Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There ya go. I answered your challenge. Sorry, but when you put the pieces together in the Bible, it makes a strong case against homosexuality. And the flip side is that you can't find a single verse that speaks approvingly of it either.
Unlike slavery, which it explicitly condones to the point of telling how to beat them, both in the OT and the NT. Or how to get away with rape. Or orders genocide.
The Bible is very clearly that homosexuality is a sin. God declared it an abomination in Leviticus along with other sexual sins which hypocritically, your side does still oppose. Now you will respond that other things like mixing fabrics and cutting one's beard are an abomination, but that's just using deflection. The point you can't escape is if God approves of homosexuality, why would He outlaw it in the first place? Why does God show favoritism to heterosexuals. It is clear that our bodies were designed sexually to interact with the opposite sex.
So, why would he outlaw things like mixed fabrics and shellfish, if he approved of it? You do realize this argument doesn't work, right? You are claiming that since he "outlawed" it once, therefore he doesn't approve, which you could say about cutting your beard, or eating hooved animals. So which one is it? Once outlawed, always outlawed? Or once outlawed, always outlawed, but only homosexuality?
And what about things he never outlawed? Like slavery, or rape? Those okay, since he didn't explicitly say they were wrong, even laid rules down for doing them and staying in his good graces?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The Bible is very clearly that homosexuality is a sin. God declared it an abomination in Leviticus along with other sexual sins which hypocritically, your side does still oppose.
Fact is, the biggest hypocrites on here are people like you, who talk out of both sides of your mouth. You can call us hypocrites for not thinking in strictly black and white terms, as you do, but everyone sees through that. We are able to tell a difference in someone who is gay (not hurting anyone, and consenting adults) and pedophiles (who rape children), and incestual relationships (which can lead to many issues for any child conceived, and usually not fully consensual). Maybe you can't see the difference, but most people are able to, and make decisions on whether they are good or bad. We don't need a book to tell us.
So, why would he outlaw things like mixed fabrics and shellfish, if he approved of it? You do realize this argument doesn't work, right? You are claiming that since he "outlawed" it once, therefore he doesn't approve, which you could say about cutting your beard, or eating hooved animals. So which one is it? Once outlawed, always outlawed? Or once outlawed, always outlawed, but only homosexuality?
The argument holds up if you study the proper context. Many of the laws like you mentioned were created only for the Israelites. God wanted to keep His chosen people holy among pagan nations and one way to do that was to physically or cosmetically be different from the other nations. Some of the laws were designed to prevent infections or sickness in the camp life so of course, they would not apply today.
But Leviticus chapter 18 is different. It is an entire chapter listing specific type of sexual practices that must not be allowed like other nations. God's warning here describes how these sexually immorable practices are so destructive that it destroyed the other nations doing it and defiled their land. If other nations are facing consequences from a sinful act then the chapter 18 laws are applicable beyond the Israelites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
And what about things he never outlawed? Like slavery, or rape? Those okay, since he didn't explicitly say they were wrong, even laid rules down for doing them and staying in his good graces?
The Bible never supports rape or slavery. This is an old fallacy. IT even speaks against men-stealers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
Fact is, the biggest hypocrites on here are people like you, who talk out of both sides of your mouth. You can call us hypocrites for not thinking in strictly black and white terms, as you do, but everyone sees through that. We are able to tell a difference in someone who is gay (not hurting anyone, and consenting adults) and pedophiles (who rape children), and incestual relationships (which can lead to many issues for any child conceived, and usually not fully consensual). Maybe you can't see the difference, but most people are able to, and make decisions on whether they are good or bad. We don't need a book to tell us.
[/quote]
The differences are irrelevant. It is still sin. It is still sexual immorality. The consent argument doesn't hold water because two adult family members could fully consent and not have children. Most people can't even tell the same story without having altering details much less agree on moral issues.
To have a sensible, intelligent conversation requires at least two sensible, intelligent people. It's difficult if there is only one and the other is a doorknob.
The argument holds up if you study the proper context. Many of the laws like you mentioned were created only for the Israelites. God wanted to keep His chosen people holy among pagan nations and one way to do that was to physically or cosmetically be different from the other nations. Some of the laws were designed to prevent infections or sickness in the camp life so of course, they would not apply today.
But Leviticus chapter 18 is different. It is an entire chapter listing specific type of sexual practices that must not be allowed like other nations. God's warning here describes how these sexually immorable practices are so destructive that it destroyed the other nations doing it and defiled their land. If other nations are facing consequences from a sinful act then the chapter 18 laws are applicable beyond the Israelites.
Ahh, context. Sure, it applies in places, but not as a "I don't like what it says, therefore you need to look at the context", which is how you usually use it.
No, the problem is your argument, not context. You want to claim parts of this book are only for these people, but THIS part is for everyone. Not all that other stuff though. You also said in your last post, that if he ever outlaws something, it is to always be outlawed, while at the same time saying the opposite.... It doesn't make sense, Jeffery. In or out of context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The Bible never supports rape or slavery. This is an old fallacy. IT even speaks against men-stealers.
But it never explicitly says not to, does it? It even has rules one must follow if they would like to rape someone or have slaves. In fact, it has much more about this than it does about anything gay related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The differences are irrelevant. It is still sin. It is still sexual immorality. The consent argument doesn't hold water because two adult family members could fully consent and not have children. Most people can't even tell the same story without having altering details much less agree on moral issues.
Well, you just proved, once again, you are incapable of seeing anything other than black and white. The differences are most certainly relevant, and consent most certainly holds water.
As for your incest bit above, I never said they couldn't. I said, "(which can lead to many issues for any child conceived, and usually not fully consensual)". If it is a parent and child, it is likely not fully consensual, not matter how much you might stretch it to be so. Could it be? Maybe, but not likely due to the balance of power in that relationship, and the potential for abuse or former abuse.
Either way, thank you for proving my point, that you are not capable of thinking outside of your black and white box, and instead rely on a book written by much dumber men to think for you.
Ahh, context. Sure, it applies in places, but not as a "I don't like what it says, therefore you need to look at the context", which is how you usually use it.
No, the problem is your argument, not context. You want to claim parts of this book are only for these people, but THIS part is for everyone. Not all that other stuff though. You also said in your last post, that if he ever outlaws something, it is to always be outlawed, while at the same time saying the opposite.... It doesn't make sense, Jeffery. In or out of context.
What a massive copout! Basically you said I'm wrong, well because by golly I have to be wrong! You offer zero direct counter arguments to my very valid argument. And since you have to get the last word in, 100% guarantee that you will respond to this post even though there is no point in discussing this topic any further with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
But it never explicitly says not to, does it? It even has rules one must follow if they would like to rape someone or have slaves. In fact, it has much more about this than it does about anything gay related.
It has rules to make the best of a bad situation. Would you prefer to just let the women starve to death?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
Well, you just proved, once again, you are incapable of seeing anything other than black and white. The differences are most certainly relevant, and consent most certainly holds water.
As for your incest bit above, I never said they couldn't. I said, "(which can lead to many issues for any child conceived, and usually not fully consensual)". If it is a parent and child, it is likely not fully consensual, not matter how much you might stretch it to be so. Could it be? Maybe, but not likely due to the balance of power in that relationship, and the potential for abuse or former abuse.
Ok, then brother and sister. Completely consensual. If you say it's wrong, you are being hypocritical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
Either way, thank you for proving my point, that you are not capable of thinking outside of your black and white box, and instead rely on a book written by much dumber men to think for you.
Playing the old "well you are just too stupid" card.
What a massive copout! Basically you said I'm wrong, well because by golly I have to be wrong! You offer zero direct counter arguments to my very valid argument. And since you have to get the last word in, 100% guarantee that you will respond to this post even though there is no point in discussing this topic any further with you.
Yes, I will respond, because this is a public forum, and I can respond if I feel like it. Sorry that bothers you for some reason.
Where is the copout? You can't say, "Once not allowed, always not allowed... except for gay stuff", and expect everyone to just screw off and say, "Okay then".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It has rules to make the best of a bad situation. Would you prefer to just let the women starve to death?
I would have preferred your Bible not treat women as 2nd class citizens that can only survive with the help of men, even if it means being raped and generally treated like crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Ok, then brother and sister. Completely consensual. If you say it's wrong, you are being hypocritical.
No, I'm not. As already explained, and completely ignored by you, because you can't see outside of black and white, some people can judge situations independently, and not all under one brush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Playing the old "well you are just too stupid" card.
No, I didn't say "too stupid". I said, you are incapable of thinking for yourself. That doesn't make you stupid, just means you can't think for yourself. I don't have that problem, and can freely judge situations independent from other situations. It really isn't that hard, Jeff.
"Hey! Baby! I'm going to rape you, but don't be concerned. You will have to marry me, so you won't starve to death?"
Do you actually think about these things?
Do you actually think they had unemployment offices for women in ancient cultures? How silly to compare a modern society to an ancient one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
