Homosexual Sex?

[david_x]

No, the book of Leviticus is VERY specific on each offense that is wrong. Look at how many different points it uses to exaggerate each offense in Chapter 18, and you will get the point. It is VERY specific.

I'm sorry I dont see the relavance.

 

[ScottBot]

I never said that, you are saying that.

I could go back an make a list of the posts in which you repeatedly indicate that homosexuality is a natural thing and is observable in 450 species of animals. Not sure how helpful that would be though.

I gave very logical interpretations of every single verse.

Yes, YOUR interpretations, which are completely out of synch with the historical and traditional interpretation of those passages. I'll provide them in context and with discussions by the ECFs, I am guessing you're not interested though.

YOU said that the homosexual acts are what makes you so angry, what I am saying is that I have proof that these Christian Reparative Therapy ministries are doing more harm than good. I have suicidal and depression proofs, as well as proof that every single credible mental health foundation says that they are doing more harm than good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy

You must have me confused with someone else. I never even insinuated that "homosexual acts make me angry". The thought of them makes me nauseous, but not angry. I have no opinion on the Reparative Ministries thing, not enough info and I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia as an "objective" source. I will look it up however, just for my own edification.

If you want to talk ethics, I will be glad to oblige, and give you a wealth of statistics and information.
They are all going after a small minority group that has absolutely no control over their orientation, and God damning them to hell
for not being able to change their attraction (not lust), not even addressed in the Bible.

Well, any group condemning anyone else to Hell has their own issues. Christ is the judge, not us. Regarding "attraction vs lust" I hope that you at least acknowledge that attraction is an element of lust. I know in my own theological understanding, there is no condemnation for ones attractions. The bible does speak rather plainly about taking action on those attractions.

 

[davedjy]

I'm sorry I dont see the relavance.

Please read this carefully:

I think you mean "relevance", and the whole point is that every single specific sexual act is mentioned, including precisely who you cannot come into sexual contact w/each person. If lesbians were to be mentioned, that verse would be in that Chapter specifically.

One can say "well, lesbians weren't around back then", that would be heresay...if we have homosexual examples of males, why would we assume there weren't any women examples? THAT would be an UNEQUAL example!

You are saying that it doesn't need to be mentioned because it's fair for both. Well, if it's fair for both, then BOTH examples should be in there specifically.

 

[Gusoceros]

That because some animals occationally display homosexual activity, then its okay for people to adopt it as a lifestyle.

Oh, and that you misinterpret the first Chapter of Romans, but he has it right.

Oh yeah, thanks for that. I would have missed that dead horse passing by

 

[davedjy]

I could go back an make a list of the posts in which you repeatedly indicate that homosexuality is a natural thing and is observable in 450 species of animals. Not sure how helpful that would be though.

Yes, because David_X said that it isn't natural because there are no examples of other creations displaying this behavior, which was my only argument. I know animals don't have moral guidelines to follow.

Yes, YOUR interpretations, which are completely out of synch with the historical and traditional interpretation of those passages. I'll provide them in context and with discussions by the ECFs, I am guessing your not interested though.

Actually, mine are MORE in sync. I have the historical context of Aphrodites (a hermaphrodite w/both sex organs) and ritual temple idolatry for Romans 1, and where are your historical context analogies for Romans 1 (the only true clobber passage, debatable verse for all scholars on homosexuality).

I'll be more than glad to see your studies.

You must have me confused with someone else. I never even insinuated that "homosexual acts make me angry". The thought of them makes me nauseous, but not angry. I have no opinion on the Reparative Ministries thing, not enough info and I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia as an "objective" source though. I will look it up however, just for my own edification.

You have me laughing at nauseous, although, I used to think of it that way, too. We shouldn't go by what "disgusts" us, things such as foods are personal to our tastes, and perverse if we don't like them too.

I don't rely on Wikipedia for my only source...I will be happy to give you all my sources. There are 28 denominations that condone homosexuality within the confines of marriage, so I do not stand alone. I am not saying that changes the "truth", but nonetheless, there are many who don't believe what you do.

Well, any group condemning anyone else to Hell has their own issues. Christ is the judge, not us. Regarding "attraction vs lust" I hope that you at acknowledge that attraction is an element of lust. I know in my own theological understanding, there is no condemnation for ones attractions. The bible does speak rather plainly about taking action on those attractions.

There isn't any lust in attraction itself. Lust is carrying out w/those thoughts w/burning thoughts and desires of what you wish to do w/that person.

 

[david_x]

One can say "well, lesbians weren't around back then", that would be heresay...if we have homosexual examples of males, why would we assume there weren't any women examples? THAT would be an UNEQUAL example!

It does't give any examples of what women should do. We must assume that women should not do any of these acts either, in their exact oppisite forms.

 

[david_x]

Yes, because David_X said that it isn't natural because there are no examples of other creations displaying this behavior, which was my only argument. I know animals don't have moral guidelines to follow.

Okay, that is not what I am trying to argue. I am saying that animals should not be used as exscuces for behavior.

 

[davedjy]

Okay, that is not what I am trying to argue. I am saying that animals should not be used as exscuces for behavior.

Black ants fight red ants.
Llambas sit on sheep to kill them.
There are no homosexuals in the animal (or any other) kingdom.
Ants enslave each other.
Lions, and pretty much every carnivor and most herbivores fight over space. (including different species of penguines)
Vines race to strangle trees to death.

You mean like this quote that you said?

 

[Gusoceros]

You mean like this quote that you said?

perhaps you could ask him what he meant?

 

[davedjy]

perhaps you could ask him what he meant?

It is very self-explanatory, read the quote for yourself.

 

[Gusoceros]

It is very self-explanatory, read the quote for yourself.

I did. It did not come off as self explanatory as you seem to think it is.

G

 

[davedjy]

I did. It did not come off as self explanatory as you seem to think it is.

G

He was trying to prove that there are no gay animals that exist in the world to make his argument that it is UNNATURAL. It really isn't hard to figure out...

 

[david_x]

You did misenterpert, i did not know of any Gay animals nor believe these reports. Not that it matters if they are or not. THEIR ANIMALS. If we listened to the animal part of us....

He was trying to prove that there are no gay animals that exist in the world to make his argument that it is UNNATURAL. It really isn't hard to figure out...

I wasn't making that argumen, i didn't know of any Gay animals. It was in response to somebody talking about the thoughs they had of animals.

 

[Gusoceros]

He was trying to prove that there are no gay animals that exist in the world to make his argument that it is UNNATURAL. It really isn't hard to figure out...

Except he seemed to be saying something else- that animals should not be used as excuses for the standard of human behavior.

What do you say to that point?

G

 

[davedjy]

Except he seemed to be saying something else- that animals should not be used as excuses for the standard of human behavior.

What do you say to that point?

G

It does not say that even once in that quote I found, he is talking about animals being natural since they don't show any gay traits.

 

[Gusoceros]

Okay, that is not what I am trying to argue. I am saying that animals should not be used as exscuces for behavior.

It does not say that even once in that quote I found, he is talking about animals being natural since they don't show any gay traits.

There you go

 

[davedjy]

There you go

That is what he says NOW, yes I saw that...that isn't what he said then (yesterday). Nevermind...

I already addressed that point, I argued that BEFORE he said it, I know animals don't have morals.

ALL you conservatives say it is "unnatural" since other creations don't do it. So when I bring the info showing that 450 do it, you now go back on your word and say "it isn't natural for humans, though".

Wow, how hypocritical. And like all the 450 creations are completely related? No, they are not, and they do represent God's work on this earth. Talk about changing stories when my arguments stay extremely consistent.

"Animals kill each other though". Well yes, they do, they have to eat, don't they? How does our food get here...is it prayed for and then arrives on our plates instantly?

 

[david_x]

Okay, I never said it was unnatural because animals didnt do it!!! I said they didnt do it. I was not offered your "proof" yet.

It's unnatural becase there is no point, it doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[Gusoceros]

That is what he says NOW, yes I saw that...that isn't what he said then (yesterday). Nevermind...

I already addressed that point, I argued that BEFORE he said it, I know animals don't have morals.

ALL you conservatives say it is "unnatural" since other creations don't do it. So when I bring the info showing that 450 do it, you now go back on your word and say "it isn't natural for humans, though".

Wow, how hypocritical. And like all the 450 creations are completely related? No, they are not, and they do represent God's work on this earth. Talk about changing stories when my arguments stay extremely consistent.

"Animals kill each other though". Well yes, they do, they have to eat, don't they? How does our food get here...is it prayed for and then arrives on our plates instantly?

I have consistently said that animals are not a standard for human behavior- and on both counts, they represent the nature of animals and mankind after the fall.

In that regard- you have 450 examples of bad animal behavior, which should on no counts be used to justify bad human behavior.

*shrug*

G

 

[davedjy]

I have consistently said that animals are not a standard for human behavior- and on both counts, they represent the nature of animals and mankind after the fall.

In that regard- you have 450 examples of bad animal behavior, which should on no counts be used to justify bad human behavior.

*shrug*

G

And did I say that it should be used? Why do you keep shrugging? We all don't share the same opinions, and believe it or not, not everything you believe is 100% in line with what God is, and neither am I.

Part of Christ is showing humility and love.

So God ordains homosexuality in many species but condemns it in us...so it is only perverse in our species? trying to follow your logic, thanks.