God And Homosexuality

[Tazarah]

Only in your dreams!!! Where do the gospels say anything about homosexuality and why Jesus loved one of his disciples instead of cleaving to a wife?

And in contrast to adultery by ALL remarried divorcees (Mark 10:11-12 Exodus 20:14), which of the ten commandments refers to homosexuality anyway?

Anything Paul wrote is irrelevant since he never even met Jesus. And it still doesn't change the fact that the bible says nothing about female homosexuals anyway, since they do not have anal sex which was described for heterosexual women as "vile" and "unseemly" (Romans 1:26-27).

You can't pick and choose which scriptures to accept. Well, you can -- but that would make you a hypocrite.

The bible says that all scripture is valid and inspired by God, regardless of whether or not you like what they say.

This means that even the scriptures that you claim are not valid for whatever reasons, are in fact valid.

2 TIMOTHY 3:16

"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Also, I've already explained to you that Romans 9:26-27 says nothing about "anal sex" and does say that women were lusting after one another just as the men were lusting after one another.

ROMANS 1:26-27 (NIV)

"26 Beause of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

[Mitty]

You can't pick and choose which scriptures to accept. Well, you can -- but that would make you a hypocrite.

The bible says that all scriptures are valid and inspired by God, regardless of whether or not you like what they say.

This means that even the scriptures that you claim are not valid for whatever reasons, are in fact valid.

2 TIMOTHY 3:16

"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Also, I've already explained to you that Romans 9:26-27 says nothing about "anal sex" and does say that women were lusting after one another just as the men were lusting after one another.

ROMANS 1:26-27 (NIV)

"26 Beause of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

In other words Romans 1:26-27 says nothing about women with women or female homosexuals, since unlike heterosexual women they do not have anal sex or penetrative sex as described in Romans 1:27 and therefore don't receive in themselves the due penalty for their error from penetrative sex.

Or are you claiming that the bible says that anal sex is the natural use of the woman?

 

[Tazarah]

In other words Romans 1:26-27 says nothing about women with women or female homosexuals, since unlike heterosexual women they do not have anal sex or penetrative sex as described in Romans 1:27 and therefore don't receive in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Or are you claiming that the bible says that anal sex is the natural use of the woman?

Where does Romans 1:26-27 say ANYTHING about anal sex?

It doesn't. It says that the men, just like the women, abandoned what was natural and began to lust after one another.

 

[Mitty]

Where does Romans 1:26-27 say ANYTHING about anal sex?

It doesn't. It says that the men, just like the women, abandoned what was natural and began to lust after one another.

Where does Romans 1:26-27 say anything about female homosexuality or "women with women working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" from penetrative sex with other women?

And if you believe that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman" then what were the men working with other men which Paul described as "vile" and "unseemly" if you believe that Paul wasn't referring to anal sex and if it is "the natural use of the woman"? Do you think that Paul was referring to the men playing tiddly winks which he described as "vile" and "unseemly", or do think that Paul was describing female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly".

Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, obviously refers to anal sex and not to men lying down and playing tiddly winks, and I have no reason to believe that Roman 1:26-27 is not referring to anal sex of woman and men too.

Alas you are only trying to convince yourself by your silly straw grasping unless you can show us where the bible describes female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly" and that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman".

 

[Tazarah]

Where does Romans 1:26-27 say anything about female homosexuality or "women with women working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" from penetrative sex with other women?

And if you believe that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman" then what were the men working with other men which Paul described as "vile" and "unseemly" if you believe that Paul wasn't referring to anal sex and if it is "the natural use of the woman"? Do you think that Paul was referring to the men playing tiddly winks which he described as "vile" and "unseemly", or do think that Paul was describing female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly".

Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, obviously refers to anal sex and not to men lying down and playing tiddly winks, and I have no reason to believe that Roman 1:26-27 is not referring to anal sex of woman and men too.

Alas you are only trying to convince yourself by your silly straw grasping unless you can show us where the bible describes female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly" and that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman".

Dude, you're all over the place.

First of all, where does Romans 1:26-27 say that men were having anal sex with women?

Second of all, you never responsed to 2 Timothy 3:16 and how it says that all scripture is valid and inspired by God -- which pretty much debunks your assertion about 1 Corinthians 6:9 not being valid simply because it was Paul who said it and not Christ.

 

[Mitty]

Dude, you're all over the place.

First of all, where does Romans 1:26-27 say that men were having anal sex with women?

.

I'm not interested in your silly straw grasping. You're wasting your time and just trying to convince yourself unless you can show us where the bible says that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman" and/or describes female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly" and Romans 1:26-27 clearly says that "women with women were working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" from penetrative sex.

And can you explain why Jesus loved one particular disciple and didn't cleave to a wife and why he said nothing about homosexuality and is that why he asked his followers to accept that some men do not marry because they are so born from their mothers' wombs (Matt 19:12)?

Second of all, you never responsed to 2 Timothy 3:16 and how it says that all scripture is valid and inspired by God -- which pretty much debunks your assertion about 1 Corinthians 6:9 not being valid simply because it was Paul who said it and not Christ

That's just words in a book. And none of that changes the fact that biblical morality, including the ten commandments, is obviously just man-made and changes as society changes, given that the ten commandments etc did not apply to Abraham et al or their ancestors.

 

[Fool]

Only in your dreams!!! Where do the gospels say anything about homosexuality and why Jesus loved one of his disciples instead of cleaving to a wife?

And in contrast to adultery by ALL remarried divorcees (Mark 10:11-12 Exodus 20:14), which of the ten commandments refers to homosexuality anyway?

Anything Paul wrote is irrelevant since he never even met Jesus. And it still doesn't change the fact that the bible says nothing about female homosexuals anyway, since they do not have anal sex which was described for heterosexual women as "vile" and "unseemly" (Romans 1:26-27).

I believe Paul's overall problem is that Paul wrote to much. You also don't see him as corroborating with the other chosen apostles who spent 3.5 years with Jesus. In one sudden flash of insight on the road to Damascus he becomes one third of a canon based on knowing Jesus. Seems dubious

 

[Spartan]

I believe Paul's overall problem is that Paul wrote to much.

Paul and Jesus agree on the major tenets of the faith. Numerous examples in the link / article below:

Did Jesus and Paul teach the same thing? | CARM.org

You also don't see him as corroborating with the other chosen apostles who spent 3.5 years with Jesus.

In Galatians 1:18-19 Paul met with Peter and James in Jerusalem.

Also, there's this:

"And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Gal. 2:9)."

 

[Fool]

Paul and Jesus agree on the major tenets of the faith. Numerous examples in the link / article below:

Did Jesus and Paul teach the same thing? | CARM.org



In Galatians 1:18-19 Paul met with Peter and James in Jerusalem.

Also, there's this:

"And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Gal. 2:9)."

A one time, or even a couple of times meeting, is not a corroboration

 

[Mitty]

A one time, or even a couple of times meeting, is not a corroboration

And the story in Acts 9:1-6 is just an imaginative metaphorical way of saying that Paul changed his mind, and doesn't mean that he had an in-depth conversation with a bodyless voice in the sky which he had never met anyway.

 

[Spartan]

A one time, or even a couple of times meeting, is not a corroboration

No doubt Peter and James confirmed the Resurrection of Jesus for Paul. That's confirmation of Paul's Damascus Road visitation by Jesus.

 

[Spartan]

And the story in Acts 9:1-6 is just an imaginative metaphorical way of saying that Paul changed his mind, and doesn't mean that he had an in-depth conversation with a bodyless voice in the sky which he had never met anyway.

That's wishful thinking on your part. And that means Paul would have suffered for YEARS for a lie. Not very good logic on your part.

 

[Mitty]

That's wishful thinking on your part. And that means Paul would have suffered for YEARS for a lie. Not very good logic on your part.

Do you have any actual evidence that Paul had an indepth conversation with a bodyless voice in the sky about why Jesus loved one of his disciples instead of a wife?
And did Paul discuss why Satan gave him "a thorn in the flesh" which he was unable to get rid of, and whether that was why he didn't cleave to a wife either and chose to be celibate instead of loving Cecil or Cyril (2Cor 12:7-8)?

Or is that story about a talking sky just an imaginative fantasy?

 

[Tazarah]

I'm not interested in your silly straw grasping. You're wasting your time and just trying to convince yourself unless you can show us where the bible says that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman"

I've asked you multiple times to explain how/where Romans 1:26-27 is speaking about men having "anal sex" with women. It appears that you are inserting things into the scriptures that are not even written there.

Once you actually prove and establish that Romans 1:26-27 is speaking about "anal sex", then you will have an argument. But thus far, you have not been able to prove this.

You're just adding things into the scriptures that are not there.

That's just words in a book. And none of that changes the fact that biblical morality, including the ten commandments, is obviously just man-made and changes as society changes, given that the ten commandments etc did not apply to Abraham et al or their ancestors.

Okay then, if the verses that I quote, like 2 Timothy 3:16 for example (which completely debunk your arguments about certain scriptures not being valid), are "just words in a book", then the same can be said about the verses that you attempt to use for your arguments.

See how silly that sounds?

Secondly, if the bible is just "words in a book" then why are you so worried about what it says regarding homosexuality and why are you on here trying to convince people that it doesn't say what it clearly say?

 

[Spartan]

Do you have any actual evidence that Paul had an indepth conversation with a bodyless voice in the sky about why Jesus loved one of his disciples instead of a wife?

Get a new argument. Those were already busted.

And did Paul discuss why Satan gave him "a thorn in the flesh" which he was unable to get rid of, and whether that was why he didn't cleave to a wife either and chose to be celibate instead of loving Cecil or Cyril (2Cor 12:7-8)?

If you read that passage, the "thorn in the flesh" was given to Paul to keep him humble, because of the great revelations he had supernaturally received.

 

[Mitty]

I've asked you multiple times to explain how/where Romans 1:26-27 is speaking about men having "anal sex" with women. It appears that you are inserting things into the scriptures that are not even written there.

Once you actually prove and establish that Romans 1:26-27 is speaking about "anal sex", then you will have an argument. But thus far, you have not been able to prove this.

You're just adding things into the scriptures that are not there.


Okay then, if the verses that I quote, like 2 Timothy 3:16 for example (which completely debunk your arguments about certain scriptures not being valid), are "just words in a book", then the same can be said about the verses that you attempt to use for your arguments.

See how silly that sounds?

That's your choice if you believe that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman" according to the bible, and that Romans 1:26-27 describes female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly" and that Roman 1:27 describes men playing tiddly winks together as "working that which is unseemly". But alas that wouldn't even convince my cat.

Secondly, if the bible is just "words in a book" then why are you so worried about what it says regarding homosexuality and why are you on here trying to convince people that it doesn't say what it clearly say?

Obviously homosexuality is only an insignificant issue in the bible, since its not even mentioned in the gospels. And unlike adultery by ALL remarried divorcees, is not even one of the ten commandments, and the OT only refers to anal sex by men as disgusting in two minor verses in Leviticus 18 & 20. And female homosexuality is not even mentioned in the bible at all, apart from the relationship between Ruth and Naomi.

 

[Tazarah]

That's your choice if you believe that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman" according to the bible, and that Romans 1:26-27 describes female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly" and that Roman 1:27 describes men playing tiddly winks together as "working that which is unseemly". But alas that wouldn't even convince my cat.

I ask you again -- where does Romans 1:26-27 say that men were having anal sex with women? It doesn't say that. It says that men stopped being with women and began to lust after other men, and that they were punished for it.

Obviously homosexuality is only an insignificant issue in the bible, since its not even mentioned in the gospels, and unlike adultery by ALL remarried divorcees is not even one of the ten commandments, and the OT only refers to anal sex by men as disgusting in two minor verses in Leviticus 18 & 20. And female homosexuality is not even mentioned in the bible at all, apart from the relationship between Ruth and Naomi.

But Romans 1:26-27 clearly speaks about homosexuality between women and men.

What is it with you and anal sex? Romans 1:26-27 says nothing about anal sex. It says that women started go against what was natural, and the men too -- and they began lusting after the same sex and were punished for it.

 

[Spartan]

Obviously homosexuality is only an insignificant issue in the bible....

The Lord doesn't think homosexual sin is insignificant. Did you miss God's demolition of Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

[Mitty]

Get a new argument. Those were already busted.



If you read that passage, the "thorn in the flesh" was given to Paul to keep him humble, because of the great revelations he had supernaturally received.

That's only your personal opinion, and doesn't explain why Satan gave it to him to keep him humble, and that Paul tried not to be humble three times.

Obviously that verse describes something that Paul thought was sinful and perhaps why he chose to be celibate instead of loving one his followers like Jesus.

 

[Mitty]

The Lord doesn't think homosexual sin is insignificant. Did you miss God's demolition of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Have you ever actually read that story which has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality, but is about inhospitality according to Jesus (Matt 11:24 10:14-15)? Or do you believe that Jesus and what he said is irrelevant?

The story in Gen 18 describes how Abraham and a god shared a meal and had a face to face conversation about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah, and how the god then walked down to count them for itself since it was neither an omniscient or omnipresent type of god.

And the story in Gen 19 describes how Lot's sons-in-law wanted "to know" what two blokes were up to in Lot's house, and how Lot mocked his sons-in-law and tried to pimp their future wives and then sexually assaulted them after sneaking out of Zoar with a stack of wine. And it doesn't mean that Lot's sons-in-law wanted to have sex with those two blokes instead of their future wives, nor that all the men, women and children (ie "all the people") wanted to have sex with them either, or even wanted to have sex with the Bad Lot who was outside the house when he mocked his sons-in-law and tried to pimp their future wives.