• 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!

Pope Tells Gay Man: ‘God Made You Like This and Loves You Like This’

Excon said:
Yes you are. I am glad you admit that.
.
Click to expand...

iLOL yes you are wrong, I’m glad you are admitting my God is right and your G_d is made up. You admitting you are wrong is the first step.
 
vegas giants said:
What difference does that make? Are you asking that gays be killed?
Click to expand...

What difference? What? You do not understand why something is irrelevant? That is clearly your problem.

And you again make up something to believe in your second sentence. Doh!
 
Praxas said:
iLOL yes you are wrong, I’m glad you are admitting my God is right and your G_d is made up. You admitting you are wrong is the first step.
Click to expand...
You are deflecting with nonsense and dishonesty. Figure.
 
Excon said:
What difference? What? You do not understand why something is irrelevant? That is clearly your problem.

And you again make up something to believe in your second sentence. Doh!
Click to expand...

So you believe gays shouyld be put to death? That is just horrible!
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, Jesus said:

Leviticus 20:27

Leviticus 20:9
Click to expand...

Jesus also enacted the New Covenant in the New Testament. Gay sex is still a sin but stoning is out. Only God and/or government can initiate capital punishment now.
 
Grand Mal said:
You're cherry-picking and justifying leaving the inconvenient stuff behind. The only thing I'm 'uninformed' about is the specific language your particular sect uses for that justification.
"The new priesthood of Jesus Christ", fergawdssake. What did Jesus say about how much he was going to change the Old Testament laws?
Click to expand...

Nuts.

Why don't you do your own homework for a change and find the answer yourself?
 
maquiscat said:
This man follows Christ's example better than most Christians I know

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You mean let the wheat and chaff grow together until the harvest.
 
Excon said:
Yes you are wrong and continue to be wrong, and apparently that isn't going to change.
Click to expand...

iLOL, always glad you admit you’re wrong and continue to be wrong as usual.
 
Praxas said:
iLOL, always glad you admit you’re wrong and continue to be wrong as usual.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course you are wrong as usual and fail to even make relevant arguments.

Now run along and post another irrelevant reply.




vegas giants said:
Wanting to kill gays is just awful
Click to expand...

You are entitled to think that. And?
 
Logicman said:
Jesus also enacted the New Covenant in the New Testament. Gay sex is still a sin but stoning is out. Only God and/or government can initiate capital punishment now.
Click to expand...

My original statement was that Jesus had little to say about homosexuality. That statement was based on the New Testament. Someone brought up Leviticus, claiming it was the word of Jesus as well.

Jesus actually didn't have much to say on the subject. Homosexuality is of minor importance to the Christian, or at least should be of minor importance.
 
Excon said:
Yes, of course you are wrong as usual and fail to even make relevant arguments.

Now run along and post another irrelevant reply.






You are entitled to think that. And?
Click to expand...

I am entitled to think that? My god....that is just awful
 
Grand Mal said:
Damn. Deus ex machina in the Bible, who would have guessed. Thr infinity card. Jesus is everywhere and everything so whatever I pick out of that nearly random collection of stories called the Bible is straight from Him. Do you follow all the laws in Leviticus? Jesus told you to, didn't He?
Click to expand...

Oh, I am sure you will get some kind of rationalization about 'moral law' verses 'ceremonial law', which is a later Christian addition to give excuses about why not to do one law, but to vehemently clutch to another.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The early OT accounts were word of mouth, tribal stories until scribes wrote them down 700 BC. Prior to that, most of them were indeed illiterate.
Click to expand...

There are indications that there was widespread literacy in 700 bc... due to the discovery of pots with hebrew writing on it at an earlier date than expected. How wide spread it was will always be a matter of speculation, but the date you mention shows a greater literacy rate than what was previously expected (of course speculatively).
 
Excon said:
You are hung up on the word abomination instead of the results for the different abominations.
Not all abominations result in the death penalty, or did you somehow think they did?

If you need something modern to relate, think of it like this; Though many things are felonies, not all felonies result in the death penalty.



Depending on which translation you use - What do you think "unclean until evening" or "contaminated until evening" means? Is that not a temporary thing? I would certainly suggest that is temporary even though it does not specifically say "temporary".

Death is not prescribed as punishment for an abomination of the dietary laws.





You get? iLOL
You get nothing and only make up things to believe.

The so-called new testament has no relevance to this discussion as it does not change the penalty for engaging in gay sex.

You are again projecting things that apparently apply to you.

And your interpretation of the Ten Commandments is severely lacking.
The Commandment is not "thou shall not kill". It translates as shall not murder. That does not cover killing for purposes of law enforcement.


Justified killing: due consequence for crime
The Torah and Hebrew Bible made clear distinctions between the shedding of innocent blood versus killing as the due consequence of a crime. A number of sins were considered to be worthy of the death penalty including murder,[14] incest,[15] bearing false witness on a capital charge,[16] adultery,[17] idolatry,[18] homosexual acts,[9] bestiality,[19] human sacrifice to pagan gods,[20] cursing a parent,[21] fortune-telling,[22] and other sins.

[...]​
Justified killing: due consequence for crime | Wikipedia​
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that you think your hatred of God's plan is funny. It's just another sign of your colossal arrogance, that you place your petty hatreds before his law.

Oh really? So you don't think there's a New Testament? You don't remember the denunciations of the Pharisees and Sadducees? It's not like it only happened once-- it's a recurring theme throughout.

Ah, so you are one of those..... individuals who thinks the New Testament doesn't apply. I get it. In your arrogance and spite you prefer fantasizing that you are justified in your hatred rather than facing the actual word of God.

What's the penalty for turning your back on your fellow man again? Oh, that's right.

Hell.

Lol. I hate to break it to you, but "thou shalt not kill" covers a lot more than that buddy.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Yes, I get that you think your hatred of God's plan is funny.

It's just another sign of your colossal arrogance, that you place your petty hatreds before his law.


Oh really? So you don't think there's a New Testament? You don't remember the denunciations of the Pharisees and Sadducees? It's not like it only happened once-- it's a recurring theme throughout.
Click to expand...
This is your made up bs.
It is projection and deflection and just a sign that you have no valid argument.


Tigerace117 said:
Ah, so you are one of those..... individuals who thinks the New Testament doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
:lamo
Hilarious.
1. The so-called new testament has no validity to those of the Jewish faith, does it?
2. And frankly the excuses christian use for not following the law don't cut it.


Tigerace117 said:
I get it. In your arrogance and spite you prefer fantasizing that you are justified in your hatred rather than facing the actual word of God.
Click to expand...
Holy ****! Talk about projection.
The Law was given to Moses by G_d, it is apparently you who does not want to follow G_d's word.


Tigerace117 said:
What's the penalty for turning your back on your fellow man again? Oh, that's right.
Click to expand...
By not following G_d's law, that is what you are doing.


Tigerace117 said:
I hate to break it to you, but "thou shalt not kill" covers a lot more than that buddy.
Click to expand...
The proscription is against murder. Not legal killing. So you are wrong as usual.
 
Excon said:
No. G_d giving someone a burden to overcome is not a sin.
Nor can you even begin to fathom the thoughts and acts of a G_d to even think about judging them.


Maybe you should reread what you quoted as your comment is not relevant to it.



No. You do not know that. That is a belief.


Can you show anywhere in this thread where I refute this for you to even be arguing this to me? I assure you that you can do no such thing.


A person would not even have to know the specifics of this claim to point out it's irrelevancy.

Man does not dictate to a G_d what it does, do they? And as G_d makes the rules, that G_d can decide when and where the rules do not apply.
Click to expand...

I can't really debate this with you because you're debating within the confines of a fantasy -- a myth. It's like trying to debate someone on why something happened in a Harry Potter book or arguing whether or not the Easter Rabbit leaves plastic or chocolate eggs.

I get it that you're religious. I know you get it that I'm not. But, beyond that, we have the ideal that something natural should be considered an abomination. That's where decent folks will get off the train.

I suggest you get off while you have the chance. You'll like yourself better -- believe me.
 
trixare4kids said:
Would you still say this Pope is spot on if you knew that what he really said was that he loves the sinner but hates the sinner? He loves the homosexual but he hates the act of Gay sex because of the reasons I stated in my last post above. IOW, acting on homosexuality according to the Pope and the RC Church's teachings is still a sin but they do welcome homosexuals into the church and ask for others to love and accept them.
Click to expand...

I would say the Pope is acting in accordance with Catholic teaching, so in that case he is spot on. I too am not fond of homosexual acts but that is really none of my business, I only stated it here because you inquired. For the Pope or anyone to love a person despite have serious misgivings about how they act is a plus in my book. Perhaps you disagree, but then are you being just as judgmental as the Pope?
 
TheGoverness said:
Ooh, someone's jealous.

But really, we have as much sex as straight people do. And people like me, who have sex quite a bit, are perfectly fine, well-adjusted individuals.
Click to expand...

Jealous, no.

But it is a fact that homosexuals have many more sex partners on avg then straight persons do. I'll invite you to come see Christopher street anytime you'd like. They have sex in our train stations, door steps, storefronts on a regular basis. If It weren't against the law for me I'd produce video's for you to see with your own eyes.

There are always responsible acting adults no matter what walk of life you're from, but in large cities with a party lifestyle, they run rampant. Feel free to dispute my statement with any facts you might have, it's not hard for me to post links to number proving my point.
 
lefty louie said:
I would say the Pope is acting in accordance with Catholic teaching, so in that case he is spot on. I too am not fond of homosexual acts but that is really none of my business, I only stated it here because you inquired. For the Pope or anyone to love a person despite have serious misgivings about how they act is a plus in my book. Perhaps you disagree, but then are you being just as judgmental as the Pope?
Click to expand...

I disagree with the Vatican's views the Pope upholds on practicing homosexuals. I find his statement at odds with his professing that God loves Gays. The only way I can personally make sense of it is by saying he believes God loves the homosexual, (the person), but condemns the sexual act of homosexuals. I admit I could be wrong... I am not being judgmental of homosexuals at all. I find the Pope's statement sort of wishy washy though.
 
Dittohead not! said:
My original statement was that Jesus had little to say about homosexuality. That statement was based on the New Testament. Someone brought up Leviticus, claiming it was the word of Jesus as well.

Jesus actually didn't have much to say on the subject. Homosexuality is of minor importance to the Christian, or at least should be of minor importance.
Click to expand...

Like I said before,

"It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made."

And as long as the heathens try to promote and justify sodomy, we will be there to take a stand against it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom