What the Bible teaches about homosexuality.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Your testimony for Christ should cause the unbelieving world to hate you, not applaud you.

Saying hateful things will indeed cause others to hate you. That is not what Christ meant when he said this. The world he was talking about is the world of control, the world under the subjugation of the Roman Empire and the Pharisees, the world we live in today.

Are you hated by the world? No you are not. You have the support of your church, your government, and your community. You are loved and considered a peaceful conforming member of society. Hardly hated by anyone other than those you show hatred to.

To be hated is to be ostracised from the world that we live in. To be hated is to be hunted by the law, to be condemned by the church, to be ridiculed by the Pharisees, to be tested by all.

The world may hate you, but the prisoners of that world will love you for they see their coming liberation!

Such was Christ.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Annee

 

BS - - - homosexuality is as normal and natural as you are.

It's neither.

If homosexuality were in fact "normal" they would comprise more than 3-4% of the population.

If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce.

They exact opposite is true, homosexuality is the rare exception and against nature.

You have stated that you believe partnerships without children or the ability to have children is unnatural.

I see bigotry everywhere and am constantly disgusted by it but you win the prize for today's stupidest comment.

Shame on you.

Can you read?

1. Show me where I stated "partnerships without children" is unnatural.
2. Show me where I said "the ability to have children" is unnatural.


You either are a liar or need to find your reading glasses, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Right here: "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "

Open your bigoted, disgusting eyes.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Your testimony for Christ should cause the unbelieving world to hate you, not applaud you

Perhaps you might want to read that book again, this time open your eyes when you read it...

The only ones that "hated" jesus were the ones that couldn't handle the truth. He asked people to abandon all they had and come follow me, and most would not.

As i've said before, you are clueless to the real teachings of the bible...

But walk your path...

reply to post by Akragon



Lol wuuut? You did commit the red herring fallacy, that's commonly called "changing the subject". You went from one topic we were discussing to another one that was irrelevant to the original topic we were discussing.

That IS a "red herring" fallacy.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

Originally posted by Akragon
Im on your side my friend, i just have little patients for people who use bullsh!t as their arguement... This is the same guy that throws the "red hering" garbage when he can't figure out what to say as a response...

Unfortunatly unlike you, i will not deal with those who willingly chose blindness to the scriptures...

But as i've said, im still learning

I was speaking mainly to those who read this thread, not yourself. I apologise for the confusion! LOL

You are doing a fine job. Keep it up my friend, your light is bright!

As for this conversation, if we beat this horse any more we will have PETA to contend with, and it is well past it's time for the glue factory any way.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Lol wuuut? You did commit the red herring fallacy, that's commonly called "changing the subject". You went from one topic we were discussing to another one that was irrelevant to the original topic we were discussing.

That IS a "red herring" fallacy.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

actually no, i was pointing out that you use weak arguements such as that when you have no clue what else to say....or you'll just say ....weak fallacy blah blah blah...

Leviticus 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

Are you telling me this is really in the bible and not only that, you guys are believing it and quoting it thinking that it is acceptable logic, and not only that, divine word?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Your testimony for Christ should cause the unbelieving world to hate you, not applaud you

Perhaps you might want to read that book again, this time open your eyes when you read it...

The only ones that "hated" jesus were the ones that couldn't handle the truth. He asked people to abandon all they had and come follow me, and most would not.

As i've said before, you are clueless to the real teachings of the bible...

But walk your path...

"And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."

"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."

"All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."

"If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."

"They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me."

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Annee

 

BS - - - homosexuality is as normal and natural as you are.

It's neither.

If homosexuality were in fact "normal" they would comprise more than 3-4% of the population.

If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce.

They exact opposite is true, homosexuality is the rare exception and against nature.

You have stated that you believe partnerships without children or the ability to have children is unnatural.

I see bigotry everywhere and am constantly disgusted by it but you win the prize for today's stupidest comment.

Shame on you.

Can you read?

1. Show me where I stated "partnerships without children" is unnatural.
2. Show me where I said "the ability to have children" is unnatural.


You either are a liar or need to find your reading glasses, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Right here: "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "

Open your bigoted, disgusting eyes.

edit on 5-4-2011 by Garfee because: spelling

You seem to have conveniently neglected to reply to me.

Don't care to explain yourself? I don't blame you, all you do is fall back on fairy tales rather than actual thought.

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Annee

 

BS - - - homosexuality is as normal and natural as you are.

It's neither.

If homosexuality were in fact "normal" they would comprise more than 3-4% of the population.

If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce.

They exact opposite is true, homosexuality is the rare exception and against nature.

You have stated that you believe partnerships without children or the ability to have children is unnatural.

I see bigotry everywhere and am constantly disgusted by it but you win the prize for today's stupidest comment.

Shame on you.

Can you read?

1. Show me where I stated "partnerships without children" is unnatural.
2. Show me where I said "the ability to have children" is unnatural.


You either are a liar or need to find your reading glasses, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Right here: "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "

Open your bigoted, disgusting eyes.

edit on 5-4-2011 by Garfee because: spelling

You seem to have conveniently neglected to reply to me.

Don't care to explain yourself? I don't blame you, all you do is fall back on fairy tales rather than actual thought.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Lol wuuut? You did commit the red herring fallacy, that's commonly called "changing the subject". You went from one topic we were discussing to another one that was irrelevant to the original topic we were discussing.

That IS a "red herring" fallacy.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

actually no, i was pointing out that you use weak arguements such as that when you have no clue what else to say....or you'll just say ....weak fallacy blah blah blah...

No, it's called "Debate 101". In that class you learn that you refuse to answer fallacies of logic in debate. You refuse to do so because when a fallacy is used in part of an argument it renders the entire argument invalid. it's important for one to know what the fallacies are so they can attempt not to include them in his or her own arguments. There are both formal and informal fallacies that should never be used and one should never allow others to use.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


"If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "

I am seriously waiting on how you explain this - if you ever attempt to.

Please confirm that you believe the only partnerships in nature wothy of existing are those which can produce offspring?

reply to post by Garfee

Right here: "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "

Open your bigoted, disgusting eyes.

I know I said that. "Natural" means:

A: being in accordance with or determined by nature

B : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

So with that, if homosexuality were in fact "natural" or according to nature then males could impregnate each other. Females could impregnate each other. Homosexuality is not natural or according to nature because neither can do so.

Secondly, you made the comments that I claimed:

You have stated that you believe partnerships without children or the ability to have children is unnatural.

That's a straw man argument, I never said "partnerships without children" is unnatural. I also never said "the ability to have children" is unnatural. In fact the opposite we see in nature on a consistent basis, the ability to reproduce offspring is quite natural.

Lastly, you yourself are bigoted towards individuals who think homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Lol wuuut? You did commit the red herring fallacy, that's commonly called "changing the subject". You went from one topic we were discussing to another one that was irrelevant to the original topic we were discussing.

That IS a "red herring" fallacy.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

actually no, i was pointing out that you use weak arguements such as that when you have no clue what else to say....or you'll just say ....weak fallacy blah blah blah...

No, it's called "Debate 101". In that class you learn that you refuse to answer fallacies of logic in debate. You refuse to do so because when a fallacy is used in part of an argument it renders the entire argument invalid. it's important for one to know what the fallacies are so they can attempt not to include them in his or her own arguments. There are both formal and informal fallacies that should never be used and one should never allow others to use.

Dude, most of your arguements are stacked with flaws, and illogical inconsistancies... Your debating skills are lacking bigtime, not to mention the fact that when someone points out your flaws in your arguements you stick them with a weak arguement like "red herring" or weak falacy. Oh and i forgot the "straw man" arguement...

pathetic... the biggest problem is, you can't admit when you're wrong even if you're backed into a corner with no explanation.

You're no better then a polititician, if things don't go your way, you call people liars... or pound on their credibility.

reply to post by IAMIAM

Saying hateful things will indeed cause others to hate you.

Whoa, the only people that hate God's Word are those who are rebellious to God or who reject God. "Truth" doesn't have to put a smile on everyone's face for it to be truthful.

reply to post by Akragon

Dude, most of your arguements are stacked with flaws, and illogical inconsistancies...

Are you going to provide evidence of this or shall we all just take your arbitrary opinion?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Dude, most of your arguements are stacked with flaws, and illogical inconsistancies...

Are you going to provide evidence of this or shall we all just take your arbitrary opinion?

No anyone who reads your posts can clearly see them... i have no need to humiliate you.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Garfee

 

Right here: "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "

Open your bigoted, disgusting eyes.

I know I said that. "Natural" means:

A: being in accordance with or determined by nature

B : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

So with that, if homosexuality were in fact "natural" or according to nature then males could impregnate each other. Females could impregnate each other. Homosexuality is not natural or according to nature because neither can do so.

Secondly, you made the comments that I claimed:

You have stated that you believe partnerships without children or the ability to have children is unnatural.

That's a straw man argument, I never said "partnerships without children" is unnatural. I also never said "the ability to have children" is unnatural. In fact the opposite we see in nature on a consistent basis, the ability to reproduce offspring is quite natural.

Lastly, you yourself are bigoted towards individuals who think homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Christian, meet mr real-life not believing in a fake god.

You wrote "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "

That to me means you believe that if you are a couple but cannot or do not wish to produce offspring, you are against the laws of nature.

Of course, all of your garbage comes from an evil, dark and hateful book so I shouldn't expect anything less than the filth you have been spouting.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I know I said that. "Natural" means:

A: being in accordance with or determined by nature

B : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

So with that, if homosexuality were in fact "natural" or according to nature then males could impregnate each other. Females could impregnate each other. Homosexuality is not natural or according to nature because neither can do so.

You understand that the definitions you quoted are largely left up to an individuals interpretation, in this case I guess it would be yours since you know so much about what is "natural", did you even read those words up there before quoting them. Many animals also practice homosexuality, does that make it "natural" to you?

Wouldn't this be an informal fallacy? Tell me what they taught you in that "Debate 101" class you took in church.

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Garfee

 

Right here: "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "

Open your bigoted, disgusting eyes.

I know I said that. "Natural" means:

A: being in accordance with or determined by nature

B : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

So with that, if homosexuality were in fact "natural" or according to nature then males could impregnate each other. Females could impregnate each other. Homosexuality is not natural or according to nature because neither can do so.

Secondly, you made the comments that I claimed:

You have stated that you believe partnerships without children or the ability to have children is unnatural.

That's a straw man argument, I never said "partnerships without children" is unnatural. I also never said "the ability to have children" is unnatural. In fact the opposite we see in nature on a consistent basis, the ability to reproduce offspring is quite natural.

Lastly, you yourself are bigoted towards individuals who think homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Christian, meet mr real-life not believing in a fake god.

You wrote "If homosexuality were in fact "natural" they would be able to reproduce. "

That to me means you believe that if you are a couple but cannot or do not wish to produce offspring, you are against the laws of nature.

Of course, all of your garbage comes from an evil, dark and hateful book so I shouldn't expect anything less than the filth you have been spouting.

My friend the bible is not an evil book, any more then a spiderman comic is evil... He just doesn't understand the lessons in the bible...