Quetzal
New member
Sure it is. It happened for them, why does their life experience mean less?
Last edited:
Scene from a homosexual "wedding"
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
GFR7
New member
:madmad:
Homosexuality was explicitly listed as a moral sin punishable by death in the old covenant.
(Lev 20:13) “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
That was the old covenant. People make the argument that if that law is still in effect today, then all the other old covenant laws are also in effect such as not wearing clothes made of two materials, etc.
So, I gave a passage from Paul, who was a minister of the new covenant. You said it was Paul's opinion, and not God's.
Let's look at another passage in the NT about homosexuality:
(1 Cor 6:9-10) ...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Again, we see that homosexuality is on a list with other sins.
We have to go back to Romans 1 for that comment:
(Rom 1:22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
(Rom 1:25) They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Quetzal
New member
Wow, such eloquence you displayed in sharing your thoughts. Please, don't hurt yourself.
Quetzal
New member
Two men can be together, kiss, make out, etc. Just so long as they don't have sex, they are cool?
Quetzal
New member
So, your moral beliefs should trump their desire to romantically express themselves?
Interplanner
Well-known member
How anyone could read about love in the NT and not realize it is not expressed sexually saddens me.
One of the great advantages of ancient Greek, as Lewis found, was that there were several terms for love. Regarding 'eros' he wrote the most poignant rebuttal of the sexual revolution:
"Nothing is so 'sacred' as sacrificing one's conscience on the alter of desire."
--THE FOUR FACES OF LOVE
One of the great advantages of ancient Greek, as Lewis found, was that there were several terms for love. Regarding 'eros' he wrote the most poignant rebuttal of the sexual revolution:
"Nothing is so 'sacred' as sacrificing one's conscience on the alter of desire."
--THE FOUR FACES OF LOVE
Quetzal
New member
Absolutely. My actions do not dictate anything from you. I can go make out with my girlfriend right now and it won't effect you, period. However, should your moral beliefs become a reality in the sense of legislation or social structure, all of a sudden you are actively preventing someone from doing something that does nothing to you except maybe make you feel a bit icky (get over it). I don't understand why this concept is so tough for the right to understand.
TracerBullet
New member
The condemnation of this passage is based solely on the translation of a single word - arsenokoites - to mean homosexual. That translation is at best a guess as no one knows what arsenokoites means.
Arsenokoites has, at one time or another, been translated to mean kidnappers, Johns or men who employ prostitutes, practitioners of other religions, rapists and fathers who sexually molest their daughters. For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968.
GFR7
New member
You are assuming that morality is a strictly private matter. As late as the 1940s-'60s in the US, many private immoral acts were also illegal. You are arguing from the 1970s pro-individual perspective, which is an historically recent purview with many bad results (private acts wind up becoming public with full public consequences, as in no-fault divorce, slapping kids in daycare nearly as soon as they're born, etc.).
Also, since your view comes from the 1970s, why does gay marriage need the recognition of the state? (the whole 1970s view was, "I''ll be my own judge, thank you; I don't need any recognition from the state". Funny, how things have changed. :mock
My beliefs do not dictate anything from you.
You think my beliefs are icky.
Get over it.
See how that works?
TracerBullet
New member
It actually says a great deal about you
GFR7
New member
How does a unicorn and 2 gays and a Jewish Star of David say a lot about Musterion? :think:
TracerBullet
New member
You've made several sick and hateful claims about an entire minority. I don't think you have much claim to the term 'moral beliefs'.
MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
LOL. Wow. I was expecting something ridiculous, but that, well, that's quite a bit farther down the line. Since you want to take my simple show of happiness on down Crazy Lane to Loony Town, let me restate EXACTLY what I mean.
I say awesome in regard to SCOTUS ruling on marriage for same sex couples because I think it's freaking awesome to see our bigoted quasi theocratic country taking steps towards being less A-holes. I think it's awesome that two consenting adults can be legally as miserable as the rest of us. I think its awesome that our government(which has no business licensing marriage for anyone, or offering incentives to married couples in the first place, IMO) has taken another big step toward EQUALITY. I think it's awesome that Adam and Steve or Jill and Jenn or whatever the names may be can finally take the first fresh breath of air they've taken and proclaim their love(via marriage) in public.
Furthermore, I'm kind of bothered that my post about same sex marriage has you thinking about sex with a child. You may want to talk to a professional about that. :up:
TracerBullet
New member
The fact he put it up and created an entire new gay bashing thread around it.
He makes Christ rejecting homosexual Jews the good guys and Muslims who teach homosexuality is a sin the bad guys.