• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Question for people who believe being gay to be wrong

Because we know the difference does not mean I necessarily disagree.

Don't assume anything.

It wasn't an assumption. It was an inference. If you agreed with Paul's opinion, than the defense that it was "just his opinion" would be disingenuous. Of course I did make the assumption that you did not intend to be disingenuous, so maybe that was my bad...


And somehow you know what ws better for the society he lived in? You went back in time or something?

His opinions were for his church as in letters he had written. I doubt he expected his letters to end up cannon. This does not change his authority when speaking about Gods law.

Ok. Well, Jesus still said that it was best for men to marry as was originally intended, and Paul still said it was better for them not to marry if they could control themselves. Which opinion do you hold?

So you are willing to do an end run around the law "technically" and just ignore the spirit of the law?

It's not a law, its an anecdote. The only part of that passage that is law is this:

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

My use of the word technically was to indicate that I was breaking the passage down into the four distinct assertions Jesus was making. Of the four, only one of them was a commandment. The command was to not separate what God had joined together.

It seems to me that you are the one trying to twist the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law, is "Don't divorce your wives. Keep loving them and treating them as you would have them treat you instead."

You seem to be trying to twist this clear message into "Any sexual union other than a marriage between one man and one woman is sinful." It's not working.

You must be kidding?

"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Oh wait, this is the law that you want to do an end run around.

Looks like a deflection to me. You didn't really address the part that you quoted. Did King David sin when he took a second wife, thereby making his marriage between 1 man and 2 women? Maybe read 1 Kings 15:5 again before answering.

Since the law does not state or recognize any other union it is safe to say, you are correct and very wrong at the same time.

No, no other union is mentioned or ordained save a man and woman. Anything else is morally wrong and a sin, period.

If no other union is mentioned or ordained save a man and a woman then how do you know anything else is morally wrong and a sin? Because they aren't mentioned? According to that logic, using sunscreen is morally wrong and a sin because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible. Driving an automobile is morally wrong and a sin because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible. how did you make the leap from "not mentioned" to "Morally wrong and sinful?"

Yes, it was so people could not just put away your WIFE for any reason.

Agreed, which is why that particular rule only applies to married heterosexual males and married homosexual females. I think we could reasonably extend the principal of the law to apply to married heterosexual females and married homosexual males by replacing the word "wife" with the word "husband."

Or we could just follow the golden rule and the who thing will solve itself, since no one wants to be cast off and traded in for a newer model.


And this puts them squarely in danger of separation from God and hellfire.

Really? Paul was one of those people who couldn't accept the word. Does that mean that he was put squarely in danger of separation from God and hellfire? Is everyone who chooses not to marry going to hell for not following the original design?
 
I don't think anyone would cite poetry in a trial as evidence.

Not only does this not address my response, it totally avoids it. I am really getting tired of you going off on some tangent that is usually wrong that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

So are you going to do like you said twice now and stop responding?

I for one would certainly appreciate it so I can concentrate on the real debate.

PS No they would not in a modern trial. This happened how long ago?
 
Last edited:
From his own lips...

Matthew 5:17 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

You can't argue with that.

So are you saying that Christians are bound by the rules of the Old Covenant? If so, there are a lot of women with a lot of dove killing to catch up on. What are you even trying to say?

Personally I think when Jesus talks about "the law and the prophets" He is talking about the Golden Rule. He didn't come to destroy the Golden Rule, he came to fulfill the Golden Rule. Jesus agrees with me on this by the way. He says that the Golden Rule is the sum of all the laws and the prophets, so when you say He came not to destroy but to fulfill, the Golden rule is what you are talking about. That Leviticus nonsense He never really seemed to acknowledge the legitimacy of.


This does not change the fact marriage is between a man and a woman. At the very least homosexuality is fornication, and beyond that two men cannot be married. So no matter how people try to twist it, no evidence it is other than what it is, a sin.

Fornication is sex where someone does something to someone else that they wouldn't want done to them. Gay sex doesn't always meet this requirement.

None of that also has anything to do with treating each other wit hlove, kindness and mercy.

Exactly, and according to my pal Jesus, anything that doesn't have anything to do with treating each other with love, kindness and mercy isn't the law or the prophets. Ergo, this alleged "sin" isn't really a sin at all. It's more of a social taboo.

So because I feel it is a sin has nothing to do with how anyone treats anyone else.

Ok, well, if I felt that it was a sin to eat blueberry muffins, that would have nothing to do with how anyone treats anyone else either. According to Jesus though, nothing is a sin unless it has something to do with how someone treats someone.

You are trying to use "do unto others" and it really does not apply.

According to Jesus, "do unto others" always applies. That's why the rule is prefaced with the words "So, in everything" rather than "So, in some things but not in others."

In fact by letting them sin, I am doing them a disservice. By condoning it, I am no better and guilty of that sin.

Ok, so you shouldn't condone people treating others in a way they wouldn't want to be treated. That's cool. I'm down with that.

Jesus did not condemn her as I am not condemning homosexuals, but he also told her to sin no more. It could not be much clearer than that.

Yes, because she committed adultery. Would she want her husband to commit adultery? No. So when she does it she is breaking the Golden Rule. Easy peasy. Now show how the Golden rule applies to homosexuality.

Again has nothing to do with it. If someone lets me sin without saying something, they are doing me and themselves a great disservice.

I mean you are basically saying it's OK to let people continue to sin as long as you want to sin.

No, I'm saying the people haven't sinned unless they have broken the golden rule.

It does when it specifically says one man and one woman. Again this is trying to end run around the law.

How is it a run around a law that says not to divorce your wife? In what reality is that a valid connection?

So you are saying as long as you are nice to everyone, sin is OK.

No, I'm saying that as long as you are nice to everyone, you haven't sinned.

Nothing in the Bible or Jesus e's own testimony say anything like that. Talk about a leap of faith! Hehehe.

I refer you back to Matt 7:12, which says exactly that.

If it is a sin, no.

It isn't a sin. It is a commandment from God. following a commandment from God cannot be a sin.

As I said it is at the very least fornication.

Prove it. Show where Jesus says that gay sex is fornication.

They both seem to have it right. You have it wrong. ;)

According to Jesus, everyone should do unto others as they would have done unto them. This includes gay men. If gay men follow this rule, then they have not sinned, because they have done exactly as commanded to them by God.
 
It wasn't an assumption. It was an inference. If you agreed with Paul's opinion, than the defense that it was "just his opinion" would be disingenuous. Of course I did make the assumption that you did not intend to be disingenuous, so maybe that was my bad...

No biggie.

Ok. Well, Jesus still said that it was best for men to marry as was originally intended, and Paul still said it was better for them not to marry if they could control themselves. Which opinion do you hold?

Paul’s was a suggestion. Jesus laid down the law. So Jesus of course.

It's not a law, its an anecdote. The only part of that passage that is law is this:
"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."My use of the word technically was to indicate that I was breaking the passage down into the four distinct assertions Jesus was making. Of the four, only one of them was a commandment. The command was to not separate what God had joined together.

So you are saying this…

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Is a: a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical.

No. I will have to disagree as that makes little sense.

It seems to me that you are the one trying to twist the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law, is "Don't divorce your wives. Keep loving them and treating them as you would have them treat you instead."
You seem to be trying to twist this clear message into "Any sexual union other than a marriage between one man and one woman is sinful." It's not working.

It’s not working in that you disagree? I saw no place in the Bible whatsoever old or new where it condones any kind of gay marriage. In fact, the evidence thus far says the exact opposite.

Looks like a deflection to me. You didn't really address the part that you quoted. Did King David sin when he took a second wife, thereby making his marriage between 1 man and 2 women? Maybe read 1 Kings 15:5 again before answering.

I don’t have to. It is clear all the kings fell short of God’s glory by committing adultery. End of story. It even mentions that 1 thing.

If no other union is mentioned or ordained save a man and a woman then how do you know anything else is morally wrong and a sin? Because they aren't mentioned? According to that logic, using sunscreen is morally wrong and a sin because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible. Driving an automobile is morally wrong and a sin because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible. how did you make the leap from "not mentioned" to "Morally wrong and sinful?"

Jesus also did not mention incest. And yet somehow we know it is a sin.

Agreed, which is why that particular rule only applies to married heterosexual males and married homosexual females. I think we could reasonably extend the principal of the law to apply to married heterosexual females and married homosexual males by replacing the word "wife" with the word "husband."

You would be in danger of heresy at that point.

Or we could just follow the golden rule and the who thing will solve itself, since no one wants to be cast off and traded in for a newer model.

Jesus was very clear on this as he was in the old law. Again this is nothing more than heresy. You are doing people a great disservice by condoning sin, and accepting it be repeated.

Christians should judge one another (1 Corinthians 5:12-13; John 7:24). TheLord did not condone the woman’s sin. So why would he condone any sin now? He commanded her to “go thy way; from henceforth sin no more” (John 8:11).

Jesus in this one incident revealed the hypocrisy of the accusers who were more interested in ensnaring the Lord than preserving holiness in their community (cf. Mark 7:1-13). And where was the man who also was caught in “the act of adultery” (cf. Leviticus 20:10)?

Jesus respected the old law that prohibited adultery and the punishment that the law prescribed. This includes all the old law. He also regarded the laws of accusation and testimony, which may not have been satisfied in this case, but the Son of God had the right to forgive sins (cf. Mark 2:10). We don't have that right, only God. The response to this situation by Jesus, the Son of God, was not designed to insulate wicked and impenitent individuals from rebuke or discipline in the Christian Age.

Really? Paul was one of those people who couldn't accept the word. Does that mean that he was put squarely in danger of separation from God and hellfire? Is everyone who chooses not to marry going to hell for not following the original design?

Ummmm… You know as well as I do he was offering a suggestion, not going against the will of God. Or overriding a command from God.
 
The church of the time would disagree.

The church of the time was hardly homogenous in its views on many subjects. ;)

And yet people also see Christs teaching differently, just like Paul.

Indeed they do. That's why there are so many different denominations. Do you think that only some of them are actual Christians?

You also do not believe in the divinity of Christ or his teachings and yet you say now that Christ is infallible? Pretty good for something you consider no more than a fairy tail.

First, it's a fairy TALE. If the church frowns on gay sex, how do you think it feels about interspecies sex (fairy tail)?

Second, the infallibility of Christ (as God enfleshed) is well noted in your belief system. I expect your views to be logically coherent.

Yes it is.

I know, I said so. :D
 
So you are saying this…

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Is a: a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical.

No. I will have to disagree as that makes little sense.

How does that make little sense? Is it not a short account of an event, namely the creation of mankind? Is it not of an interesting nature? It seems to fit the definition of an anecdote perfectly to me. How can you possibly interpret it as a law?

"Thou shalt from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

How does that make any sense? Saying that God made them male and female is clearly an anecdote, and not a law.

It’s not working in that you disagree? I saw no place in the Bible whatsoever old or new where it condones any kind of gay marriage. In fact, the evidence thus far says the exact opposite.

The part where it says to "in everything" (everything in this case including romantic relationships) do to others (which in this case includes doing to other gay men) what you would have them do to you. (Which in this case includes what you would have the other gay men do to you.) If you are a gay man, and you would have another gay man be your life partner, than you are not only justified, but are in fact obligated to become his life partner should he ask you.

I don’t have to. It is clear all the kings fell short of God’s glory by committing adultery. End of story. It even mentions that 1 thing.

So 1 Kings 15:5 was lying when it said that David kept the Lord's commandments all the days of his life except in the case of Uriah the Hittite?

Jesus also did not mention incest. And yet somehow we know it is a sin.

Only if you do things to your relatives that you would not have them do to you.

You would be in danger of heresy at that point.

Or you would be in danger of heresy for helping spread the doctrine of demons, forbidding marriage to gay people. =P (1 Timothy 4)

Jesus was very clear on this as he was in the old law. Again this is nothing more than heresy. You are doing people a great disservice by condoning sin, and accepting it be repeated.

I am not condoning sin. I am promoting the Golden Rule, which is the sum of all the law and all the prophets.

Christians should judge one another (1 Corinthians 5:12-13; John 7:24). TheLord did not condone the woman’s sin. So why would he condone any sin now? He commanded her to “go thy way; from henceforth sin no more” (John 8:11).

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." -Matt 7:1


Jesus in this one incident revealed the hypocrisy of the accusers who were more interested in ensnaring the Lord than preserving holiness in their community (cf. Mark 7:1-13). And where was the man who also was caught in “the act of adultery” (cf. Leviticus 20:10)?

Jesus respected the old law that prohibited adultery and the punishment that the law prescribed. This includes all the old law. He also regarded the laws of accusation and testimony, which may not have been satisfied in this case, but the Son of God had the right to forgive sins (cf. Mark 2:10). We don't have that right, only God. The response to this situation by Jesus, the Son of God, was not designed to insulate wicked and impenitent individuals from rebuke or discipline in the Christian Age.

So you are saying that Jesus was exempt from following Mosaic law? Before you said that he followed Mosaic law. Which is it?

Ummmm… You know as well as I do he was offering a suggestion, not going against the will of God. Or overriding a command from God.

I claim that Jesus commanded married men not to divorce their wives. You claim that Jesus commanded men to get married to a woman. According to your claim, Paul not only sinned by not getting married, but also sinned by suggesting that others join him in this sin of not getting married.
 
Last edited:
So are you saying that Christians are bound by the rules of the Old Covenant? If so, there are a lot of women with a lot of dove killing to catch up on. What are you even trying to say?

Oh Panache, you know that’s not what I was saying. I suppose I could have been clearer though. I am saying the old law is a good indicator of what God approved and did not approve. We must separate what was man’s law at the time from what God actually ordained. If nothing else it does give us good incite.

Personally I think when Jesus talks about "the law and the prophets" He is talking about the Golden Rule. He didn't come to destroy the Golden Rule, he came to fulfill the Golden Rule. Jesus agrees with me on this by the way. He says that the Golden Rule is the sum of all the laws and the prophets, so when you say He came not to destroy but to fulfill, the Golden rule is what you are talking about. That Leviticus nonsense He never really seemed to acknowledge the legitimacy of.

Sin is a master, and we become enslaved (John 8:34). Only the truth will set Christians free (John 8:32).

Sin will make us blind (John 9:39-41). The spiritual punishments are harder to bear the more we pursue sin (cf. Hebrews 3:12-13).

Positive influences are gone when we disregard the suffering and goodness of God (cf. Luke 8:12; Romans 1:20,21,24,26,28; 2:4-5). Only submissions made humbly and sincerely to Jesus Christ, will remedy our spiritual blindness.

In the end, your statement is just not true according to scripture.

Fornication is sex where someone does something to someone else that they wouldn't want done to them. Gay sex doesn't always meet this requirement.

What? No, that would be sexual assault or rape, not fornication. Fornication is sex outside of marriage.

So yes, gay sex is always fornication as 2 men or women cannot be married.

Exactly, and according to my pal Jesus, anything that doesn't have anything to do with treating each other with love, kindness and mercy isn't the law or the prophets. Ergo, this alleged "sin" isn't really a sin at all. It's more of a social taboo.

Now you regulate sin to social taboo. This is exactly what I mentioned above and scripture says that is absolutely not true.

Statements like that have also been warned about.

Ok, well, if I felt that it was a sin to eat blueberry muffins, that would have nothing to do with how anyone treats anyone else either. According to Jesus though, nothing is a sin unless it has something to do with how someone treats someone.

Then explain why he told the woman to “sin no more?” I have already covered it, but I want to see your take.

According to Jesus, "do unto others" always applies. That's why the rule is prefaced with the words "So, in everything" rather than "So, in some things but not in others."

So if I enter into an incestuous relationship for example. It’s OK as long as I condone others to do it as well? Since I want to treat others as I should be treated.

Your comment makes no sense at all. This would make all sin acceptable when clearly it is not.

Ok, so you shouldn't condone people treating others in a way they wouldn't want to be treated. That's cool. I'm down with that.

I agree.

Yes, because she committed adultery. Would she want her husband to commit adultery? No. So when she does it she is breaking the Golden Rule. Easy peasy. Now show how the Golden rule applies to homosexuality.

Well this only makes sense if you throw out the meaning of fornication. Since I have corrected that already, there is nothing really to prove here. Treating someone with respect has nothing to do with also accepting them doing wrong. So if we see a murderer we are to treat him as we would like to be treated? Forgive him and say it’s OK and continue? It does not work that way.

No, I'm saying the people haven't sinned unless they have broken the golden rule.

Then you are in complete disagreement as I have shown with God.

How is it a run around a law that says not to divorce your wife? In what reality is that a valid connection?

You completely missed the point. You are trying to say because he did not mention gays directly, it is somehow implied it’s OK. That’s like saying you can’t prove God does not exist, is some kind of valid argument.

No, I'm saying that as long as you are nice to everyone, you haven't sinned
I refer you back to Matt 7:12, which says exactly that.

This is so against everything that is in the Bible, I don’t even know where to begin.

Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

No place does it mention condoning sin. Treating people as you want to be treated has nothing at all to do with it, nothing. I can treat a gay person (and do) as well as anyone. This does not mean it is OK for them to sin.

This is some kind of new age feel good stuff. Just being nice to people will not get you into heaven. If that were the case you would not have to accept Jesus Christ as savior and be baptized etc. Even Jesus said he is the ONLY way in.

It isn't a sin. It is a commandment from God. following a commandment from God cannot be a sin.

I am sorry sex out of wedlock is a sin, fornication is a sin.

Prove it. Show where Jesus says that gay sex is fornication.

2 men cannot be married. That is fornication. Don’t know who to make it any clearer.

According to Jesus, everyone should do unto others as they would have done unto them. This includes gay men. If gay men follow this rule, then they have not sinned, because they have done exactly as commanded to them by God.

In some convoluted pizzaro world maybe, hehehe.
 
Last edited:
The church of the time was hardly homogenous in its views on many subjects. ;)

Never said the church was infalible. The Bible how ever is not.

Indeed they do. That's why there are so many different denominations. Do you think that only some of them are actual Christians?

Yes, just human nature. Why do you think I am non denominational.

First, it's a fairy TALE. If the church frowns on gay sex, how do you think it feels about interspecies sex (fairy tail)?

Well if you are talking about animals who cares? They are animals. If you are talking about humans, yes it is fround upon and a sin.

Second, the infallibility of Christ (as God enfleshed) is well noted in your belief system. I expect your views to be logically coherent.

Yes he is and my arguments are logical. When it comes to your interpretation though, I don't trust it because you think it is a fairy tale.

I know, I said so. :D

Well if I was gonna commit adultery, you would be one of my first choices, lol.
 
The Bible how ever is not.

This has always amused me. Aside from the fact that the Bible says the Bible is infallible, what reason do you have to believe it is?

It was a book that men over 1600 years ago compiled from other books that were written by even more ancient men and everyone who was involved in its process from Torah to Revelations was politically motivated.

I can understand why people believe in God because there are evolutionary reasons for that, but the faith you and people like you put in that book is ridiculous.
 
Never said the church was infalible. The Bible how ever is not.

You mean the letters of Paul that were never intended as scripture? Did you ever consider that the decisions on what is scripture were made by all-too-fallible men--based upon their own biases and prejudices--more than 300 years after the death of Christ?

Yes, just human nature. Why do you think I am non denominational.

Aka: cafeteria Christian?

Well if you are talking about animals who cares? They are animals. If you are talking about humans, yes it is fround upon and a sin.

Activate your humor sensor. FAIRY TAILS? :roll: Drink more coffee, bro. Dog.

Yes he is and my arguments are logical. When it comes to your interpretation though, I don't trust it because you think it is a fairy tale.

That's illogical. Either my points or valid, or they aren't. My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the validity of my logic.

Didn't you ever debate a topic and represent the opposing viewpoint? It's actually easier to be objective when you aren't weighed down by emotionalism and fear.

Well if I was gonna commit adultery, you would be one of my first choices, lol.

You naughty, adorable man. :D
 
This has always amused me. Aside from the fact that the Bible says the Bible is infallible, what reason do you have to believe it is?

2 Tim 3:16 - ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

It is enough for a person of faith but you aren't, so nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

It was a book that men over 1600 years ago compiled from other books that were written by even more ancient men and everyone who was involved in its process from Torah to Revelations was politically motivated.

Old Testament aside (as I do not know it's history as well) here is what happened to the original 12 apostles...

Peter: Crucified at Rome under Nero. Crucified up-side-down at his request because he did consider himself worthy to be crucified like Jesus.

Andrew: Crucified at Patræ, Achaia [southern Greece]. Hung alive on the cross two days, exhorting spectators all the while.

James: Killed 10 years after the first martyr, Stephen. His accuser was converted by James courage and the two were beheaded together.

John: Natural Death The only apostle who did not meet a martyrs death. Banished by Roman Emperor Domitian to Isle of Patmos where he received The Revelation of Jesus Christ,the last book in the Bible.

Phillip: Crucified about 54AD Preached the Gospel in Phrygia which was in the Roman Province of Asia near Ephesus [Turkey].

Bartholemew: Crucified by the idolaters of India. Preached the Gospel in Mesopotamia [Iraq], Persia [Iran] and India.

Thomas:Thrust through with spear in India .Preached the Gospel in Parthia [Iran] and in Kerala, [southern India] where yet today the Mar Thoma Church exists.

Matthew: Killed with a sword about 60AD. Preached the Gospel in Ethiopia.

James: Stoned by Jews at his age 90, and ended up with his brains bashed out with a fuller’s club [used in dyeing clothes].

Jude: Crucified 72AD at city of Edessa [Turkey].

Simon: Crucified in Britain in 74AD. Also preached in Africa.

Judus: Well we all know what happend to him.


This has to be the most failed attempt at political motivation in the history of man kind.

Not to mention they were preaching at all ends of the earth.

I can understand why people believe in God because there are evolutionary reasons for that, but the faith you and people like you put in that book is ridiculous.

According to you? :lol:
 
You mean the letters of Paul that were never intended as scripture? Did you ever consider that the decisions on what is scripture were made by all-too-fallible men--based upon their own biases and prejudices--more than 300 years after the death of Christ?

He may have not realised it, but Gos new or it would not have happend.

Just because you have no faith in it, does not mean I do not.

Aka: cafeteria Christian?

Not even close. Lets do an experiment, does this statement fit me or Paneche...

The purpose of the term is to imply a casual support of the faith, without any genuine identification with its principles.

Be honest now. :2wave:

Activate your humor sensor. FAIRY TAILS? :roll: Drink more coffee, bro. Dog.

I still have no idea what you ment. :3oops:

That's illogical. Either my points or valid, or they aren't. My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the validity of my logic.

And yet you are trying to be logical about matters of faith. You see the problem there? I mean some logic as to interpretation is acceptable, but you try to apply it from a completely secular view, it just does not work that way with faith.

Didn't you ever debate a topic and represent the opposing viewpoint? It's actually easier to be objective when you aren't weighed down by emotionalism and fear.

This is a good example. Has little to do with emotional fear and everything to do with faith.

You naughty, adorable man. :D

Well unfortunately I can sin with the best of em. :2razz:
 
Last edited:
Oh Panache, you know that’s not what I was saying. I suppose I could have been clearer though. I am saying the old law is a good indicator of what God approved and did not approve. We must separate what was man’s law at the time from what God actually ordained. If nothing else it does give us good incite.

Ok... well, the Old Law tells us not to menstruate, wear wool with linen, or eat bacon. It says we should be stoned to death by our neighbors if we work on a Saturday. It very specifically commands that we not show any mercy to a woman who defends her husband from an attacker by touching the attacker's genitals, and that we cut off her hand. No exceptions. (Deut 25:11-12)

Do you really think that is all a good indicator of what God approves and doesn't approve of? It makes Him sound a little schizophrenic.

Also, the old testament says it is a sin to touch a leper. But the Jesus went and touched a leper. What do you make of that? Did God disapprove of himself at that point?

Sin is a master, and we become enslaved (John 8:34). Only the truth will set Christians free (John 8:32).

Sin will make us blind (John 9:39-41). The spiritual punishments are harder to bear the more we pursue sin (cf. Hebrews 3:12-13).

Positive influences are gone when we disregard the suffering and goodness of God (cf. Luke 8:12; Romans 1:20,21,24,26,28; 2:4-5). Only submissions made humbly and sincerely to Jesus Christ, will remedy our spiritual blindness.

In the end, your statement is just not true according to scripture.

My statement is completely consistent with everything you just posted.

What? No, that would be sexual assault or rape, not fornication. Fornication is sex outside of marriage.

No. Fornication in the Bible is a translation of the Greek word Porniea, which means "illicit sex" or "sex not allowed by law." In this case, the law we are talking about is summed up by the Golden Rule according to Jesus (Matt 7:12) so then Fornication is defined in the Bible as "sex that breaks the Golden Rule."

You could also define it as "sex without love" which means pretty much the same thing. We all want to be loved, so its a sin for us not to love each other.

If you think the Bible explicitly defines fornication as sex outside of marriage, then prove it. Point me to the verse that says "Thou shalt not have sex outside of marriage, for that is fornication."

So yes, gay sex is always fornication as 2 men or women cannot be married.

First of all, gay sex is not always fornication, as it doesn't always break the golden rule.

Secondly, 2 men and 2 women have been married in places all over the world. Some of them in this very country actually.

Now you regulate sin to social taboo. This is exactly what I mentioned above and scripture says that is absolutely not true.

Statements like that have also been warned about.

No. I regulate social taboo to social taboo. Sin is not loving God and each other according to the greatest commandment, and not treating each other as we want to be treated, according to the Golden Rule.

Then explain why he told the woman to “sin no more?” I have already covered it, but I want to see your take.

Because she broke the golden rule, and He wanted her to stop doing that.

So if I enter into an incestuous relationship for example. It’s OK as long as I condone others to do it as well? Since I want to treat others as I should be treated.

No. It's ok so long as you aren't treating anyone in a way you wouldn't want to be treated in the process. That is what the Golden Rule says. You can't possibly think that there is something innately immoral about incest itself. Who do you think Adam and Eve's kids married? There was no one to marry but each other. God is fine with incest as a general rule.

Your comment makes no sense at all. This would make all sin acceptable when clearly it is not.

No. How does that make murder acceptable? I don't want people murdering me, so it is a sin for me to murder them. How does that make theft acceptable? I don't want people stealing from me, so I don't steal from them. I don't want people getting angry at me, so I don't get angry at them. I don't want people cheating on me, so I don't cheat them. I want to be honored by my mom and dad, so I honor them. I don't want people bearing false witness against me, so I don't bear false witness against them.

The Golden rule makes sense for everything that Jesus every identified as a sin. Adding things that don't fit with the Golden Rule, and which Jesus never said was a sin doesn't make you more righteous, but less.

Well this only makes sense if you throw out the meaning of fornication. Since I have corrected that already, there is nothing really to prove here. Treating someone with respect has nothing to do with also accepting them doing wrong. So if we see a murderer we are to treat him as we would like to be treated? Forgive him and say it’s OK and continue? It does not work that way.

Is that how you would want to be treated? Personally if I were a murderer, I would want to be kept from harming anyone else. Regardless, there are other considerations with regard to the Golden Rule. You have to treat the families of the victim as you would want to be treated, and the rest of the society that the murder threatens. When other people's interests come in conflict, you do your best to treat all of them as fairly as you can, placing yourself in their shoes and giving consideration to their position.

So you give the murderer a fair trial, because you would want a fair trial. etc...

Then you are in complete disagreement as I have shown with God.

So you are saying that Jesus way lying in Matt 7:12 when he said that the Golden Rule encompasses all the law and the prophets?

You completely missed the point. You are trying to say because he did not mention gays directly, it is somehow implied it’s OK. That’s like saying you can’t prove God does not exist, is some kind of valid argument.

When did I ever say that? You are the one claiming that because he did not mention gays directly that being gay must be a sin. I am saying that not mentioning them directly says nothing at all about whether it is a sin or not. Just like not mentioning duck duck goose says nothing about whether it is a sin or not. Shall we assume that it is a sin to play duck duck goose since Jesus doesn't say anything about it? What kind of logic is that>

This is so against everything that is in the Bible, I don’t even know where to begin.

No place does it mention condoning sin. Treating people as you want to be treated has nothing at all to do with it, nothing. I can treat a gay person (and do) as well as anyone. This does not mean it is OK for them to sin.

You missed the point. You treating a gay person well doesn't mean that it is ok for them to sin. It means that you haven't sinned, because sin always involves not treating people well.

This is some kind of new age feel good stuff. Just being nice to people will not get you into heaven. If that were the case you would not have to accept Jesus Christ as savior and be baptized etc. Even Jesus said he is the ONLY way in.

Right. He is the only way in, because He is love, and without love you don't get in. Easy peasy.

I am sorry sex out of wedlock is a sin, fornication is a sin.

Prove it.

2 men cannot be married. That is fornication. Don’t know who to make it any clearer.

How about by proving it?

In some convoluted pizzaro world maybe, hehehe.

How can it be a sin to follow God's commandments. Are you denying that following the Golden Rule is a commandment from God?
 
2 Tim 3:16 - ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

It is enough for a person of faith but you aren't, so nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

Ok. So just so I am clear, I asked you to provide some rational outside of "the Bible says the Bible is infallible" and your answer was to provide a quote from the Bible and say that people have to accept it on faith alone?

I believe a God could exist. I think most reasonable people can take an agnostic position on that, or at least be open to the evidence. But to believe the Bible is the infallible word inspired by said God requires, not faith, but willful ignorance and that is not something I can buy into.
 
Here's a very simple concept. You believe whatever you want, and you can live by those beliefs. But you have absolutely no right to force me to. If you can find me some math that says homosexuality is detrimental to our well-being, I'll take that, because numbers don't like. As opposed to men who go out alone into the desert.
 
How can it be a sin to follow God's commandments. Are you denying that following the Golden Rule is a commandment from God?

I can some up the whole argument at this point as I am getting tired of the debate. You just brush aside my example and say "well it does not agree with the golden rule." I guess if you somehow think two guys out of wedlock having anal or oral sex somehow glorifies God, more power to you.

You cannot glorify God with sexual immorality, period. I have quoted scripture throughout this thread and you just ignore it and consequently most of the scripture. How can you be a Christian (I am having my doubts) and throw out most of the teachings? You sound more like new age person than a Christian of any type. Or a Unitarian, I would almost be willing to lay money down that you are not a Christian by practice. Don't mean this as an insult, just an observation from your posts.

I guess God waisted his time explaining all that when all you have to do is be nice to people and you get to heaven. I mean really, that pretty much sums up your argument.

:peace
 
Last edited:
Ok. So just so I am clear, I asked you to provide some rational outside of "the Bible says the Bible is infallible" and your answer was to provide a quote from the Bible and say that people have to accept it on faith alone?

Yes.

I believe a God could exist. I think most reasonable people can take an agnostic position on that, or at least be open to the evidence. But to believe the Bible is the infallible word inspired by said God requires, not faith, but willful ignorance and that is not something I can buy into.

Faith is faith. It is ignorance in a way as it does not require hard evidence. That is why it is called faith.

You will probably never get physical evidence of the metaphysical. They have been trying to do this for a long time. The spiritual is not physical, or any true science so no evidence.
 
Last edited:
Here's a very simple concept. You believe whatever you want, and you can live by those beliefs. But you have absolutely no right to force me to. If you can find me some math that says homosexuality is detrimental to our well-being, I'll take that, because numbers don't like. As opposed to men who go out alone into the desert.

Yea I agree, numbers don't like or dislike for that matter. :mrgreen:
 
Yes.



Faith is faith. It is ignorance in a way as it does not require hard evidence. That is why it is called faith.

You will probably never get physical evidence of the metaphysical. They have been trying to do this for a long time. The spiritual is not physical, or any true science so no evidence.
What reason do you have for this faith?
 
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

A marriage license is not the same thing as a religious marriage. I've asked many Christians if they were to get married in a Church without signing a license, would God recognize their marriage, and not one of them has said "No". The piece of paper and the rights that go with it belong to the state and thus civil marriage is not the same as religious marriage. Allow the state to marry same sex couples but leave religious marriage to the church. That is the way it should be.

Not the way it will work. Gays will demand a church to marry them or call them discriminating.
 
Not the way it will work. Gays will demand a church to marry them or call them discriminating.

They can demand all they want. It will not matter at all. The government will not force the church to do anything about it.
 
You mean like many never thought we would have gay marriage

Completely different issue. One is regarding federal laws, the other is in regards to church edicts. It would be the difference between the government sactioning gay marriage, and you or anyone deciding that they did not want to spend time with any gay couple who were married.

But more to the point, cite one example of the government forcing the Church to accept homosexuals or homosexual unions.
 
Completely different issue. One is regarding federal laws, the other is in regards to church edicts. It would be the difference between the government sactioning gay marriage, and you or anyone deciding that they did not want to spend time with any gay couple who were married.

But more to the point, cite one example of the government forcing the Church to accept homosexuals or homosexual unions.

It is coming just like the government taking peoples land to build a walmart
 
It is coming just like the government taking peoples land to build a walmart

Walmart is very different than the government having this kind of control on the Church. Again... you should be able to point to SOMETHING, anything that gives an indication that your supposition has an credence.
 
Back
Top Bottom