|
Author
|
Topic: Condemn gay marriage, or just gay rape?
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
Message 54 of 573 (582269)
09-20-2010 4:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by jaywill
09-20-2010 4:29 PM
|
|
jaywill writes: Man was created for God's eternal purpose and homosexuality damages the spiritual , emotional, and in some cases physical vessel of the gay person him or herself.
Being gay is physically destructive? You're going to have to explain that one to me.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2010 4:29 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 71 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2010 9:04 PM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 83 of 573 (582382)
09-21-2010 1:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by jaywill
09-20-2010 9:04 PM
|
|
jaywill writes: The anus, for example, was not designed for the male phallus to be jamed up into it. This can damage the anus.
Not if done right. Also, heterosexual people also have bumsecks.
And AIDS can kill you. No, I did not say only gay people get AIDS. I said AIDS can kill you. And AIDS can be contracted because of homosexual practices.
It can also be contracted because of heterosexual practices.
Now I am surprised that you needed me to spell this out.
The things you said have nothing to do with homosexuality. So, again, how is homosexuality physically destructive?
And here are the responses I am not expecting from you or some other objector: 1.) Some Phd. has now announced that male on male intercourse cannot be a source of the AIDS disease.
They have announced that male on femael intercourse can be a source of the AIDS disease.
2.) Heterosexual sex can also be physcially damaging to the body. So that makes homosexuality alright.
No, it just means that your argument fails on this pint, since it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality does not, in any way damage the body. Not if done right.
Maybe you will surprise me with some other rational or justification.
It's not hurting anyone, therefore, it's alright in my book.
But this is the Bible Study Room. And I think the issue is what does the Bible teach about it? And some of us here regard the Bible as the divine revelation of God to man.
Do you stone children to death for not listening? No? Then why still consider homosexuality a sin? Jesus never said it was.
ow one more matter I'd cover in this post. Some would say that Jesus NEVER spoke against homosexuality as Paul did. Well, this is not quite true. Jesus does mention the judgment of Sodom - He speaks of both the judgment of Sodom in the Old Testament and thier possible standing in the last Judgment. He therefore must have taken the Genesis account of Sodom's sins seriously.
But Sodom's sin wasn't homosexuality.
Notice also that Jesus said that to reject Himself would be less tolerable then the sin of Sodom. So the real issue is what will the sinner do with Jesus Christ.
So, a homosexual that accepts Jesus is ok? Even though Jesus never said homosexuality is a sin?
My purpose in refering to this verse is not to say the sins of Sodom were OK. But rather that in the total scheme of things what one does with the message of Christ the Savior and Son of God is more serious.
Uhm, take from it what is good, and reject that which isn't?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2010 9:04 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 100 of 573 (582478)
09-21-2010 2:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by jaywill
09-21-2010 2:07 PM
|
|
Re: Are we straying from the topic?
jaywill writes: You say here "AIDS is NOT spead via homosexuality. It is SEXUALLY TEANSMITTED ..." Notice the third to fifth syllables on the word "homo SEXUALITY". The SEXAULITY realm of homosexuality can be a cause of the sexual transmission of AIDS. Of course it is not restricted to that way of spreading.
Then why did you point it out specifically, if it's not a specific way of getting AIDS? Being a homosexual is not a cause for AIDS, being sexual is.
Of course neither Old or New Testament mentions AIDS which is a discovery of modern science. But we do have the Apostle Paul saying that some kind of negative penalty occured in the ones who were practicing the same sex sexual activity: "And likewise also the males, leaving the natural use of the female, burned in their craving toward one another, males with males committing unseemliness and fully receiving in themselves the retribution of their error which was due" (Rom. 1:27) I do not know what Paul meant by them receiving in themelves the retribution. It doesn't sound positive. It sounds destructive. And he does identify their lifestyle as "their error". The overall picture is that thier humanity underwent some kind of negative outcome which damaged themselves.
This can't refer to AIDS, as it effects hetero- and homosexuals alike.
I'll be glad to continue to study the medical issues. I don't think it changes the overall picture of homosexuality being identified as a matter spoken against by the Scripture. Ie. something from which man needs to be saved.
Well, disobedient children need to be stoned as well, curiously, that doesn't happen any more. Are you campaigning to bring that back as well?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2010 2:07 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 102 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2010 2:43 PM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 104 of 573 (582485)
09-21-2010 2:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 102 by jaywill
09-21-2010 2:43 PM
|
|
Re: Are we straying from the topic?
jaywill writes: I didn't say it did. My point is it refers to something detructive and damaging to the participators.
Would you mind pointing out what this "destructive" thing is then? We've already established it's not AIDS (since that damages everyone), what else is there that damages homosexuals and homosexuals alone?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 102 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2010 2:43 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Are we straying from the topic?
Dr Adequate writes: I would point out that female homosexuals (lesbians) are singularly free of HIV. Is this because God likes them more than heterosexuals?
I wouldn't say they're free, I do think there are far less of them with AIDS, though. From CDC (look for the Are lesbians or other women who have sex with women at risk for HIV? bit, click on it to expand):
quote:
Female-to-female transmission of HIV appears to be a rare occurrence. However, there are case reports of female-to-female transmission of HIV. The well-documented risk of female-to-male transmission of HIV shows that vaginal secretions and menstrual blood may contain the virus and that mucous membrane (e.g., oral, vaginal) exposure to these secretions has the potential to lead to HIV infection.
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Are we straying from the topic?
Dr Adequate writes: I didn't say completely free, I said singularly free. Exceptionally so, more so than others. If you can't learn our language then fuck off back to ... uh ... Dutchland. You with your windmills and clogs and tulips and your incomplete mastery of the subtle nuances of your second language.
 Oh Dr., you crack me up everytime. Ok, well, I guess, we could consider my post "extra information" then. 
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 116 of 573 (582570)
09-22-2010 7:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 115 by jaywill
09-22-2010 6:34 AM
|
|
I searched all bible versions on this site, and none of them seem to contain the words "Licentious manner of life". Which bible did you get this from?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 115 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2010 6:34 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 119 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2010 7:51 AM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 118 of 573 (582572)
09-22-2010 7:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by jaywill
09-22-2010 7:20 AM
|
|
Look, as far as I can tell, the story of Sodom never mentions homosexuality. Could you please point out where it mentions homosexuality?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2010 7:20 AM | | jaywill has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 121 of 573 (582577)
09-22-2010 8:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by jaywill
09-22-2010 7:56 AM
|
|
Well, since it doesn't mention it, how can you be so sure it has anything to do with it at all?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2010 7:56 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 126 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2010 8:59 AM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 123 of 573 (582581)
09-22-2010 8:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 122 by frako
09-22-2010 8:06 AM
|
|
frako writes: didnt loth have sex whit his own daughters if i remember correctly?
Yeah, he did.
So why was he not killed on the spot if everyone else got killed for their homosexual nature a short time before ? Is incest not high enough on the list? re where there other sins in sodom that got them burned?
Apparently, incest is not a sin. Remember Adam and Eve? Well, their sons had wives. They had to be siblings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 122 by frako, posted 09-22-2010 8:06 AM | | frako has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 124 by frako, posted 09-22-2010 8:19 AM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 177 of 573 (582983)
09-24-2010 4:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 175 by jaywill
09-24-2010 3:45 AM
|
|
jaywill writes: (Now you'll ban or suspend me jar?)
He can't do that anymore.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 175 by jaywill, posted 09-24-2010 3:45 AM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 227 of 573 (583589)
09-28-2010 4:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 225 by jaywill
09-28-2010 3:54 AM
|
|
Re: Tolerance within Faithfulness
jaywill writes: But the Bible mentions idolatry. That is to replace God with something so important to you that it usurps the preeminence of God. The priniciple of having an idol to take the place of God can be detected in the conscience with the conviction of the Holy Spririt in some people. For the Christian, we do not just have the Bible. We have the Holy Spirit illuminating the words of it and applying its wisdom down through the ages. That is why the Christian faith did not die out with the close of the first to third century. The changing of times and eras did not cause the Faith or the Word of God to fade and dissappear in irrelavance.
No, but it means this holy spirit is either failing completely at a very important task, or is telling different people different things. Or, and this is my choice, it doesn't exist.
Jesus told the disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all of the truth. Behind this living book there is the living God. So we are not lost in the space age. The Bible is still a best seller worldwide in the space age because it is living revelation with a livng God illuminating its words to each generation.
And yet almost everybody has a different view of the bible and its message. Are you saying your god fails at communication so completely?
We are reasonable. I am not afraid to go back to the Bible to examine what it really said. I am not afraid to admit that my interpretation could be coloured by something of man's tradition. In the case of homosexuality and homosexual attempting to hijack marriage the case presented by some posters here is not strong enough.
Their case is that homosexual marriages isn't prohibited anywhere in the bible, so far, you have not been able to show that it is.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 225 by jaywill, posted 09-28-2010 3:54 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 229 by jaywill, posted 09-28-2010 5:16 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 231 of 573 (583609)
09-28-2010 8:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 229 by jaywill
09-28-2010 5:16 AM
|
|
Re: Tolerance within Faithfulness
jaywill writes: The operative phrase here is "my choice". That is right. The outcome can be based upon your self chosen decision to not include God in your life.
And yet, people that choose god in their life still get different messages from this holy spirit. So that leaves the other two options, either it is a failure at communicating, or it is telling different people differnt things.
And this brings us back to Paul's description of the decline of society in Genesis because men not approving to hold God in their full knowledge. The result was that men became "vain in their reasonings, and their heart, lacking understanding, was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools." "And even as they did not approve of holding God in their full knowledge, God gavethem up to a disapproved mind, to do the things which are not fitting ..." Not approving of holding God in thier knowledge eventually caused their mental facility to be damaged. That does not mean having a low IQ. It means rationalizing many evil things which they became ensnared by.
Well, since I am living in a world much much much better than the religiously drenched dark ages, I guess Paul was wrong.
I am saying right now that this is a handy exageration. No, not almost EVERYBODY has a different view of the Bible. You do not apply that kind of logic with other areas of your life. You do not throw up your hands that everyone has a different view of certain scientific opinions and decide to ignore the whole matter of science.
Of course not, science is about facts, you see, the bible isn't. That's wahy people who disagree about the bible quote passages left and right to eachother, whereas people who disagree about science are either ignorant about the subject, or there is not enough evidence to go either way. In any case, this is not the same thing at all.
So the card you're playing, "No universal agreement on everything. Therefore I don't have to listen to anything" is weak.
That's not the card I', playing. The card I'm playing is consensus. You see, in science there is a consensus about a great many things, wheresas in religion there is nothing but disagreement. I'm sorry, but I'll hatch my bets on the one that can agree on things, and can show clearly why it is they agree.
I have been able to show that male on male sexcual relations are condemned. Saying, "No, but if it is marriage with commitment male on male sexual relations is what God wants."
I never said that. Sex =/= marriage, you know.
Where? The relationship itself of same-sex union Paul says makes one "worthy of death" (Rom. 1:32) along with many other sins .
Romans doesn't mention same sex union. Stop adding to the text.
Where is the passage saying two marrying males are exempt from this condemnation?
I don't know. But again sex =/= marriage. You can marry without having sex, you can also have sex without marrying. Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 229 by jaywill, posted 09-28-2010 5:16 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 232 by jaywill, posted 09-28-2010 8:48 AM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 251 of 573 (583806)
09-29-2010 3:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 250 by Taz
09-28-2010 9:09 PM
|
|
Re: Tolerance within Faithfulness
Taz writes: I'll give you an even better example. According to god, the woman is suppose to suffer greatly during child birth for the sin of Eve. Should we condemn all women who have had a c-section to death along with the doctors who performed them?
It's even worse then that. All women who take pain medication should be killed as well. And since sins are inheritable, kill the child also.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 250 by Taz, posted 09-28-2010 9:09 PM | | Taz has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Tolerance within Faithfulness
Dawn Bertot writes: Wrong, and sin is not inheritable
Sin is not ingeritable? So, why do women still suffer pains in childbirth? Is this not because of Eve's sin? Did they not ingerit her sin, and therefore, need to suffer?
|
™ Version 4.2