Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[1robin]

You have not been using English either. You admitted as much when you said that only you understand what you meant by "destruction of homosexuality". Since homosexuality is a natural trait I don't think you nor anyone else can "destroy" it.

Yes I have, come off it.

No, once again, when you are in the wrong you can't correct another. Perhaps if you worked on your inability to understand this topic you would see your error.

I know exactly what I meant by what I said, your the one who is mistaken. You can't talk your way out of this.

I am well aware of those statistics. You appear to be misapplying them. No gymnastics needed since you cannot even state your case.

It was the CDC that applied them not me. The CDC linked homosexuality to new aids cases. Just accept the fact you are wrong and move on. I get tired of your replying to everything by saying "nu-uh". You have yet to post a single argument.

 

[1robin]

Produce something to argue about.

Done.

You are only getting back what you put out. I am not the one getting made here. Perhaps that is because when I want to make a point I can make it.

Another "nu-uh" response.

 

[1robin]

If you aren't prepared to answer a direct question directly, I'm not playing with you. If you wish to continue while abiding by the basic rules of discussion and courtesy, please let me know and I'll be happy to go on.

What on earth are you talking about? I tried to answer your question with enough information to see what I was referring to. Your question was the result of your misunderstanding so I attempted to clarify my position. I don't know what your so torn about.

 

[1robin]

This isn’t a “whenever I disagree with it” kind of thing. It’s a “when worlds collide” thing. Jesus weighed texts all the time. “It is written...but I tell you...” Especially when the message of the text is dubious, or when it advocates for violence. You would dismiss texts that encourage slavery, yes?

I dismiss all the commands given in the old testament. IMO they are part of a covenant that no longer exists. The NT is the covenant that applies to us. That does not mean we are without a moral code. Jesus and clarified many commands in the old testament as well as the new. He did not affirm the commands about slavery and so they no longer apply. Slavery (or indentured servitude) was a necessary evil 3000 years ago because well fare didn't exist. God found it in place and simply made it the most benevolent form of servitude in the ANE. Those days and that covenant are over.

 

[Shad]

Slavery (or indentured servitude) was a necessary evil 3000 years ago because well fare didn't exist.

Historical disconnect here.

 

[1robin]

We demonstrate the fact by pointing out the fact that a group had to invent sola scriptura to make the Bible “the authority.”

The terms sola scriptura are Latin which was not spoken in the early days of the new testament so of course they were around then. You need to show the concept didn't exist not the words. Good luck because I don't see how you could possibly do this.

Because God created some of us homosexual. Does God nor approve of what God creates?

You can't possibly know that God created certain people homosexuals. Making statements about things you can't possibly know even if they were true it makes me tired.

1) what “homosexual acts” do you refer to? We’ve already established that anal penetration isn’t a “homosexual act.”

You can't show homosexuality is innocent because heterosexuality is guilty. I believe anal penetration is destructive no matter who practices it. I am not defending heterosexuality where it is wrong. However there is much more risk when homosexuals practice this that when heterosexuals do on average. Your argument here is a nonstarter.

2) in what way do loving homosexual relationships not improve lives?

When they kill the practitioners. Your statements are so outlandish I have a hard time believing you actually meant to post them.

Accompanying homosexuality are higher rates of sexual violence, promiscuity, reckless sexual practices, billions in medical bills, divorce, and STDs, etc.....

In what way does homosexuality not hurt the human race? There is no way you meant what you typed here seriously.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What on earth are you talking about? I tried to answer your question with enough information to see what I was referring to. Your question was the result of your misunderstanding so I attempted to clarify my position. I don't know what your so torn about.

Try to answer my question again, this time actually referring to the question asked. A "yes" or "no" would be good, too, or at least an explanation of why your answer isn't strictly dichotomous.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The terms sola scriptura are Latin which was not spoken in the early days of the new testament so of course they were around then. You need to show the concept didn't exist not the words. Good luck because I don't see how you could possibly do this.

You can't possibly know that God created certain people homosexuals. Making statements about things you can't possibly know even if they were true it makes me tired.


You can't show homosexuality is innocent because heterosexuality is guilty. I believe anal penetration is destructive no matter who practices it. I am not defending heterosexuality where it is wrong. However there is much more risk when homosexuals practice this that when heterosexuals do on average. Your argument here is a nonstarter.


When they kill the practitioners. Your statements are so outlandish I have a hard time believing you actually meant to post them.

Accompanying homosexuality are higher rates of sexual violence, promiscuity, reckless sexual practices, billions in medical bills, divorce, and STDs, etc.....

In what way does homosexuality not hurt the human race? There is no way you meant what you typed here seriously.

Your double standards for accountability and cost/benefit make your posts difficult to take seriously

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I know exactly what I meant by what I said, your the one who is mistaken. You can't talk your way out of this.

the point of discussion is to make your meaning clear to others. It's great you know what you meant, but if you don't care about making your meaning clear to others, why are you in a discussion forum?

It was the CDC that applied them not me. The CDC linked homosexuality to new aids cases. Just accept the fact you are wrong and move on. I get tired of your replying to everything by saying "nu-uh". You have yet to post a single argument.

The CDC did not apply them them in the way you are suggesting. 2 points, correlation does not equal causation, and the CDC figures are specific to the US. Globally, they are an extreme outlier.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I have, come off it.

I see that you are confused again. Just because you used English words does not mean that you were speaking English. I could post a series of disconnected words and claim that only I knew what I meant too. Here is a hint, when you say that no one else understands what you mean that is a good indication you are not using the same language as others are. In this case it was English.

I know exactly what I meant by what I said, your the one who is mistaken. You can't talk your way out of this.

You and I both know that is not rrue. But as always I am only here to help.

It was the CDC that applied them not me. The CDC linked homosexuality to new aids cases. Just accept the fact you are wrong and move on. I get tired of your replying to everything by saying "nu-uh". You have yet to post a single argument.

No, the CDC merely gathered the statistics. You misinterpreted them. And when you quit making gross errors that only require a "nu <sic>-uh" I will give a more thorough explanation. Or perhaps you could have read the later posts that went into more detail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Done.

Where? I must have missed it.

Another "nu<sic>-uh" response.

No, that wasn't. Is your reading comprehension that bad? That was an explanation of the errors that you are making.

Here is another helpful hint for free. "Nu" is a Greek letter pronounced "noo", the word that you want to use is "nuh".

 

[1robin]

Yes, let’s do go back again. You claim that there’s nothing justifiable in homosexual activity. Is there justification in heterosexual activity? What are those justifications? (And please don’t give me the “procreation” argument; the world is overpopulated.)

Ok, lets go back again. I did not claim there is no benefits to homosexuality, I claimed that the benefits do not justify the cost. The justification for heterosexuality (as I have already stated) is procreation of the human race and the maintenance of the traditional family unit. World population is a completely separate issue than what is under discussion. No matter how populated the world is we still need procreation or we can't survive beyond this generation.

What are the justifications for sexual activity?
Mutual care and support fo the partners
Intimacy
Benefits of cardio exercise and the cascade of sex hormones
Therapeutic benefits of human touch
Pleasure
People with active sex lives tend to live longer
There are others.

Do you suppose ANY of those do not occur in same-sex relationships?

Again, I didn't say you could not find something you can claim is a positive about homosexuality. I said they do not justify the costs which I posted in my last response to you. I believe you still have all your work before you. How many innocent people have to die because of a perversion they do not even agree with?

On a side note and just for curiosity how can you call your self a believer but completely contradict the following verses. I don't get it.

“The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” 1 Timothy 1:10-11

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” Romans 1:26-28

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22
Top 7 Bible Verses About Homosexuality

How do you read things like that, claim to be a believer, and respond by saying "nu-uh".

 

[sojourner]

I dismiss all the commands given in the old testament. IMO they are part of a covenant that no longer exists. The NT is the covenant that applies to us. That does not mean we are without a moral code. Jesus and clarified many commands in the old testament as well as the new. He did not affirm the commands about slavery and so they no longer apply. Slavery (or indentured servitude) was a necessary evil 3000 years ago because well fare didn't exist. God found it in place and simply made it the most benevolent form of servitude in the ANE. Those days and that covenant are over.

So your answer is yes.

 

[sojourner]

The terms sola scriptura are Latin which was not spoken in the early days of the new testament so of course they were around then. You need to show the concept didn't exist not the words. Good luck because I don't see how you could possibly do this

Look back to your church history. Sola Scriptura was an invention of the Reformation. What you’re thinking of as ancient practice is called Prima scriptura. Sola scriptura is considered heretical by the RCC. It is not practiced by the other ancient branches of the church.

You can't possibly know that God created certain people homosexuals. Making statements about things you can't possibly know even if they were true it makes me tired

Modern science disagrees with you. Some people are born homosexual. Born. That means they’re naturally homosexual. That means God made them that way. Unless you also wish to make a case that God didn’t make black people black...

You can't show homosexuality is innocent because heterosexuality is guilty. I believe anal penetration is destructive no matter who practices it. I am not defending heterosexuality where it is wrong. However there is much more risk when homosexuals practice this that when heterosexuals do on average. Your argument here is a nonstarter

Your information is incorrect. However, you have yet to disclose what “homosexual acts” you’re talking about. In fact, there are no strictly homosexual acts. Which means that you simply want to deny a segment of the population access to full expression of their sexuality. That’s dehumanization. Dehumanization is violence. Dehumanization is against Jesus’ teachings.

When they kill the practitioners. Your statements are so outlandish I have a hard time believing you actually meant to post them.

Accompanying homosexuality are higher rates of sexual violence, promiscuity, reckless sexual practices, billions in medical bills, divorce, and STDs, etc.....

In what way does homosexuality not hurt the human race? There is no way you meant what you typed here seriously

Homosexuality has been determined to be a natural and healthful expression of human sexuality. It has its benefits, just as heterosexuality has its benefits.

Again, I didn't say you could not find something you can claim is a positive about homosexuality. I said they do not justify the costs which I posted in my last response to you. I believe you still have all your work before you. How many innocent people have to die because of a perversion they do not even agree with

The wouldn’t have to die if people of your mind set would stop committing systemic violence in their dehumanization. IOW, homophobes are the problem, not the homosexuals.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22

I thought you discounted the OT covenants. Why are you quoting it here? You use it when it suits your agenda and you dismiss it for the same, self-serving reasons.

 

[1robin]

So, Jesus is in hell?

What the heck are you talking about.

He said people who call people fools will burn in hell. He, a couple of biblical authors, and God have all called people fools. Now what? Does Jesus have the stones to put his money where his mouth is?

This fool thing is very complicated because the word fool did not exist when the bible was written. I doubt you care enough to read through the solution but here it is anyway.

Did Jesus Contradict Himself by Calling People Fools?

 

[1robin]

Try to answer my question again, this time actually referring to the question asked. A "yes" or "no" would be good, too, or at least an explanation of why your answer isn't strictly dichotomous.

Your question is misstated. I could only answer yes, but.......My claims were simple benefit versus cost equations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your question is misstated. I could only answer yes, but.......My claims were simple benefit versus cost equations.

You appear to be very poor at estimating the benefits.

 

[1robin]

Your double standards for accountability and cost/benefit make your posts difficult to take seriously

No, the benefits of heterosexuality justify it's costs, this is not true for homosexuality. I never even hinted that there are no costs to heterosexuality nor any theoretical benefits to homosexuality however one is justifiable where the other isn't. I have clarified this numerous time. Please stop trying to characterize my statements and simple respond to them with your own argument.

 

[1robin]

the point of discussion is to make your meaning clear to others. It's great you know what you meant, but if you don't care about making your meaning clear to others, why are you in a discussion forum?

That is exactly what I have been doing but you only want yes / no answers instead. I have over 13000 debates I know how they work.

The CDC did not apply them them in the way you are suggesting. 2 points, correlation does not equal causation, and the CDC figures are specific to the US. Globally, they are an extreme outlier.

Of course they did, that is why I copied and pasted directly from a CDC site. I know it is frustrating not being able to defend your position but at least try instead of pointing to irrelevant technicalities.

 

[1robin]

I see that you are confused again. Just because you used English words does not mean that you were speaking English. I could post a series of disconnected words and claim that only I knew what I meant too. Here is a hint, when you say that no one else understands what you mean that is a good indication you are not using the same language as others are. In this case it was English.

This is getting silly on your part. Get back to the actually topic.

You and I both know that is not rrue. But as always I am only here to help.

Not an argument.

No, the CDC merely gathered the statistics. You misinterpreted them. And when you quit making gross errors that only require a "nu <sic>-uh" I will give a more thorough explanation. Or perhaps you could have read the later posts that went into more detail.

Yeah, and the statistic they gathered associated homosexuality with aids so clearly they wrote the article I quoted. Until you show me more credentials than the doctors at the CDC have your just wasting our time.