It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Originally posted by The Benevolent Adversary
reply to post by troubleshooter
wow nice assumption about my sexual proclivites and nice way to avoid my honest question.
where does jesus specifically address the issue of homosexuality?
Jesus was busy casting out demons, healing the sick, spreading the good word, and teaching his disciples the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Homosexuality wasn't a big thing back then, the entire population of the earth was a lot smaller, and if there were any gays, they were too few in number to get onto Jesus' radar. There was no gay movement, like today, raising issues about getting married, and such. No one asked Jesus what he thought about homosexuality, because it wasn't in the minds of men back then. They did ask Jesus about other issues concerning marriage, but between a man and woman. Jesus also commented on adultery, and prostitution, i.e. sins of a woman prostitute. Typically, people around Jesus asked him things, and he responded. Since nobody asked Jesus about being gay, he never talked about that specifically. So, you'd have to infer what he would have said, from his other comments about sexuality in general, on the things he did speak.
In this case, it is clear that Jesus' position is "abstinence" , i.e. non-sexual relation, is the best form of "love".
So, that would exclude homosexuals immediately, since they must have sex with each other, otherwise they wouldn't be homosexuals at all. Other Christians of the day did comment on homosexuality, but these were not the direct words of Jesus.
Originally posted by wiser3
Oh so now he didn't condemn homosexuality but we must "infer" that he would have!
How many other inferred condemnations are there?
Originally posted by Rightone777
reply to post by My_Reality
"Definition 7 is why I support the renaming of gay "marriage" into a different term. There is "no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance" between a Divine Union or a Marriage, with each concept receiving equal treatment under the law. "
There is nothing "DIVINE" about a homosexual union, it is an act of perversion.
It is that act of perversion that GOD HATES, N O T the homosexual person committing the act. For that person, God sent His Son "JESUS" to save that person from the "spirit" or "spirits" or "fallen angels" or "demonic beings" who are sent by the "devil" to torment GOD's creation and "Kill, Steal and Destroy" all that he can because he was kicked out of Heaven for wanting to be worshiped as GOD is worshiped in Heaven.
GOD is the only one who is "DIVINE" !!! And perversion is the farthest act from Divinity !!!!
Originally posted by Rightone777
reply to post by My_Reality
"Definition 7 is why I support the renaming of gay "marriage" into a different term. There is "no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance" between a Divine Union or a Marriage, with each concept receiving equal treatment under the law. "
There is nothing "DIVINE" about a homosexual union, it is an act of perversion.
It is that act of perversion that GOD HATES, N O T the homosexual person committing the act.
For that person, God sent His Son "JESUS" to save that person from the "spirit" or "spirits" or "fallen angels" or "demonic beings" who are sent by the "devil" to torment GOD's creation and "Kill, Steal and Destroy" all that he can because he was kicked out of Heaven for wanting to be worshiped as GOD is worshiped in Heaven.
GOD is the only one who is "DIVINE" !!! And perversion is the farthest act from Divinity !!!!
Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
reply to post by Believer101
Shouldn't one's 1st amendment rights to practice and exercise their religion trump anyone else's attempt to shove a socio-political movement down people's throats? Shouldn't that type of indoctrination be called out? Especially when used to misguide children?edit on 10-8-2012 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Rightone777
reply to post by My_Reality
"Definition 7 is why I support the renaming of gay "marriage" into a different term. There is "no variance in proportion, structure, or appearance" between a Divine Union or a Marriage, with each concept receiving equal treatment under the law. "
There is nothing "DIVINE" about a homosexual union, it is an act of perversion.
It is that act of perversion that GOD HATES, N O T the homosexual person committing the act. For that person, God sent His Son "JESUS" to save that person from the "spirit" or "spirits" or "fallen angels" or "demonic beings" who are sent by the "devil" to torment GOD's creation and "Kill, Steal and Destroy" all that he can because he was kicked out of Heaven for wanting to be worshiped as GOD is worshiped in Heaven.
GOD is the only one who is "DIVINE" !!! And perversion is the farthest act from Divinity !!!!
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Believer101
...SUPPOSEDLY said. So far, I haven't seen the first scrap of proof that an actual DEITY dictated the contents of the Bible.
Neither have I, honestly, but I'm open to the possibility if the proof arrives.
Originally posted by Believer101
Even if I don't have sex with someone of the same sex, that does not mean I'm not bisexual. While sex is a part of everyone's lives and does happen with attraction, that has nothing to do with being homosexual. You can still be gay and be attracted to the same sex without having sex with them. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Please try again.
Originally posted by wittgenstein
It is shocking that many of the anti-gay crowd do not know that there is an ethical difference between sex with a child and sex with an adult. They even say that! They do not know the ethical difference! However, I am sure the law will teach them the legal difference!
Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Originally posted by Believer101
Even if I don't have sex with someone of the same sex, that does not mean I'm not bisexual. While sex is a part of everyone's lives and does happen with attraction, that has nothing to do with being homosexual. You can still be gay and be attracted to the same sex without having sex with them. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Please try again.
Love between two people of the same sex is fine, as long as no sex is involved.
The bible is full of examples of men loving each other, for example. It's the modern confusion between "love" and "lust" that makes it difficult to clarify what exactly you're talking about when you use the word :"love".
Like I mentioned many times before, the gay movement has an agenda to change the meanings of the words in the language, so that people become confused. Just think of the word "gay" itself. It used to mean a "happy" state of mind, no sex involved. Today, you can't use the word "gay" without confusion.
Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Originally posted by wittgenstein
It is shocking that many of the anti-gay crowd do not know that there is an ethical difference between sex with a child and sex with an adult. They even say that! They do not know the ethical difference! However, I am sure the law will teach them the legal difference!
Once you start breaking the laws, what does it matter anymore which law you break?edit on 10-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Originally posted by wittgenstein
It is shocking that many of the anti-gay crowd do not know that there is an ethical difference between sex with a child and sex with an adult. They even say that! They do not know the ethical difference! However, I am sure the law will teach them the legal difference!
Once you start breaking the laws, what does it matter anymore which law you break?edit on 10-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)
Laws are there to protect the victims. Victims of rape, crime, hate, incest, pedophilia, etc. Two consenting adults that engage in a loving, committed relationship involves no victims and hurts no one.edit on 10-8-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Love between two people of the same sex is fine, as long as no sex is involved. The bible is full of examples of men loving each other, for example. It's the modern confusion between "love" and "lust" that makes it difficult to clarify what exactly you're talking about when you use the word :"love".