]kherem[/i]] like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it and utterly abhor it; for it is a thing set apart [tabooed]" (Deut. vii. 25, 26, Heb.): "Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord" (Deut. xxvii. 15). Often the word to'ebah is used for idol or heathen deity; for instance, in Isa. xliv. 19; Deut. xxxii. 16; II Kings, xxiii. 13, and especially Ex. viii. 22 (26, A. V.), it is to be taken in this sense. When Pharaoh had told the Israelites to offer sacrifices to their God in Egypt, Moses replied: "How may we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians [that is, the kind of animals worshiped by them] before their eyes, and they not stone us?" (see Ibn Ezra, ad loc.).
All idolatrous practise is an Abomination because of its defiling character: "Every abomination to the Lord which he hateth have they done unto their gods" (Deut. xii. 31; compare Deut. xiii. 15, xvii. 4, xx. 18). Also magic and divination are an Abomination (Deut. xviii. 12). Sexual transgression is particularly denounced as an Abomination (to'ebah) (Deut. xxii. 5, xxiii. 19 [18, A. V.], xxiv. 4); especially incest and unnatural offenses (Lev. xviii. and xx.): "For all these abominations have the men of the land done who were before you, and the land became defiled; lest the land vomit you out also when ye defile it" (Lev. xviii. 27, 28, Heb.; compare also Ezek. viii. 15 and elsewhere).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=352&letter=A​

 

[MercyBurst]

Dave can't explain why ONLY GAYS get the DEATH PENALTY for temple prostitution (as he says).

I think his case for "gay tow`ebah" is actually a worse case for gays than what the bible really says, and it's worth sticking to in the argument. Whenever we hear about gays in the bible, they are profaning a temple (as his argument goes). It speaks so well for them doesn't it? It illuminates the ultimate spiritual depravity and it's ALWAYS GAY temple abomination (as he says).

Think about it: when temple prostitution (as he says) is at it's very worst with regard to a death penalty, it's ALWAYS GAY. So let it be temple prostitution (as he says).

Romans 1:27 proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that heteros can choose to be homo. So flush the innate homosexuality argument down the toilet.

In Romans 1, the temple prostituion (as he argues) is EXCLUSIVELY GAY. It really speaks well for gays doesn't it?

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to just confess it as sin, and get on with the christian program?

Give him enough rope and he hangs himself with it.

 

[Der Alte]

Dave can't explain why ONLY GAYS get the DEATH PENALTY for temple prostitution.

I think his case for "gay tow`ebah" is actually a worse case for gays than what the bible really says, and it's worth sticking to in the argument. Whenever we hear about gays in the bible, they are profaning a temple (as his argument goes). It speaks so well for them doesn't it? It illuminates the ultimate spiritual depravity and it's ALWAYS GAY.

Think about it: when temple prostitution is at it's very worst with regard to a death penalty, it's ALWAYS GAY. So let it be temple prostitution.

Let it be temple prostituion in Romans 1. OK then, Romans 1:27 proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that heteros can choose to be homo. So flush the innate homosexuality argument down the toilet. In Romans 1, the temple prostituion (as he argues) is EXCLUSIVELY GAY. It really speaks well for gays doesn't it?

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to just confess it as sin, and get on with the christian program?

Give him enough rope tand he hangs himself.

Right and Romans 1: is supposed to be about pederasty, enslaved boy prostitutes, etc.

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.​

Note, MEN, plural, burning in lust toward other MEN. And if that is not clear enough Paul repeats, MEN WITH MEN! Not men with boys! Not men with temple prostitutes! Neither of which "lust" for their customers.

 

[MercyBurst]

Right and Romans 1: is supposed to be about pederasty, enslaved boy prostitutes, etc.

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.​

Note, MEN, plural, burning in lust toward other MEN. And if that is not clear enough Paul repeats, MEN WITH MEN! Not men with boys! Not men with temple prostitutes! Neither of which "lust" for their customers.

So the gay depravity just keeps getting worse.

OK, let them call it perderasty then, I don't care.

Notice that it is still male-on-male, AND female-on-female.

Notice that male-on-female pederasty is NOT CONDEMNED TO A DEATH SENTENCE.

See how this argument works? further and further in the pit it goes.

When it's the ABSOLUTE WORST, even with kids, it's EXCLUSIVELY a SAME SEX AFFAIR.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

I could have swore LUST was a sin no matter what relationship you were in Der Alter. Are you saying heterosexual people are exempt from this and can feel lust all they want?

 

[MercyBurst]

I could have swore LUST was a sin no matter what relationship you were in Der Alter. Are you saying heterosexual people are exempt from this and can feel lust all they want?

ALL fornication is temple prostitution, whatever sex it is done with.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I could have swore LUST was a sin no matter what relationship you were in Der Alter. Are you saying heterosexual people are exempt from this and can feel lust all they want?[/SIZE]

I would really appreciate it if you would actually read what I post and respond to that, not some distortion based on your agenda.

I did not address "lust" per se, although I could and my thoughts would very likely be in line with your comment.

I replied to a post which addressed a particular scripture, I quoted that scripture, and added my thoughts, pointing out how many posts around here ignore the context, of that scripture, and try to make it say what it clearly does not say.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

I would really appreciate it if you would actually read what I post and respond to that, not some distortion based on your agenda.

I did not address "lust" per se, although I could and my thoughts would very likely be in line with your comment.

I replied to a post which addressed a particular scripture, I quoted that scripture, and added my thoughts, pointing out how many posts around here ignore the context, of that scripture, and try to make it say what it clearly does not say.

I was addressing my opinion as well. Ever think of that? The verse addresses lust between two men. Yet all you addressed was the two men, not the lust. So I was simply reminding you that the word was indeed there. Maybe practice what you preach, and not pick and choose which parts of scripture you acknowledge.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I was addressing my opinion as well. Ever think of that? The verse addresses lust between two men. Yet all you addressed was the two men, not the lust. So I was simply reminding you that the word was indeed there. Maybe practice what you preach, and not pick and choose which parts of scripture you acknowledge.[/SIZE]

I repeat, I would really appreciate it if you would actually read what I post and address that, not your distortion based on your agenda.

What I posted again. Note the highlighted word, repeated 3 times in 6 sentences. That is how did I not address the lust.

Right and Romans 1: is supposed to be about pederasty, enslaved boy prostitutes, etc.

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, [SIZE=+1]burned in their lust[/SIZE] one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.​

Note, MEN, plural, [SIZE=+1]burning in lust[/SIZE] toward other MEN. And if that is not clear enough Paul repeats, MEN WITH MEN! Not men with boys! Not men with temple prostitutes! Neither of which [SIZE=+1]"lust"[/SIZE] for their customers​

.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

I repeat, I would really appreciate it if you would actually read what I post and address that, not your distortion based on your agenda.

What I posted again. Note the highlighted word, repeated 3 times in 6 sentences. That is how did I not address the lust.

Right and Romans 1: is supposed to be about pederasty, enslaved boy prostitutes, etc.

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, [SIZE=+1]burned in their lust[/SIZE] one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.​

Note, MEN, plural, [SIZE=+1]burning in lust[/SIZE] toward other MEN. And if that is not clear enough Paul repeats, MEN WITH MEN! Not men with boys! Not men with temple prostitutes! Neither of which [SIZE=+1]"lust"[/SIZE] for their customers​

.

So? That's not what I'm SAYING. I'm saying that you're singling them out despite the lust like homosexuality is their ONLY sin. Ever consider that the sin is lust out of their natural sexuality (it is more plausible it is a sin to act out of your personal natural attraction) not necessarily JUST homosexuality?

 

[Der Alte]

. . .[SIZE=-1]The verse addresses lust between two men. Yet all you addressed was the two men, not the lust[/SIZE]. . .

VS. this.

. . . [SIZE=-1]I'm saying that you're singling them out despite the lust like homosexuality is their ONLY sin. Ever consider that the sin is lust out of their natural sexuality (it is more plausible it is a sin to act out of your personal natural attraction) not necessarily JUST homosexuality?[/SIZE]

Get your story straight. Either I did not address lust at all or I did not address it according to your assumptions and presuppositions.

And why don't we just let scripture speak, instead of speculating maybe this, or that because, in your opinion, something else is "more plausible."

The scripture does NOT say their "personal natural attraction," it says, "THE natural use."

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

VS. this.


Get your story straight. Either I did not address lust at all or I did not address it according to your assumptions and presuppositions.

And why don't we just let scripture speak, instead of speculating maybe this, or that because, in your opinion, something else is "more plausible."

The scripture does NOT say their "personal natural attraction," it says, "THE natural use."

Maybe because, if you don't speculate and try to take it word for word, it loses meaning. Talk about picking and choosing. Besides, "use of women". Literally interpreting that makes us seem like objects. I'm offended.