This is Why Homosexuality is Wrong. . .

[TheManeki]

It is not a vague passage. It is supported through a thorough reading of the entire Bible. Sexual impuity is sexual impurity. Homosexuality, is a modern term that was established to replace sodomy among the human population. Sex that is performed for a purpose other than as an attempt at procreation is being applied improperly. Sex can be gratifying, but it does not exist to gratify. Sex can be enjoyable; however, it does not exist to be entertainment. People who are applying it as such are abusing its created intent.

Now you're changing your argument from "homosexual sex = bad" to "the purpose of sex is for more than pleasure, and when it is used solely for pleasure it is wrong."

We eagerly await you providing us with evidence (Biblical and real-life case studies) supporting this claim. I would suggest doing so in a new thread.

 

[LittleNipper]

Agreed. This seems to be a common theme with social conservatives in general - because they're so convinced that homosexuality is a sin, suddenly every mention of impurity or sexual immorality must be referring first and foremost to teh gayeez.

Show me a passage of scripture that promotes and supports homosexuality as wholesome and godly, and you will have no arguments from Biblical inerrancy, Bible believing, "conservative," fundamentalist, Christians. Until you do that, you have no BIBLICAL FOUNDATION to stand on. And that is the ONLY one that should count to any christian. Even one waving a crucifix on a stick.

 

[DisgruntledPostalEmployee]

Show me a passage of scripture that promotes and supports homosexuality as wholesome and godly, and you will have no arguments from Biblical inerrancy, Bible believing, "conservative," fundamentalist, Christians. Until you do that, you have no BIBLICAL FOUNDATION to stand on. And that is the ONLY one that should count to any christian. Even one waving a crucifix on a stick.

Hey, the minute you can provide a Bible verse that declares internet forums as wholesome and Godly, you tell me, because it sounds an awful lot like you're only applying those standards to activities you're not engaged in.
And the Bible's actually rather clear on hypocrisy.

 

[TheManeki]

Show me a passage of scripture that promotes and supports homosexuality as wholesome and godly, and you will have no arguments from Biblical inerrancy, Bible believing, "conservative," fundamentalist, Christians. Until you do that, you have no BIBLICAL FOUNDATION to stand on. And that is the ONLY one that should count to any christian. Even one waving a crucifix on a stick.

1. If you profess to go about basing your life around only doing things expressly condoned in the Bible, you need to actually live your life without all these modern conveniences like computers, electricity, modern medicine, etc. Otherwise nobody will take this argument seriously.

2. If you want to debate the pros and cons of fundamentalism, including so-called "Biblical literalism" and belief in Biblical inerrancy, you need to do so in General Apologetics.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Nipper doesn't seem to understand why sex is pleasurable. But okay, a poor grasp of biology and a strong emphasis on ancient myths will do that to you.

Nip, just think about it. Do you think our fellow animals mate because they think about producing offspring? Sex is pleasurable. That's the root of its success, and it is much older than our sense of self and our capability to reason.

Now, tell me one good reason why a species like our own shouldn't embrace that pleasure for non-creative purposes. Hint: "Bible says so" is not a reason.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Show me a passage of scripture that promotes and supports homosexuality as wholesome and godly, and you will have no arguments from Biblical inerrancy, Bible believing, "conservative," fundamentalist, Christians.

I see no passage promoting ice cream, either, but I don't think God particularly views eating it as sinful.

Until you do that, you have no BIBLICAL FOUNDATION to stand on.

I never claimed to. I'm just pointing out that neither do you.

 

[LittleNipper]

1. If you profess to go about basing your life around only doing things expressly condoned in the Bible, you need to actually live your life without all these modern conveniences like computers, electricity, modern medicine, etc. Otherwise nobody will take this argument seriously.

2. If you want to debate the pros and cons of fundamentalism, including so-called "Biblical literalism" and belief in Biblical inerrancy, you need to do so in General Apologetics.

1) The Bible says nothing either for or against technology.
2) So you are at a loss for words and do not wish to apply the Bible on a "Christian Forum." How secular of you!

 

[LittleNipper]

I see no passage promoting ice cream, either, but I don't think God particularly views eating it as sinful.



I never claimed to. I'm just pointing out that neither do you.

Oh, please. Do you read the Bible with your eyes closed , or do you look for extreem translations and interpretations of various Biblical text to bend GOD's blantant truth to suit any sin in your life?

 

[IzzyPop]

Oh, please. Do you read the Bible with your eyes closed , or do you look for extreem translations and interpretations of various Biblical text to bend GOD's blantant truth to suit any sin in your life?

Can we say projection? I thought we could.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Oh, please. Do you read the Bible with your eyes closed , or do you look for extreem translations and interpretations of various Biblical text to bend GOD's blantant truth to suit any sin in your life?

Neither. I read the Bible with enough humility to always remember that God is not so simple that I can understand His Word 100%.

 

[TheManeki]

1) The Bible says nothing either for or against technology.

You got my point and missed it at the same time. The Bible says nothing for or against homosexuality.

2) So you are at a loss for words and do not wish to apply the Bible on a "Christian Forum." How secular of you!

You're making the incorrect assumption that fundamental Christian interpretation is the only interpretation of the Bible. However, this topic is not germane to this thread, let alone E&M. That topic is more appropriate for General Apologetics (or some similar forum on the site), not here.

 

[LittleNipper]

Nipper doesn't seem to understand why sex is pleasurable. But okay, a poor grasp of biology and a strong emphasis on ancient myths will do that to you.

Nip, just think about it. Do you think our fellow animals mate because they think about producing offspring? Sex is pleasurable. That's the root of its success, and it is much older than our sense of self and our capability to reason.

Now, tell me one good reason why a species like our own shouldn't embrace that pleasure for non-creative purposes. Hint: "Bible says so" is not a reason.

I NEVER said sex doesn't bring pleasure. I said that pleasure isn't why GOD created it. GOD wanted Adam and Eve to enjoy it and be fruitful and multiply. Adam and Bruce could not be fruitful. At least not in begetting babies....

 

[LittleNipper]

Neither. I read the Bible with enough humility to always remember that God is not so simple that I can understand His Word 100%.

Do you understand any of it, or only those portions that do not offend you?

 

[LittleNipper]

Can we say projection? I thought we could.

Movie critic also?

 

[TheManeki]

I NEVER said sex doesn't bring pleasure. I said that pleasure isn't why GOD created it. GOD wanted Adam and Eve to enjoy it and be fruitful and multiply. Adam and Bruce could not be fruitful. At least not in begetting babies....

[bible]Genesis 9:1[/bible]

Mission accomplished! Perhaps this means the "fruitful" part is no longer relevant.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Do you understand any of it, or only those portions that do not offend you?

I understand the portions that fall in line with what Jesus said are the two greatest commandments: "Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourselves." The rest, I trust, are reflections of God's Love in ways in which I, a mere mortal, simply cannot quite yet grasp.

 

[Phred]

Is it just me or does anyone else notice Nipper's inability to tell the difference between his desires and the Bible's words?

 

[LittleNipper]

Is it just me or does anyone else notice Nipper's inability to tell the difference between his desires and the Bible's words?

If you replaced Nipper with Phred, you'd have gotten it exactly right.

 

[LittleNipper]

I understand the portions that fall in line with what Jesus said are the two greatest commandments: "Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourselves." The rest, I trust, are reflections of God's Love in ways in which I, a mere mortal, simply cannot quite yet grasp.

Read Matthew 19:1-11

 

[TheManeki]

Once again LN, you'll have to illuminate us with how this passage relates to the topic at hand.