(09-11-2015 10:13 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Interesting verse on trannies btw.

Quote:Deuteronomy 22:5 ESV / 3 helpful votes
“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Cuts down on those Halloween costume options, doesn't it? Don't forget about this one from the ESV: 11"You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together."

(09-11-2015 10:20 AM)miko33 Wrote:  You're taking too literalist of a view on this specific passage. The takeaway should be that the only acceptable type of sexual relationship is between husband and wife AND if that sexual relationship involves both components of love plus the openness to the blessing of a child. Of course it doesn't mean that missionary is the only position valid for intercourse. Any position you can think of be it cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, doggie, spoons, standing, lotus, etc is perfectly fine so long as the finisher takes place in the proper spot without any preventative means via artificial birth control.

That's the takeaways from the sin of Onan and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Based on what? Your opinion? The Pope's opinion? The Bible literally says nothing about birth control.

(09-11-2015 10:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:11 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:02 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 09:59 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 09:09 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I think it all comes down to pride and shame. The act of homosexuality is probably no worse than the act of adultry, but the adulterer is more liklely to have shame and repent and the homosexual is more likely to be proud of their sin.

This...

What about parades of those who follow other religions? Is this not sinful?

Price of tea in china moment..

The issues being discussed here is sexual sin, let's stay on topic. The point being made was that adultery is "as bad a sin" as homosexuality but Christians tend to react more viscerally to it because we don't have adultery pride parades and kids being told that being against adultery is "hateful"

Is it right that Christians react more strongly to one sin than the other? no. On a personal level they should have equal contempt for both.

I think the bolded sentence is really what Miko is pointing out.

If that's what he was trying to get at then perhaps he should not have discussed husbands and wifes and their sexual acts and actually mentioned adultery.

I've seen this argument before and it's not about adultry vs homosexuality. It's trying to equate sex in a Christian marriage with homosexual relationships.

Miko am I reading you right?

Quote:I understand he's framed it in sexual issues, but the problem I think he's seeing is that it's clear that there is something about homosexuality which makes certain christians respond in a manner that they simply don't respond in regards to other sin, and that's not really backed by scripture.

His initial post is all about where semen should go and it *directly* compares sex in marriage with homosexual sex. Hopefully he will clarify his objective but a plain reading is that a husband and wife engaged in oral sex is the same as two gay men.

Quote:I think you could look historically in the US and see how some christians used the bible to justify their racism. I think that's what rubs people who aren't christian the wrong way, and why there is such a backlash against christians who are outspoken against homosexuality.

and some atheist used science to justify their racism. People are all sinners, all of us, and without a heart of repentance we will grasp at whatever we can to justify our sin.

(09-11-2015 10:21 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:11 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:01 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  In *ENGLISH* In the Original Hebrew and Greek references to sodomy it has to do with homosexual acts.

Which means what then - that the bible has no prohibition against a man having anal/oral sex with his wife to completion? What about condoms then? That's clearly a violation there because I highly doubt the guy is taking the contents out of it and putting it back into the vag...

1 - Yes there is no prohibition on sexual acts in marriage
2 - There is no specific prohibition on barrier methods of contraception

The statement in Genesis about Onan is not just because he spilled his seed..

CONTEXT..

Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

So what do we know here...

The verses cover the social and legal situation. Judah explaining what Onan must do and why (legal Jewish tradition at the time). A plain reading of the text is that Onan was killed because he refused to follow instructions.

First, are you telling me that ejaculating into your wife's mouth or her ass is perfectly fine according to the bible? That is what you are saying, correct? Seriously, I think you are wrong on this point concerning the bible because it violates natural functions of our bodies.

Second, if God is striking down someone dead because he either 1) disobeyed the Jewish law of fathering kids for your dead brother and/or 2) disobeyed the patriarch of the family you belong to - why are those rules not followed today? I already know what you will answer to this second point, but bear in mind He stated that he did not come to modify one character of the Law in the gospels.

(09-11-2015 10:29 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:20 AM)miko33 Wrote:  You're taking too literalist of a view on this specific passage. The takeaway should be that the only acceptable type of sexual relationship is between husband and wife AND if that sexual relationship involves both components of love plus the openness to the blessing of a child. Of course it doesn't mean that missionary is the only position valid for intercourse. Any position you can think of be it cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, doggie, spoons, standing, lotus, etc is perfectly fine so long as the finisher takes place in the proper spot without any preventative means via artificial birth control.

That's the takeaways from the sin of Onan and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Based on what? Your opinion? The Pope's opinion? The Bible literally says nothing about birth control.

The bible says nothing because practically speaking the pill and latex condoms weren't in existence then. The only real methods of birth control available to the people were the "pull and pray" method and abortifacients (various concoctions to act as a "morning after" pill).

(09-11-2015 09:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  But functionally, it certainly seems this way. You don't see Christians lining up to protest an elected official who lied or is adulterous, but you do see them lining up to support the lying and adulterous woman who denied homosexuals marriage licenses which are completely separate from the act of religious marriage.

but that is precisely their point.

2000 years ago, they stoned adulterers. Liars had their tongues cut out. Some time between then and now, they were told they couldn't do that anymore. Over the centuries, they were 'shouted down' that it was somehow ok and they just had to get used to it because the law of God wasn't the law of man. When they talk about the continuing decline of morality, this is precisely what they're talking about. 5 or 50 or 100 years from now, they won't be lining up against gays or to support that person either... they'll simply accept that their opinions carry no weight. Every time someone 'projects' what the next 'formerly eschewed, now acceptable' vice to be cleansed, whether it be polygamy or sex with children or sex in public they are told 'that is crazy, we will never accept that', ignoring that they were told the same thing when they stopped protesting adulterers.

Of course I'm not talking about all of them, nor am I speaking for myself... but there IS a relatively large group of truly devout people who are honestly concerned for the souls of homosexuals based on their interpretation of His will. The ones who pray for them and encourage them not to engage in it... not the ones who throw things at them.

(09-11-2015 10:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The bible says nothing because practically speaking the pill and latex condoms weren't in existence then. The only real methods of birth control available to the people were the "pull and pray" method and abortifacients (various concoctions to act as a "morning after" pill).

That doesn't mean that you're allowed to assume that because they said nothing, they meant that sex couldn't also be 'pleasant' (foreplay) in addition to 'functional' in terms of procreation.

You're sort of selectively 'filling in the gaps' yourself, while not allowing others to do the same. The bible doesn't talk about birth control. It also doesn't say that every loving act of sex between a heterosexual couple should ONLY lead to conception.

At the time the bible was written, you 'multiplied' or your people died. Very few lived long and many died very early, plus it took a lot of manual labor to feed them. There IS something to the idea that if you are giving your whole heart (romantic love) to more than one person, that you aren't giving your WHOLE heart to anyone... so if you are engaging in homosexuality (in biblical times) you are either contributing to the death of your people, or you are not really 'loving' the person you're making children with. I realize times have changed, but that was the context of the bible. Lots of the same things about pigs and shellfish as well have changed.

(09-11-2015 10:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:11 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:02 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 09:59 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 09:09 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I think it all comes down to pride and shame. The act of homosexuality is probably no worse than the act of adultry, but the adulterer is more liklely to have shame and repent and the homosexual is more likely to be proud of their sin.

This...

What about parades of those who follow other religions? Is this not sinful?

Price of tea in china moment..

The issues being discussed here is sexual sin, let's stay on topic. The point being made was that adultery is "as bad a sin" as homosexuality but Christians tend to react more viscerally to it because we don't have adultery pride parades and kids being told that being against adultery is "hateful"

Is it right that Christians react more strongly to one sin than the other? no. On a personal level they should have equal contempt for both.

I think the bolded sentence is really what Miko is pointing out. I understand he's framed it in sexual issues, but the problem I think he's seeing is that it's clear that there is something about homosexuality which makes certain christians respond in a manner that they simply don't respond in regards to other sin, and that's not really backed by scripture.

I'm not here to judge christians, they're just people, and people will sometimes unknowingly look for reasons to justify their preconceived feelings towards people they don't like. I think you could look historically in the US and see how some christians used the bible to justify their racism. I think that's what rubs people who aren't christian the wrong way, and why there is such a backlash against christians who are outspoken against homosexuality.

This is the point. People want to point to one type of sexual act as being against God's will yet have no qualms about overlooking other sexual immorality. Hell, you have people who are defending the right for a husband and wife to have anal sex and for the guy to finish inside her anal cavity. Seriously guys, you cannot possibly think that God would find that perfectly fine and valid while condemning a same sex couple.

The only difference between a committed relationship between a man and a woman and that same commitment between same sex couples is the ability to procreate. If you remove the ability to procreate from the equation, what is the difference? What would be the difference between a man and a woman getting married if one of the two had a vasectomy or a tubal ligation? You permanently cut off the ability of a man and a woman to be open to the gifts of life. Seriously, this is hypocrisy of the first rank. Permanently removing the ability to bring life into the world for a heterosexual couple makes that couple equivalent to a same sex couple in function.

Someone said that the bible never said that tab A must be inserted in slot B. bull****. It most certainly does. Otherwise, the insistence that only a man and a woman can be joined in marriage is nonsensical.

(09-11-2015 10:52 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:11 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:02 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 09:59 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  This...

What about parades of those who follow other religions? Is this not sinful?

Price of tea in china moment..

The issues being discussed here is sexual sin, let's stay on topic. The point being made was that adultery is "as bad a sin" as homosexuality but Christians tend to react more viscerally to it because we don't have adultery pride parades and kids being told that being against adultery is "hateful"

Is it right that Christians react more strongly to one sin than the other? no. On a personal level they should have equal contempt for both.

I think the bolded sentence is really what Miko is pointing out. I understand he's framed it in sexual issues, but the problem I think he's seeing is that it's clear that there is something about homosexuality which makes certain christians respond in a manner that they simply don't respond in regards to other sin, and that's not really backed by scripture.

I'm not here to judge christians, they're just people, and people will sometimes unknowingly look for reasons to justify their preconceived feelings towards people they don't like. I think you could look historically in the US and see how some christians used the bible to justify their racism. I think that's what rubs people who aren't christian the wrong way, and why there is such a backlash against christians who are outspoken against homosexuality.

This is the point. People want to point to one type of sexual act as being against God's will yet have no qualms about overlooking other sexual immorality. Hell, you have people who are defending the right for a husband and wife to have anal sex and for the guy to finish inside her anal cavity. Seriously guys, you cannot possibly think that God would find that perfectly fine and valid while condemning a same sex couple.

The only difference between a committed relationship between a man and a woman and that same commitment between same sex couples is the ability to procreate. If you remove the ability to procreate from the equation, what is the difference? What would be the difference between a man and a woman getting married if one of the two had a vasectomy or a tubal ligation? You permanently cut off the ability of a man and a woman to be open to the gifts of life. Seriously, this is hypocrisy of the first rank. Permanently removing the ability to bring life into the world for a heterosexual couple makes that couple equivalent to a same sex couple in function.

Someone said that the bible never said that tab A must be inserted in slot B. bull****. It most certainly does. Otherwise, the insistence that only a man and a woman can be joined in marriage is nonsensical.

You miss the point completely.

(09-11-2015 10:33 AM)miko33 Wrote:  First, are you telling me that ejaculating into your wife's mouth or her ass is perfectly fine according to the bible? That is what you are saying, correct?

First that's not my thing. Not that it's any of your business.

Being deliberately crude and shocking does not negate the fact that there is no verse in the bible that addresses the proper and approved mechanics of sex in marriage.

Lets say this again.... *** THERE IS NO VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT PUTS PROHIBITIONS ON IN MARRIAGE SEX ***. Therefore not sinful as described in the Bible.

I find both acts you mention, in or out of marriage rather crude and disrespectful to a mans wife but I don't see where it's called a sin.

Quote:Seriously, I think you are wrong on this point concerning the bible because it violates natural functions of our bodies.

Natural functions as defined by whom? Where it the bible is masturbation called "unnatural"?

Quote:Second, if God is striking down someone dead because he either 1) disobeyed the Jewish law of fathering kids for your dead brother and/or 2) disobeyed the patriarch of the family you belong to - why are those rules not followed today?

1 - The tradition which stated a brother would marry the widow of his sibling was just that, an allowed tradition not a mandate. The sin was disobedience to a parent.

2 - Many of the levitical laws and traditions were meant for the Jewish people of that time and aimed at keeping them sanctified so that the line to Christ would go uninterrupted (by the way Judah was of course in that line so screwing with it was rather significant in the eyes of God).

Quote:I already know what you will answer to this second point, but bear in mind He stated that he did not come to modify one character of the Law in the gospels.

And yet he freed Paul from the dietary requirements.

(09-11-2015 10:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The bible says nothing because practically speaking the pill and latex condoms weren't in existence then. The only real methods of birth control available to the people were the "pull and pray" method and abortifacients (various concoctions to act as a "morning after" pill).

That doesn't mean that you're allowed to assume that because they said nothing, they meant that sex couldn't also be 'pleasant' (foreplay) in addition to 'functional' in terms of procreation.

You're sort of selectively 'filling in the gaps' yourself, while not allowing others to do the same. The bible doesn't talk about birth control. It also doesn't say that every loving act of sex between a heterosexual couple should ONLY lead to conception.

At the time the bible was written, you 'multiplied' or your people died. Very few lived long and many died very early, plus it took a lot of manual labor to feed them. There IS something to the idea that if you are giving your whole heart (romantic love) to more than one person, that you aren't giving your WHOLE heart to anyone... so if you are engaging in homosexuality (in biblical times) you are either contributing to the death of your people, or you are not really 'loving' the person you're making children with. I realize times have changed, but that was the context of the bible. Lots of the same things about pigs and shellfish as well have changed.

I'm not saying that either. Obviously the pleasure component is critical or a species would not procreate. I never said that foreplay is a no no. My point is that according to the bible couples were to be open to life occurring during any sexual encounter. It doesn't mean that they didn't nor shouldn't watch her cycle in order to pick the right days to have sex. The key there is that would be a natural approach to birth control. Yet it also allows for God to bless the union with a child even if that couple were not intending to bring a child into the world. Artificial birth control goes against that notion, and condom use is most assuredly the same as spilling your seed on the ground.

An interesting point you bring up is the context of the ancient world - especially those who cultivate the land - where a lack of children meant a distinct possibility of death for your family. As you point out, times have changed, but the verses in the bible have not. Should they be reinterpreted to fit the times?

(09-11-2015 10:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:29 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:20 AM)miko33 Wrote:  You're taking too literalist of a view on this specific passage. The takeaway should be that the only acceptable type of sexual relationship is between husband and wife AND if that sexual relationship involves both components of love plus the openness to the blessing of a child. Of course it doesn't mean that missionary is the only position valid for intercourse. Any position you can think of be it cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, doggie, spoons, standing, lotus, etc is perfectly fine so long as the finisher takes place in the proper spot without any preventative means via artificial birth control.

That's the takeaways from the sin of Onan and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Based on what? Your opinion? The Pope's opinion? The Bible literally says nothing about birth control.

The bible says nothing because practically speaking the pill and latex condoms weren't in existence then. The only real methods of birth control available to the people were the "pull and pray" method and abortifacients (various concoctions to act as a "morning after" pill).

Oral sex did exist right... Why is it not mentioned *** and again Sodomy is a rough English translation for a Hebrew word that talked about homosexual acts ***

(09-11-2015 10:53 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:52 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:11 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:02 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  What about parades of those who follow other religions? Is this not sinful?

Price of tea in china moment..

The issues being discussed here is sexual sin, let's stay on topic. The point being made was that adultery is "as bad a sin" as homosexuality but Christians tend to react more viscerally to it because we don't have adultery pride parades and kids being told that being against adultery is "hateful"

Is it right that Christians react more strongly to one sin than the other? no. On a personal level they should have equal contempt for both.

I think the bolded sentence is really what Miko is pointing out. I understand he's framed it in sexual issues, but the problem I think he's seeing is that it's clear that there is something about homosexuality which makes certain christians respond in a manner that they simply don't respond in regards to other sin, and that's not really backed by scripture.

I'm not here to judge christians, they're just people, and people will sometimes unknowingly look for reasons to justify their preconceived feelings towards people they don't like. I think you could look historically in the US and see how some christians used the bible to justify their racism. I think that's what rubs people who aren't christian the wrong way, and why there is such a backlash against christians who are outspoken against homosexuality.

This is the point. People want to point to one type of sexual act as being against God's will yet have no qualms about overlooking other sexual immorality. Hell, you have people who are defending the right for a husband and wife to have anal sex and for the guy to finish inside her anal cavity. Seriously guys, you cannot possibly think that God would find that perfectly fine and valid while condemning a same sex couple.

The only difference between a committed relationship between a man and a woman and that same commitment between same sex couples is the ability to procreate. If you remove the ability to procreate from the equation, what is the difference? What would be the difference between a man and a woman getting married if one of the two had a vasectomy or a tubal ligation? You permanently cut off the ability of a man and a woman to be open to the gifts of life. Seriously, this is hypocrisy of the first rank. Permanently removing the ability to bring life into the world for a heterosexual couple makes that couple equivalent to a same sex couple in function.

Someone said that the bible never said that tab A must be inserted in slot B. bull****. It most certainly does. Otherwise, the insistence that only a man and a woman can be joined in marriage is nonsensical.

You miss the point completely.

Explain it to be then.

(09-11-2015 10:33 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Second, if God is striking down someone dead because he either 1) disobeyed the Jewish law of fathering kids for your dead brother and/or 2) disobeyed the patriarch of the family you belong to - why are those rules not followed today? I already know what you will answer to this second point, but bear in mind He stated that he did not come to modify one character of the Law in the gospels.

It's because after Christ died and was resurrected we are living in the "New Covenant" age of Christianity. The old Jewish laws (not the 10 commandments, btw), the obscure laws regarding food, taking your brothers' wife, circumcision, concubines, etc, etc... do NOT apply anymore.

There are however, many lessons to be learned reading "Old Covenant" passages. God entered into a Covenant with the Jews that if they obeyed him, they would be blessed. Some of it makes no sense today... but the point is that they obeyed anyway and God blessed them. See Abraham being tested when asked to sacrifice his son. OBEDIENCE trumped everything because it showed a true blind faith since Christ had not come to earth yet God had promised that he would come (a covenant) and delivered on later. Christ came to fulfill, not abolish.

There's a VERY good reason that we still honor the 10 commandments specifically. Those laws are directly related to how we honor God and others.

Quote:Matthew 22:36-40King James Version (KJV)
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.

Quote:From Exodus 20 - The 4 "Love thy God" commands....
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image....5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Quote:Matthew 22 continued...
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Quote:From Exodus 20 - The 6 "Love others" commands...
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

i believe that God does not care about our sexual life any more than He cares about our bowel movements, runny noses or any other animal body functions and activities.

(09-11-2015 11:01 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:53 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:52 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 10:11 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Price of tea in china moment..

The issues being discussed here is sexual sin, let's stay on topic. The point being made was that adultery is "as bad a sin" as homosexuality but Christians tend to react more viscerally to it because we don't have adultery pride parades and kids being told that being against adultery is "hateful"

Is it right that Christians react more strongly to one sin than the other? no. On a personal level they should have equal contempt for both.

I think the bolded sentence is really what Miko is pointing out. I understand he's framed it in sexual issues, but the problem I think he's seeing is that it's clear that there is something about homosexuality which makes certain christians respond in a manner that they simply don't respond in regards to other sin, and that's not really backed by scripture.

I'm not here to judge christians, they're just people, and people will sometimes unknowingly look for reasons to justify their preconceived feelings towards people they don't like. I think you could look historically in the US and see how some christians used the bible to justify their racism. I think that's what rubs people who aren't christian the wrong way, and why there is such a backlash against christians who are outspoken against homosexuality.

This is the point. People want to point to one type of sexual act as being against God's will yet have no qualms about overlooking other sexual immorality. Hell, you have people who are defending the right for a husband and wife to have anal sex and for the guy to finish inside her anal cavity. Seriously guys, you cannot possibly think that God would find that perfectly fine and valid while condemning a same sex couple.

The only difference between a committed relationship between a man and a woman and that same commitment between same sex couples is the ability to procreate. If you remove the ability to procreate from the equation, what is the difference? What would be the difference between a man and a woman getting married if one of the two had a vasectomy or a tubal ligation? You permanently cut off the ability of a man and a woman to be open to the gifts of life. Seriously, this is hypocrisy of the first rank. Permanently removing the ability to bring life into the world for a heterosexual couple makes that couple equivalent to a same sex couple in function.

Someone said that the bible never said that tab A must be inserted in slot B. bull****. It most certainly does. Otherwise, the insistence that only a man and a woman can be joined in marriage is nonsensical.

You miss the point completely.

Explain it to be then.

Already did. The difference between homosexuality and the other sexual sins is pride and shame. All this banter about what is or isn't in the bible is moot to this discussion. If a football player came out and said he phucks his girlfriend in the arse, he'd be shunned and shamed by society, the media, and pop culture as rude, crude, and vulgar. There is only one sin in which everyone is calling on Christians to be proud of and celebrate else be outcast. You may disagree with the philosophy of homosexuality being amoral or shameful, which is the case for the other sins as well by the way, but if you are honestly wondering why this sin is discussed and others aren't, there is your answer. End of thread.

(09-11-2015 10:52 AM)miko33 Wrote:  This is the point. People want to point to one type of sexual act as being against God's will yet have no qualms about overlooking other sexual immorality.

I agree here. Unfortunately you decided to include acts between married couples as Sexually immoral when *** THERE IS NO BIBLICAL BASIS ***.. You're either trolling or this is the sloppiest argument you could have made.

If you had said "For those who find homosexuality a sin against God...."vWhy don't you hate adultery and fornication?

The entire jist of your post is this "if homosexuality is a sin why is condom use not a sin and why don't you rail on condom use.."

Condom use is not a sin because the Bible is silent on it.

Quote:Hell, you have people who are defending the right for a husband and wife to have anal sex and for the guy to finish inside her anal cavity.

I am merely saying that nowhere in scripture is that forbidden. You've yet to show us where it is. The word "unnatural" does not to the best of my knowledge appear in the bible in regards to specific acts.

In fact the prohibitions against homosexuality say "if a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman". Lets logically follow that..

1 - That would seem to indicate lying with a woman is ok but not a man.
2 - The only manner one could lie with a man and woman in the same way would be the back door
3 - Therefore it could be argued such an act with a woman (implied in marriage) is ok.

Again it's not my bag of tea but I don't see it prohibited.

Quote:Seriously guys, you cannot possibly think that God would find that perfectly fine and valid while condemning a same sex couple.

Show me scripture to the contrary

Quote:The only difference between a committed relationship between a man and a woman and that same commitment between same sex couples is the ability to procreate.

NO... The Bible defines Marriage as man and woman and defines acceptable sexual contact to be within marriage... Period. Thats a huge freaking difference.

Quote:If you remove the ability to procreate from the equation, what is the difference? What would be the difference between a man and a woman getting married if one of the two had a vasectomy or a tubal ligation?

Whats the difference between a couple shaking up and getting married? The bible defines Marriage as the only place for sex.

"'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?" - Jesus

Quote:You permanently cut off the ability of a man and a woman to be open to the gifts of life.

I've known men who have been fixed and the procedure later failed and I've known people taking fertility meds and yet can not conceive. God opens and closes the womb, not man.

Quote:Seriously, this is hypocrisy of the first rank. Permanently removing the ability to bring life into the world for a heterosexual couple makes that couple equivalent to a same sex couple in function.

No it does not. Marriage is primarily about the relationship between the husband and wife in roles described by God. Not making babies.

Quote:Someone said that the bible never said that tab A must be inserted in slot B. bull****. It most certainly does.

THEN GIVE ME THE VERSE. I've already given you the strongs concordance reference showing you that the word translated as "sodomy" refers to a homosexual act in the original Hebrew

Quote:Otherwise, the insistence that only a man and a woman can be joined in marriage is nonsensical.

Saying you've demonstrated that does not make it true. You've done nothing of the sort.

UCF - See this - He is not talking about Christians taking one sin more than the other. He is equating a Christian Marriage with a homosexual relationship. Period.

God created woman for man. It's natural and what God intended. To turn away from God is unnatural and immoral. Homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral.

(09-11-2015 07:58 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  People don't oppose homosexuality because of the Bible. Let's be honest, most people who cite the Bible know almost nothing about the obscure things that are no-nos in the Bible that even fundamentalist churches pay no attention to. They use the Bible as an excuse because "the law of God" sounds a lot better than "gay sex is icky".

There's nothing unique about this to Bible-thumper types. There's also liberal progressive types who say "teens are going to f*** no matter what, get over it you prude" to a 16 year old male hooking up with a 15-year-old female but somewhere between 17-20 there is a magic number for the male where some metamorphosis occurs and hooking up with the 15-year-old girl becomes a heinous crime.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are there prohibitions in the bible regarding certain sexual and dietary and clothing choices? Yes. They are in the bible because the culture the authors lived in considered them icky, not because they are inherently or demonstrably immoral.

As for the argument that anything other than procreative sex was condemned because families/tribes needed to produce a lot of children to ensure survival, I can only ask this. Do we think that Jewish people 3,000 years ago were so ignorant of procreative issues that they didn't realize that masturbation one day didn't prevent you from copulating the next?

The fact is this. Semitic tribes were very prudish then. Even today, Arab culture is horrifically repressed sexually. When different cultures imagine an afterlife, invariably it includes pleasures not freely available in their mortal lives. It's not an accident that the Muslim concept of heaven imagines that a man will have not just unlimited sex for eternity, but total domination of women (who are cast as perpetual virgins in Paradise) as well.

The concept of sin is not absolute. It varies from culture to culture, and from time to time.

(09-11-2015 11:26 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  God created woman for man. It's natural and what God intended. To turn away from God is unnatural and immoral. Homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral.

so man came first? what's with those nipples on his chest?