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.
No, I brought up the same issue as well earlier. If its okay for consenting gay adults to have sex, we might as well tell our kids they can have sex whenever they want because, gay or straight as long as its consenting, its okay in the eyes of God to have sex whenever you want with who ever you want.
While were at it, if its consenting, incest is now okay too, so fell free to have sex with your mom, dad or cousin, because if its 2 consenting adults, its a-okay in Gods eyes. Just forget about what he say is sexual immorality in scriptures.
Where did I mention "the eyes of God?" I don't agree with your belief system, which views homosexuality as an immoral perversion. Again, we don't live in a theocracy, and now same-sex couples can enjoy all the benefits of marriage.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAAN
No, I brought up the same issue as well earlier. If its okay for consenting gay adults to have sex, we might as well tell our kids they can have sex whenever they want because, gay or straight as long as its consenting, its okay in the eyes of God to have sex whenever you want with who ever you want.
While were at it, if its consenting, incest is now okay too, so fell free to have sex with your mom, dad or cousin, because if its 2 consenting adults, its a-okay in Gods eyes. Just forget about what he say is sexual immorality in scriptures.
Most jurisdictions define at what age consent can be given, and in most jurisdictions, if one of those are under 18, there generally is a limit on the age gap, often 2 years.
Your skewing the proposition by ignoring the important words, "consenting ADULTS".
Consensual sex between adults of any persuasion is no sin in God's eyes. Only those who believe a few stupid phrases in a mouldy old book written by primitive people get their panties in a bunch over it.
Even though the world is changing the Bible remains God word. Homosexual desires are not a sin, yet acting out on it is.
Yet Christians should love homosexuals what ever background as Jesus loves everyone. Homosexuals should be welcome to church with open arms. Yet embracing homosexuals does not mean to support them in there behaviour, but as children of God.
Even though the world is changing the Bible remains God word. Homosexual desires are not a sin, yet acting out on it is.
Yet Christians should love homosexuals what ever background as Jesus loves everyone. Homosexuals should be welcome to church with open arms. Yet embracing homosexuals does not mean to support them in there behaviour, but as children of God.
Most of the planet believes the bible is not now and never was "God's word."
If you, like so many of your ilk, believe gays choose their sexuality rather than it being God-given - why did your God make so many in the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual behaviour? Did your God give all frogs free will so they could choose their sexuality - or just the ones who "chose" to be gay?
How about the gay dolphins? Did they choose to be gay?
By the way, when did you choose to be straight? Was it a difficult choice? Were you torn between your homosexual leanings and religion's dire imprecations against such?
What tipped the scales for you towards heterosexuality?
It's not a stretch at all, particularly since it is probable that Jesus HEALED a homosexual.
The story of the faithful centurion, told in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, is about a Roman centurion who comes to Jesus and begs that Jesus heal his pais, a word sometimes translated as "servant." Jesus agrees and says he will come to the centurion's home, but the centurion says that he does not deserve to have Jesus under his roof, and he has faith that if Jesus even utters a word of healing, the healing will be accomplished. Jesus praises the faith of the centurion, and the pais is healed. This tale illustrates the power and importance of faith, and how anyone can possess it. The centurion is not a Jew, yet he has faith in Jesus and is rewarded.
But pais does not mean "servant." It means "lover." In Thucydides, in Plutarch, in countless Greek sources, and according to leading Greek scholar Kenneth Dover, pais refers to the junior partner in a same-sex relationship. Now, this is not exactly a marriage of equals. An erastes-pais relationship generally consisted of a somewhat older man, usually a soldier between the ages of 18 and 30, and a younger adolescent, usually between the ages of 13 and 18. Sometimes that adolescent was a slave, as seems to be the case here. It would be inappropriate, in my view, to use the word "gay" to describe such a relationship; that word, and its many connotations, comes from our time, not that of Ancient Greece and Rome. This is not a relationship that any LGBT activist would want to promote today.
However, it is a same-sex relationship nonetheless. (It is also basically the same as the soldier/armor-bearer in the model of David and Jonathan. And what is Jesus's response? Does he spit in the centurion's face for daring to suggest that he heal the soldier's lover? Hardly. He recognizes the relationship and performs an act of grace.
Now, could pais really just mean "servant"? There are several reasons why this makes no sense. First, one would not expect a Roman centurion to intercede, let alone "beg" (parakaloon), on behalf of a mere servant or slave. Second, while Luke refers to the young man as a doulos (slave), the centurion himself specifically calls him a pais; this strongly suggests that the distinction is important. Third, we know that the erastes-pais intimate relationship was common practice among Roman soldiers, who were not allowed to take wives, and whose life was patterned on the Greek model of soldier-lovers. If pais just means "servant," none of this makes any sense.
WOW!! And the junior sex partner was HEALED because of the FAITH of the senior sex partner!! Never an end to disillusioning fundamentalists. But to protect themselves they will ignore the Greek translators and stick with the tried and proved, or perhaps tired and improper, English translations of scripture. And while pais MIGHT mean servant, and sometimes does, in the context of these verses, it is very telling that centurion appeared not to want Jesus at his home! But Jesus still performed an act of grace based on FAITH.
Wow, even more of a stretch. First the translation issue. You don't have concrete proof that the word absolutely refers to a homosexual. Second, if Jesus healed a homosexual, so what? Jesus healed all kinds of sinners. That in no way means Jesus approves of homosexuality. This is just another desperate attempt to paint the Bible as pro-gay like saying David and Jonathan were gay lovers.
Most of the planet believes the bible is not now and never was "God's word."
If you, like so many of your ilk, believe gays choose their sexuality rather than it being God-given - why did your God make so many in the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual behaviour? Did your God give all frogs free will so they could choose their sexuality - or just the ones who "chose" to be gay?
How about the gay dolphins? Did they choose to be gay?
By the way, when did you choose to be straight? Was it a difficult choice? Were you torn between your homosexual leanings and religion's dire imprecations against such?
What tipped the scales for you towards heterosexuality?
I believe people do not choose to be gay, but people have a choice to act or not act out on their sexuality.
Some animals do have behaviour that might be considered homosexual, so what, rape, incest, wars, torture, suicide are also observed in the animal kingdom, even among high mammals, does that mean all these behaviours should be acceptable since animals do them?
Yes of course most people do not believe in the Bible, yet even so the Bible does predict most people will reject it and also warns followers of this: Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
FYI I am gay but I choose not to act out on it. I say it again it is not a sin to be gay but to act out on it yes it is. Yet homosexual sins are no worse than hetrosexual sins.
Typical red herrings tossed out by Christians who can't make a rational defense of their prejudice.
When was the last time you actually expounded on a thought? You spend more time instigating than actually discussing. If you disagree why don't you just state your reason without being antagonistic about it.
It means he accepted gays for what they were and didn't expect them to change. It means he was comfortable with people who were a minority. It means.... wait for it...... he loved them and cared about them. That's how great His love was. It was totally and completely accepting. Think how awesome that is.
He didn't tell them to go away. He didn't marginalize them. Perhaps someday you'll learn from what He did. That will only happen if you open your mind and your heart to God's agape love. Until you do that you, like all fundamentalists, will be unable to truly understand what JESUS is about.
I believe people do not choose to be gay, but people have a choice to act or not act out on their sexuality.
I believe this too. But I believe it about everything about being human. I do not CHOOSE to get homicidally angry at people.... but I choose what to do with those emotions. I do not CHOOSE to feel jealous in my romantic relationships, but I choose what to do with those emotions too.
I do not believe we get to choose our impulses, including who we are sexually attracted to, but I believe we choose what we do with those feelings.
And what we choose to do with them SHOULD be to evaluate them under the simple cost-benefit analysis of moral good-harm-neutrality. If acting on our feelings and desires is a moral good then DO IT. If it is morally neutral.... then "why not"... but if it is harmful then do not do it.
I am willing to believe that homosexual desire is natural, genetic and inate. I am also willing to believe this EXACT same thing about.... say.... paedophilia.
But people who are gay or attracted to children have to make that moral decision. And the fact is..... like it or not the theistic cohort..... homosexual adult consensual relationship does not harm anyone, nor society, except whatever influence it has on the people involved. But Paedophilia contravenes our moral precepts of informed consent.
The simple fact is morality appears to be contextual and subjective. But it has powerful constraints to guide it. But people not satisfied with that want their own moral opinion to be set in objective stone.... a stone they chisel out of their own imaginations of a god and that god rubber stamping their own opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by other99
Some animals do have behaviour that might be considered homosexual, so what, rape, incest, wars, torture, suicide are also observed in the animal kingdom, even among high mammals, does that mean all these behaviours should be acceptable since animals do them?
NO! What it does mean is very simple. It means that what we think might be "natural" or "unnatural" has actually got no bearing on what we decide should be moral or immoral at all. What happens in the animal kingdom is IRRELEVANT to the discussion. The only reason it comes up AT ALL is that the anti homosexual brings up what they believe to be "unnatural" which is a non-point. So the defender of homosexuality is FORCED to bring up the animal kingdom in response.
But the truth is they are BOTH wrong. "natural" has nothing to do with it. The animal kingdom is irrelevant to the discussion. All that is happening is that one side throws in a red herring, so the other side throws in a counter red herring. And it clouds USEFUL discourse on the subject. But alas these are the moves we have to go through when any discussion on homosexuality comes into play. Just like in chess.... no matter how beautiful any one game of chess is.... the fact is they always start by moving a few default movements of pawns in response to each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by other99
Yes of course most people do not believe in the Bible, yet even so the Bible does predict most people will reject it and also warns followers of this
The bible is NOT special in this. MANY religious texts do this. Including, for example, the Tao. Building in a "pre-rebuttal" to doubt is sort of "part and parcel" of being a religious text. Do not over read relevance into this fact, as it risks leaving you looking silly.
Where did I mention "the eyes of God?" I don't agree with your belief system, which views homosexuality as an immoral perversion. Again, we don't live in a theocracy, and now same-sex couples can enjoy all the benefits of marriage.
And for that same reason we can disagree respectfully and be well within our right to do so.
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.
But Jesus still performed an act of grace based on FAITH.
