Homosexuality is a mental illness.
-
i see a narrow minded govt mushroo... i mean dog who has come here to contribute nothing useful to this discussion again. Oh if only the uneducated were wiser.
-
Originally posted by shade343:
Pray, tell me which part of the bible did Jesus say the act of homsexuality is wrong?Romans 1:27
Do the verse here refer to homosexuals who cannot stand the sight of women or men who have abandoned their "natural relations with women?" Was Paul refering to people who were having orgies where men and women were having sex together at the same time?
27In 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.
I am also speculating like you. I have no right to speculate. You have no right to speculate.
If Paul had written to the Romans expounding on homosexuality then he would have clarified it. He didn't because it was not the purpose of this letter. You have to read in context.Originally posted by vince69:
I am surprised that you claimed to have read the context.
here is one; Romans 1 (have to read from verse 18-27 for the context of the verse)Romans 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to the end that you may be established;
What did this 2 verses say Paul's motive to go to Rome was?
12 that is, that I with you may be encouraged in you, each of us by the other's faith, both yours and mine.[/b]
Did Paul go to Rome to condemn homosexuals? Did Paul go to Rome to condemn homosexuality? If you think that then you are what Paul said in verse 22Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,[/b]
If the purpose of Paul's letter to the Romans was not to condemn Homosexuality and Homosexual acts; who are you then to do it? Are you an Apostle? Who are you to put yourself inside the brains of Paul and try to imagine what else he was trying to say other than what he was trying to say?
It is so sad. You claim to know and read the bible and even understands that you must read in context but you miss the whole picture and focus on the parts that supports your bigotry. -
Aw, poo. Poor widdle Oxfart saw a few widdle quotes, crapped his pants and ran away.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There you go spouting your ignorance again, Gedanken. Your interpretation of the scriptures goes only to show your complete lack of undertanding of the literature, background and basic principles of exegesis. But I do not have time to waste my breath on an ignoramus.
You gonna call your examiner an ignoramus when he points out what inane crap you've poured into your thesis by the bucketload?
Typical cowardice on your part, the old parting shot followed by hasty retreat, and typical that you've forgotten that you don't get away from me that easily, you cheap snake-oil salesman of a postgrad wannabe.
You said:
I pointed out:Originally posted by oxford mushroom:What are you trying to say? That Naomi was a lesbian and Jonathan was gay? In the bible written by you maybe?
Ashpenaz was in charge of the eunuchs and possibly one himself. A eunuch is not necessarily gay.
- "Ruth clave onto [Naomi]" (Ruth 1:14)
- "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain ('twain' referring to Jonathan and Michal)" (1 Samuel 18:20-21)
- chesed v'rachamim (which in Hebrew cannot be easily explained away as a platonic friendship)
have been in the Bible all this time.
Just because you've got the depth of a puddle doesn't mean that everybody else treats things at such a shallow level. You issued your challenge, I shoved it right back in your face with facts as usual, and you've shown the world your skidmarks.
Yup, the world's in its usual shape this morning. -
Reading the Bible is not the same as understanding. In the same, holding a spanner doesn't make me a mechanic
Now pay attention, plo - there's somebody who knows how to read the Bible. Hell, it's someone who knows how to read, which is more than I can say for you. Laughing
This shows you did not read my previous reply, kindly read and understand.
You want to talk about objective truth? That's a laugh. If you don't even know of the Bible's stance on cowardice, don't try telling me you know anything remotely related to truth or objectivity. You're just going to keep making a jackass of yourself. Laughing I already thanked for pointing out that cowardice is sin and will address it.
My opponent picks out few phrases to distort as he wishes and suddenly he becomes an expert on the Bible
By this one example alone, you've already demonstrated that you're confused, ignorant, obtuse and inane. FFS, you're claiming on the side of the Bible and your opponents know it better than you do - how dumb is that? Laughing
Is it not true that you have not understood and that you don't intend to understand and now you resort to obscene langauge?
Go on, keep being insular and obtuse, bleating lamely that the other guys don't understand when they know your stuff better than you do. This is beautiful - I don't have to work to prove what a dickhead you are because you're doing all the work for me. Laughing -
Where did I state to kill homsexuals in order to save their soul? I'm stating telling homsexuals, homsexuality is a sin like murder or lying or any other sin.
Y.E.S. Yes.
these sort of justification always come from your belief that life does not end at the mortal stage and that in verbally hurting homosexuals or physically killing heretics, you are "saving" their souls.
u're gambling their lives on something as insignificant as your believe in there being an afterlife and a judgement? marvelous.
Eternal life btw is not insignificant.
In OT, God said it was a sin, and since Jesus is God, it holds true to NT
Pray, tell me which part of the bible did Jesus say the act of homsexuality is wrong?
As above, I'm not gambling anyone's life by telling them a certain act is wrong. Ultimately its is up to them to make the choice.From The Christian pov they are endangering the eternal for temporal.I would have lost my humanity if I saw my brother in danger and stood by.
once again, you raise an example where there is a definate danger to their life, regardless of your beliefs.
but u are only sure homosexuals are 'endangering' their lives based on a belief YOU have. Like i said, what gives u the right to gamble their lives against YOUR personal belief and a presumed AND indefinate assumption that their souls are in danger?
Your logic and argument just cannot cut it. I fear in your zealousness to uphold your belief, u have lost your humanity.
This is a Christian forum and a Christian viewpoint will be expressed.
Oh, so now what you say has become an undisputed fact
there is a difference between pointing out a FACT (which is that when you speak up against someone being homosexual, you do cause that person unnecesary emotional hurt and confusion) and you telling me that something you believe in is true, when its a indefinate belief without basis.
I have no wish to convince you to have the same view as me. I only wish to convince you to stop hurting others unnecessarily and stop contributing indirectly to hatred against others.
Is that too much to ask for? I wish to trade a tiny bit of your belief for a tiny bit of your compassion and humanity. Is that too much to ask for? There you go again imposing your view. "This is a fact because it is my truth"
Define human rights. Jesus protected the adultress but he did not condone her sin.
so u do not deny that you think homosexuals do not deserve the same human rights as anyone else. then how can u condemn those who pick on homosexuals when you yourself think they should be discriminated against? -
Talking about romans, u r talking about the things paul said. Paul said tat women have no authority over men and women have to cover their head in the church. U all do not follow tis practise now, yet strangely u all r still enforced on the homo part.
After 9 pages of "debating" I can really come out with tis conclusion. From the homophobic point of view, they r not condemning homosexuality because of rational reasons.
They didn't mention any particular reason why homo is wrong except "the bible claim it is wrong". They never talk from the medical point of view, they never talk about genetic, they never talk about animals being gays, they never talk about social impact etc and all they ever say is giving irrational answers like the bible say tis and the bible say tat. Tis answer is obviously not acceptable to everybody. Tis is unlike the case given by the other side of the fence where they give rational reasons (medical point, genetic point, social justice and rights) why homophobic is wrong. The anti homophobic camp can give 1 million reasons and the homophobic just refuse to listen to it because of their only 1 irrational reason. As such I really see little will change unless they view the doctrine differently.
It is like a fictionous cult where they r forced to drink their first urine everyday.
Mom: "Come lets drink your first urine now"
child: " Why r we drinking it ?"
mon: " because god like us to drink urine"
child: " Why does god like us to drink urine"
mom: " Because god ways is above us and we just have to follow suit"
child: "but it taste terrible'
mon: " because god like u to drink urine u have to drink urine regardless of its taste"
child: " urine is suppose to be dirty, it is a waste product from men'
mon: " because god like u to drink urine u have to drink urine regardless of its possibly poisonous attribute. And since god like us to drink urine, it must be good for us and science must be wrong tat it is a waste product"
child: "but all my friends don't drink urine"
mon: " because god like u to drink urine u have to drink urine regardless of its popularity. Your other friends will burn in hell in future because they do not drink urine"
child: " even animals don't drink their waste product'
mom: " because god like u to drink urine u have to drink urine regardless of wat nature shows. Anyway animals r mindless and lesser than men so we can't be compared with them"
child: "U r just giving circular arguments. no matter wat i say i am still gonna drink urine right ?"
mom: "Yes, because god say so. We don't question god, we don't understand god, I also do not know why we have to drink urine but nevertheless we have faith tat it is good for us so we have to drink urine because god want us to" -
Who made you a judge to pronounce "homsexuality" a sin? Have you become God? Are you God? Should we all bow down and worship you?Originally posted by plo30360:I'm stating telling homsexuals, homsexuality is a sin like murder or lying or any other sin. -
Indeed, but in your case not knowing what a spanner is proves that you're not a mechanic.Originally posted by plo30360:Reading the Bible is not the same as understanding. In the same, holding a spanner doesn't make me mechanic
I think you're the one who needs to learn how to read. SIS posted:Originally posted by plo30360:This shows you did not read my previous reply, kindly read and understand. I already thanked for pointing out that cowardice is sin and will address it.
Oh? The passage seems fairly straightforward to me, and it was a quote. How, pray tell, did he distort it? Seems to me that it's you who distorts things to suit your myopic view.Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." [/quote]
and even put the word "cowardly" in bold for your benefit. Still you blithely ignore the fact that the passage talks about the cowardly (referring to a person) instead of cowardice (the act).
If you can't tell the difference between the person and the act, your argument stands on very shaky ground, don't you think?
Keep going - you're just showing all the weakness in your way of reading and *ahem* understanding anything, not just the Bible.
[quote]Originally posted by plo30360:My opponent picks out few phrases to distort as he wishes and suddenly he becomes an expert on the Bible
No, not really. "Dickhead" perfectly captures your combined lack of intellect and character.Originally posted by plo30360:It is a fact that you have not understood and that you don't intend to understand and now you resort to obscene langauge. -
As above, I'm not gambling anyone's life by telling them a certain act is wrong. Ultimately its is up to them to make the choice.From The Christian pov they are endangering the eternal for temporal.I would have lost my humanity if I saw my brother in danger and stood by.
Yeah, yeah. I'm sure that's what Torquemada and Urban used to start selling their pitch as well. -
Originally posted by shade343:
Jesus didnt specifically talk about homosexuality.
You are not answering my question. I said which part of the bible did [b]Jesus Said that the act of homosexuality is wrong?
Keyword: Jesus said[/b]
The closest to it is perhaps implied through the sanctity of marriage between man and woman. Can be found in Matthew 19:8-12
Book of Romans quoted by vince is written by Apostle Paul - Whom Jesus anointed to spread the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to the Gentiles. Gentiles refer to all nations except the Jews.
Personally, i thought everyone is Loved by God and can receive His offer of Life.
As Jesus also said in Matthew 19:23- 26:
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
p.s: Rich here does not necessary refer to wealth. -
Yup.Originally posted by HENG@:he asked where JESUS said, not where the bible said? -
This goes to show your complete ignorance on the past. In the past, people were barbarians and needed to be given a clear direction. As such many of the so called "rules" were applicable only in the past.Originally posted by plo30360:In OT, God said it was a sin, and since Jesus is God, it holds true to NT
Some of them no longer applies to this current age.
Also there is a distinction between the Father, the son and the holy spirit.
Jesus is not the Father and vice versa.
Jesus is Jesus.
And Jesus didnt said the act of homosexuality is a sin.
Therefore, you are not only confused with the trinity concept, you are also putting words in Jesus mouth. -
Originally posted by klydeer:
That is because homosexuality is not a sin as what some christians think.
[b]Jesus didnt specifically talk about homosexuality.
The closest to it is perhaps implied through the sanctity of marriage between man and woman. Can be found in Matthew 19:8-12
Book of Romans quoted by vince is written by Apostle Paul - Whom Jesus anointed to spread the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to the Gentiles. Gentiles refer to all nations except the Jews.
Personally, i thought everyone is Loved by God and can receive His offer of Life.
As Jesus also said in Matthew 19:23- 26:
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
p.s: Rich here does not necessary refer to wealth.
[/b] -
And this is what I meant by distortion. Take the verse in the context of repentence and such.The verse would then apply to those make the choice to carry on those sinful acts.It speaks of the consequences of those people who choose to live such lives.
and even put the word "cowardly" in bold for your benefit. Still you blithely ignore the fact that the passage talks about the cowardly (referring to a person) instead of cowardice (the act).
If you can't tell the difference between the person and the act, your argument stands on very shaky ground, don't you think?
Oh? The passage seems fairly straightforward to me, and it was a quote. How, pray tell, did he distort it? Seems to me that it's you who distorts things to suit your myopic view.
Oh and using obcenties is very progressive I suppose
Do not use your new-age understanding for the Christian understanding of the Trinity. The Father, Son, Spirit are one God.
This goes to show your complete ignorance on the past. In the past, people were barbarians and needed to be given a clear direction. As such many of the so called "rules" were applicable only in the past.
Some of them no longer applies to this current age.
Also there is a distinction between the Father, the son and the holy spirit.
Jesus is not the Father and vice versa.
Jesus is Jesus.
And Jesus didnt said the act of homosexuality is a sin.
Therefore, you are not only confused with the trinity concept, you are also putting words in Jesus mouth.
The laws of created by the Jews and by man certainly will change, but not the laws of God. They remain eternal. -
Originally posted by casino_king:Who made you a judge to pronounce "homsexuality" a sin? Have you become God? Are you God? Should we all bow down and worship you?
-
LOL. And why not? Who are you to say I shldnt do that?Originally posted by plo30360:Do not use your new-age understanding for the Christian understanding of the Trinity. The Father, Son, Spirit are one God.
The laws of created by the Jews and by man certainly will change, but not the laws of God. They remain eternal. -
Oh, I see. A while ago you didn't know if cowardice was a sin, but now that somebody cited the Bible to show that it was, you're the authority on the interpretation of cowardice in the Bible?Originally posted by plo30360:And this is what I meant by distortion. Take the verse in the context of repentence and such.The verse would then apply to those make the choice to carry on those sinful acts.It speaks of the consequences of those people who choose to live such lives.
Oh and using obcenties is very progressive I suppose
What a load of crap.
You can bleat all you want about obscenities. The only thing that does is further demonstrate your cowardice by trying to throw a distraction so that you can run away from your ignorance. Well, good thing we're here to keep you honest.
Take it either way - whether you're a coward or you're insisting on continuing your cowardice, you're screwed. -
Erm .. so?Originally posted by Gedanken:I pointed out:
- "Ruth clave onto [Naomi]" (Ruth 1:14)
- "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain ('twain' referring to Jonathan and Michal)" (1 Samuel 18:20-21)
- chesed v'rachamim (which in Hebrew cannot be easily explained away as a platonic friendship)
have been in the Bible all this time.
David was a murderer, which is recognized as a grave sin by believers and non-believers alike.
But God still loved him.
Don't tell me you are going to use David to justify murder and adultery also? -
Niv - 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."Originally posted by Gedanken:Oh, I see. A while ago you didn't know if cowardice was a sin, but now that somebody cited the Bible to show that it was, you're the authority on the interpretation of cowardice in the Bible?
What a load of crap.
I don't think you people can use this verse to justify that cowardice is a sin.
First, please do an exegesis and explain the context of the verse. Maybe SIS can help out.
There are many forms of cowardice, like me who don't dare to jump from the 25m diving board . I hope I am not sinning.
PS: Some translations did not have "cowardly", I think they use "fearful". -
So you're saying that people get a place in the fiery lake of burning sulfur for nothing? If it's not a sin, why the burning sulfur?Originally posted by Icemoon:Niv - 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
I don't think you people can use this verse to justify that cowardice is a sin.
First, please do an exegesis and explain the context of the verse. Maybe SIS can help out.
-
Jesus is definitely not the Father. When Jesus pleaded with the Father to take the cup away from him, it is not wayang one. Jesus prayed .. but the Father bochup.Originally posted by shade343:Also there is a distinction between the Father, the son and the holy spirit.
Jesus is not the Father and vice versa.
Jesus is Jesus.
And Jesus didnt said the act of homosexuality is a sin.
Therefore, you are not only confused with the trinity concept, you are also putting words in Jesus mouth.
Jesus is Jesus. Anything less will be heresy.
Shady .. you want to play on ambiguity I can also play on ambiguity. Heh.
Jesus didn't say homosexuality is a sin .. hmm . so what's the next course of action? Trash the NT save the gospels? -
As others have argued earlier, murder is obviously of harm to other people while homsexuality per se is not.Originally posted by Icemoon:Erm .. so?
David was a murderer, which is recognized as a grave sin by believers and non-believers alike.
But God still loved him.
Don't tell me you are going to use David to justify murder and adultery also?
And that's a good point that you've brought up, actually. If God tolerates murder, who is anybody to say that homosexuality is a sin? -
Nope.Originally posted by Gedanken:So you're saying that people get a place in the fiery lake of burning sulfur for nothing? If it's not a sin, why the burning sulfur?
But like I've said, keyword extraction without understanding is not proper biblical hermeneutic.
I gave an example - me afraid to jump from the 25m diving board. This is cowardice .. but is this a sin? -
So you're equating fear to cowardice? The two are related but separate concepts. Try another example.Originally posted by Icemoon:Nope.
But like I've said, keyword extraction without understanding is not proper biblical hermeneutic.
I gave an example - me afraid to jump from the 25m diving board. This is cowardice .. but is this a sin? -
Are we dealing with the biblical notion of sin? Or is sin and harm analogus now?Originally posted by Gedanken:As others have argued earlier, murder is obviously of harm to other people while homsexuality per se is not.
And that's a good point that you've brought up, actually. If God tolerates murder, who is anybody to say that homosexuality is a sin?
God tolerates murder, as in God did not throw a lightning bolt at David, but cannot be used to show murder, and by extension homosexuality, is not a sin.