The death spiral of an argument is always, "well, you can't prove there is not one, either."

 

These sort of threads are always somewhat discouraging, because at the core they devolve into semantics over belief systems. Scripture tells us in both Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is an "abomination." Its very strong language, there is no mincing of words. FormerKY posted his Martin Sheen speech with excerpts from Leviticus, and of course, it has been aptly pointed out that Christ is the New Covenant, and adherence to the old law (such as shaving beards, et, al.) has fallen away. However, the abomination of homosexuality has not fallen away.

 

If you believe in Scripture, then homosexuality is sin. Its forgiveable sin, just like murder, or adultery, or coveting thy neighbor's BMW. But it is still sin.

 

I do find some contradiction in fellows such as myself who on one hand defend the Constitution framed in the context the way the Founding Fathers intended, and on the other hand contend that the Bible is a "living, breathing, document" subject to contextual change over time, which is language I expect to hear from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

For those who do NOT believe in Scripture, or believe that Scripture should be contextualized to fit our present time, the register may simply be "No Sale." And, of course, that is fine. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince the unconvinceable. But I have never, ever once, gotten a straight answer (no pun intended) from those individuals who do not hold Scripture as their moral basis (or any other faith, for that matter, homosexuality is not accepted practice in any standard faith I am aware of) as to where the bar is set. For example, if homosexuality is non-sinful, moral behavior, then why not bestiality? Sex with children? Marriage with animals or children? Even if you do not accept Scripture, you must concede that I have at minimum a very long-standing and culturally accepted standard for rejecting those items? Where does your standard derive from?

 

Consenting adults, maybe? Not one of your examples includes consenting adults entering into a mutually agreed upon relationship.

 

I agree with TrueBlue - just didn't see the post before I posted.

Edited December 17, 201114 yr by acemona
obvious agreement with TB&G

The death spiral of an argument is always, "well, you can't prove there is not one, either."

 

These sort of threads are always somewhat discouraging, because at the core they devolve into semantics over belief systems. Scripture tells us in both Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is an "abomination." Its very strong language, there is no mincing of words. FormerKY posted his Martin Sheen speech with excerpts from Leviticus, and of course, it has been aptly pointed out that Christ is the New Covenant, and adherence to the old law (such as shaving beards, et, al.) has fallen away. However, the abomination of homosexuality has not fallen away.

 

If you believe in Scripture, then homosexuality is sin. Its forgiveable sin, just like murder, or adultery, or coveting thy neighbor's BMW. But it is still sin.

 

I do find some contradiction in fellows such as myself who on one hand defend the Constitution framed in the context the way the Founding Fathers intended, and on the other hand contend that the Bible is a "living, breathing, document" subject to contextual change over time, which is language I expect to hear from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

For those who do NOT believe in Scripture, or believe that Scripture should be contextualized to fit our present time, the register may simply be "No Sale." And, of course, that is fine. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince the unconvinceable. But I have never, ever once, gotten a straight answer (no pun intended) from those individuals who do not hold Scripture as their moral basis (or any other faith, for that matter, homosexuality is not accepted practice in any standard faith I am aware of) as to where the bar is set. For example, if homosexuality is non-sinful, moral behavior, then why not bestiality? Sex with children? Marriage with animals or children? Even if you do not accept Scripture, you must concede that I have at minimum a very long-standing and culturally accepted standard for rejecting those items? Where does your standard derive from?

As far as childern are concerned, it's not apples to apples. Childern cannot consent to sex with an adult. As far as bestiality to each his own.

Let me ask this to those that feel it's a choice, did you make a choice to be straight?

I think some homosexuals choose to be gay as a reaction from past/current events in their life, or attention.

:thumb:

You need to show us, or back away from this comment. You are sinning big time, and I'll pray for you rite now!

 

Don't try to tell me what I am or am not doing. I'm entitled to my beliefs as are you, I just don't try to ram them down everyone's throats.

 

"Thou Shall Not Kill" is a commandment, then of course God goes ahead and destroys two cities killing all the people. If that's not a contradiction, then I have no idea what is. And before you start, don't give me the garbage cop-out that that was in the Old Testament and the Old Testament doesn't count anymore.

 

How about how God said to pray in private, then throughout the entire NT, Jesus is preaching to crowds. Doesn't seem private to me. :idunno:

More importantly, is there a hetero gene, if not then . . .

Let's review. So there is thing called biology or anatomy or whatever you want to call it. The sex of the child is determined at conception. From there all the parts that make little boys and little girls begin to develop. Did you know that at birth, a baby girl's ovaries are full of all the eggs that she will have for the rest of her life? Boys have their reproductive equipment too. Through puberty and beyond, boys and girls continue to develop their bodies so that they will attract the opposite sex, for the purpose of eventually mating. All of this so that the human species will survive and flourish. I think that is more than enough to show a "hetero gene".

Don't try to tell me what I am or am not doing. I'm entitled to my beliefs as are you, I just don't try to ram them down everyone's throats.

 

"Thou Shall Not Kill" is a commandment, then of course God goes ahead and destroys two cities killing all the people. If that's not a contradiction, then I have no idea what is. And before you start, don't give me the garbage cop-out that that was in the Old Testament and the Old Testament doesn't count anymore.

 

How about how God said to pray in private, then throughout the entire NT, Jesus is preaching to crowds. Doesn't seem private to me. :idunno:

 

Praying and preaching are quite different.

The death spiral of an argument is always, "well, you can't prove there is not one, either."

 

These sort of threads are always somewhat discouraging, because at the core they devolve into semantics over belief systems. Scripture tells us in both Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is an "abomination." Its very strong language, there is no mincing of words. FormerKY posted his Martin Sheen speech with excerpts from Leviticus, and of course, it has been aptly pointed out that Christ is the New Covenant, and adherence to the old law (such as shaving beards, et, al.) has fallen away. However, the abomination of homosexuality has not fallen away.

 

If you believe in Scripture, then homosexuality is sin. Its forgiveable sin, just like murder, or adultery, or coveting thy neighbor's BMW. But it is still sin.

 

I do find some contradiction in fellows such as myself who on one hand defend the Constitution framed in the context the way the Founding Fathers intended, and on the other hand contend that the Bible is a "living, breathing, document" subject to contextual change over time, which is language I expect to hear from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

For those who do NOT believe in Scripture, or believe that Scripture should be contextualized to fit our present time, the register may simply be "No Sale." And, of course, that is fine. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince the unconvinceable. But I have never, ever once, gotten a straight answer (no pun intended) from those individuals who do not hold Scripture as their moral basis (or any other faith, for that matter, homosexuality is not accepted practice in any standard faith I am aware of) as to where the bar is set. For example, if homosexuality is non-sinful, moral behavior, then why not bestiality? Sex with children? Marriage with animals or children? Even if you do not accept Scripture, you must concede that I have at minimum a very long-standing and culturally accepted standard for rejecting those items? Where does your standard derive from?

...and you accuse others of hyperbole? :lol: :lol:

 

I'd think you were better than this. These are not sexual acts made between consenting adults, simple as that.

Even if you do not accept Scripture, you must concede that I have at minimum a very long-standing and culturally accepted standard for rejecting those items?

What is your definition of a child?

Don't try to tell me what I am or am not doing. I'm entitled to my beliefs as are you, I just don't try to ram them down everyone's throats.

 

"Thou Shall Not Kill" is a commandment, then of course God goes ahead and destroys two cities killing all the people. If that's not a contradiction, then I have no idea what is. And before you start, don't give me the garbage cop-out that that was in the Old Testament and the Old Testament doesn't count anymore.

 

How about how God said to pray in private, then throughout the entire NT, Jesus is preaching to crowds. Doesn't seem private to me. :idunno:

You give two example and use God doing it, doesn't make sense. God is God and we are not on the same plane. Isaiah 55:8:9 All I asked for you to give examples of your comment and I stand by that. Garbage of the Old & New. I given scriptures to back up my point, can you? Garbage. Saying that proves my point.

 

I'll defend the word of God when ever it is threatened.

Let's review. So there is thing called biology or anatomy or whatever you want to call it. The sex of the child is determined at conception. From there all the parts that make little boys and little girls begin to develop. Did you know that at birth, a baby girl's ovaries are full of all the eggs that she will have for the rest of her life? Boys have their reproductive equipment too. Through puberty and beyond, boys and girls continue to develop their bodies so that they will attract the opposite sex, for the purpose of eventually mating. All of this so that the human species will survive and flourish. I think that is more than enough to show a "hetero gene".

 

I assume, then, that you are against all forms of birth control and any other sexual activity that could not result in the conception of a child? If not, then what is your point with this post?

^Larry, for the millionth time on here, I don't take the Bible literally, so me giving scripture verses like you do with everything is completely pointless.

 

You may need to see a scripture verse to form your beliefs, I don't. It's as simple as that.

^Larry, for the millionth time on here, I don't take the Bible literally, so me giving scripture verses like you do with everything is completely pointless.

 

You may need to see a scripture verse to form your beliefs, I don't. It's as simple as that.

Ok, that fine, but don't call the Bible "garbage" and a "walking contradiction" and not expect people to jump up. Using scriptures to make a point is not pushing anything down anyone's throat, I could be like that and you would see the difference.

 

Remember the title of the thread.

Ok, that fine, but don't call the Bible "garbage" and a "walking contradiction" and not expect people to jump up. Using scriptures to make a point is not pushing anything down anyone's throat, I could be like that and you would see the difference.

 

Remember the title of the thread.

 

I never once called the Bible garbage Larry. You obviously need to go back and read my post again. I said the whole lame "the NT replaces the OT" answer whenever a contradiction is brought up is garbage, not the Bible. Big difference.

 

And yes, IMO, the Bible is a giant contradiction. Numerous times where something from the OT and NT are complete opposites of one another. That's a contradiction.

I never once called the Bible garbage Larry. You obviously need to go back and read my post again. I said the whole lame "the NT replaces the OT" answer whenever a contradiction is brought up is garbage, not the Bible. Big difference.

 

And yes, IMO, the Bible is a giant contradiction. Numerous times where something from the OT and NT are complete opposites of one another. That's a contradiction.

Man, there are two laws, we are not under the Law of Moses, there is a lot there. The law has been done away with. God saw that and thats why we have Jesus. I'll gladly post these verses but you have stated you really don't want to see them, but how can we show our point? Its not me that say this but the Holy Spirit of Jesus. There might be someone reading our posts and come to a deeper understanding and you & I will never know that.

 

Read Hebrews chapter 3, Galatians chapter 3. Jesus is the new way. A longtime ago I brought up all the stuff in Leviticus and said, "why don't we do this stuff"? they werer nice but simply told me the Old is a history lesson, and Jesus is now the new way.

 

Most people when are new Christians are told to read Genesis and then go to John/Mark/ Matthew in that order.

 

How did man's sins were taken care of in the OT, they killed animals, the blood of goats are no longer needed, it was the blood of man. We don't sacrifice animals at the altar any more. Once a year a High priests would do this, and now we have Jesus. He is our High priests.