Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Good grief. My argument is that homosexuality produces more costs than benefits and is based on claims like the following (which you have yet to counter):
Not an argument.
I was writing in English slang not Greek. I have already explained to you that I have no interest of skill in grammar but you either know exactly what I am saying or I clarify anytime you don't. Your just treading water again instead of posting actual arguments.
As it applies to the OT verses about servitude the answer is yes. I just thought you might want to why, but maybe you don't.
I am not the one that started this detour. It would have been much shorter if you had owned up to your error.
My point is that you do what you accuse me of doing. Indeed, everyone does it. Weighing texts isn’t a bad thing, provided the reasons for doing so are valid.
It is not my burden to investigate. You made a claim to certain knowledge therefor it's your burden to prove. As stated this will be very hard to do, so good luck.
Science comes down on both sides about nature and nurture. However once again the proof is your burden. You can't keep telling me X is true and then suggesting it is my burden to show X is actually true. Fact is no one can possibly know whether or not people are born homosexual because it does not show up until later in life.
No what I said was dangerous and destructive is factually undeniable. I was even told this by several corpsmen and two Navy doctors plus there are mountains of statistics that show what I said was true. I even posted one such CDC study.
That is not what those CDC statistics showed. If you will ever deal with those statistic I can supply plenty more that say the same things.
What the heck? I have not done violence of any kind to anyone. I knew the virtue signaling and name calling would show up at some point.
I did not quote it to introduce a law, I quoted it to exhibit God's condemnation of homosexuality. God's moral stance can't change over time, but how they translate into moral duties does at times. However I did say that if the NT contains references to the OT then those laws apply and the NT does reference homosexuality.
Perhaps YOU should prove that homosexuality was what was regularly being practiced back when those scriptures were written and that they had absolutely nothing to do with what we know was going on with heterosexuals engaging in sexual relations with other heterosexuals--both with young boys and with temple prostitutes. And we know from history that such things were definitely practiced and are still being practiced today in many Middle Eastern countries.
Get back to the topic please.
Still not an argument or anything else requiring a response.
Yes caused by homosexual sex. That is why they did not relate it to anything else.
I have no idea what your talking about and this is not an argument. Someone else already posted the theoretical benefits. They do not justify hundreds of thousands of deaths not the billion in medical bills.
Not an argument.
If any of this was true you should not be habitually responding to me.
I am not comparing two texts in a vacuum and selecting the best sounding pone. I am rejecting covenants that no longer apply and accepting the rules and regulation of the covenant that does apply. The reason we say the "OLD" testament is because it isn't current. However if we simply go with whatever gratifies our preferences we have no defense of what we are doing.
