• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why is there no outcry from the Christian Right against divorce?

shmogie

Well-Known Member
On the argument that people changed the language/definition and that is wrong, I would like to mention that language evolve over time. Nobody speaks like our distant ancestors. I don't think anybody calls people they don't knaves anymore. In the same fashion, a car used to be a closed compartment pulled by horses and now it's some sort of self-propelled vehicle on four wheels. A marriage is also not just a union between people, it's also a mixture of two things that goes well together like the mix of peanut butter and jelly. If marriage was such a sacred word, we definitely profaned it by using it in other, often ridiculous, context. Before marrying gay people, we made pretend marriages for our pets that mimic our traditions (and in some region of the world it's actually a fairly serious thing) and I don't think I heard people saying that this was some sort of travesty of a sacred ceremony and word probably because dogs in grooms and brides costumes are funny and adorable so who cares.
You missed the point, there is danger when the government arbitrarily changes language by fiat.

I suggest that you read 1984 to get more insight in this.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Bull. Christ never said that the soul is immortal, it is exactly the opposite. The afterlife ? For most there will be no such thing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah to the rest, nonsense. Christ taught from scriptures thousands of years old. They didn´t have gods beating each other up, with heads of monkeys, or ten arms or whatever.

What is this Eternal Life he refers to if not immortality after this life?

I have not mocked your images of your gods, though there's plenty of grist for the mill, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from mocking mine.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
You missed the point, there is danger when the government arbitrarily changes language by fiat.

I suggest that you read 1984 to get more insight in this.

You mean like citing "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" to make marriage laws equal all over the country? But do tell, what would that danger be?
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
No, I'm not busted. That was another of your "nyah nyah" comments. That was his opinion, just his opinion, not a proclamation or a law. It's certainly not that way, now is it? The Constitution makes no mention of Christianity at all. It does mention "religion" twice: in the First Amendment "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office.

"When the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all." Justice John Paul Stevens.

So you see, God has no place in American civil law. It is a wholly secular country.

Nonsense. First of all, the majority of Americans are Christians. Second, Bible-based moral principles are reflected in numerous laws, including restrictions and/or prohibitions against abortion, murder, thievery, etc., etc. And new laws based on Biblical principles aren't presented / identified as Biblical laws. All we do - and have been doing for centuries - is dress Biblical morals and principles up in secular language and present them as law accordingly. And you don't have to like it!

Third, the Constitution of the United States was established to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" that are defined in the Declaration of Independence. And among those blessings of liberty are those where men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So screw your secular Constitution.

What's more, in the landmark case School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that "the State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." - Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963)

So screw your secular nation nonsense again.

And you are now thoroughly busted. Again.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
You missed the point, there is danger when the government arbitrarily changes language by fiat.

I suggest that you read 1984 to get more insight in this.

The day homosexuals were alowed to live their love life like heterosexuals, it was inevitable that they would want and be allowed to marry. Homosexual and heterosexual love isn't different. The only difference is the composition, but the feelings and lifestyle is the same. By recognising that heterosexual were not unique in this, the definition of marriage and couple had to be expended or risk being replaced altogethered by the word that would have had to be created. Governments didn't change the word ''marriage'' society changed and government had to recognise that change and thus change it's definition of marriage much like it had to change it's definition of citizen or voters (and many others) in the past. Refusing to adapt to societal changes or even actively fighting any social changes to maintain current ones for arbitrary reasons is highly dangerous. Appeal to tradition alone, is fallacious.
 
Last edited:

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Nonsense. First of all, the majority of Americans are Christians. Second, Bible-based moral principles are reflected in numerous laws, including restrictions and/or prohibitions against abortion, murder, thievery, etc., etc. And new laws based on Biblical principles aren't presented / identified as Biblical laws. All we do - and have been doing for centuries - is dress Biblical morals and principles up in secular language and present them as law accordingly. And you don't have to like it!

Tenacious fellow, aren't you; I give you credit for that, being wrong again notwithstanding.

Now then, that the majority population of Americans identifies as Christian proves what, exactly? Virtually every society has had the same laws. They are not unique or original to the Bible. In fact, the biblical laws were plagiarized from the Code of Hammurabi and other Mesopotamian codes.

Laws we enact today are reinforcements of existing laws. For example, if states had applied the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause to marriage laws, we would not have had the court cases and long battles to make same sex marriage legal. It was there all along. Same with Lawrence v. Texas. If the state of Texas had applied the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause to same sex relations, there would have been no need for a Supreme Court case. So you see, certain basic laws are part and parcel of every society in every time period, but we have to have laws to enforce and reinforce existing laws. They are not unique or original to Christianity.

Third, the Constitution of the United States was established to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" that are defined in the Declaration of Independence. And among those blessings of liberty are those where men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So screw your secular Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is a letter in the form of an essay to King George III of England why the colonies should form their own nation. God and Creator are not mentioned in the Constitution. Show me where either word is.

America: A Christian Nation? The Lies and Deception of the Religious Right "The only reference to religion or God in the U.S. Constitution notes that political service shall not be predicated upon religion."

upload_2019-11-1_13-17-49.png


What's more, in the landmark case School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that "the State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." - Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963)

Again, still?

dt_131216_cherry_picking_fruit_250x188.jpg


The Court declared school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional. Abington School District v. Schempp - Wikipedia The decision, written by Justice Tom C. Clark, said no matter the religious nature of the citizenry, the government at all levels, as required by the Constitution, must remain neutral in matters of religion "while protecting all, prefer[ring] none, and disparag[ing] none."

Read it and understand it.

So screw your secular nation nonsense again.

And you are now thoroughly busted. Again.

Nope.

Let me get some ice for your black 'n blues.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The day homosexuals were alowed to live their love life like heterosexuals, it was inevitable that they would want and be allowed to marry. Homosexual and heterosexual love isn't different. The only difference is the composition, but the feelings and lifestyle is the same. By recognising that heterosexual were not unique in this, the definition of marriage and couple had to be expended or risk being replaced altogethered by the word that would have had to be created. Governments didn't change the word ''marriage'' society changed and government had to recognise that change and thus change it's definition of marriage much like it had to change it's definition of citizen or voters (and many others) in the past. Refusing to adapt to societal changes or even actively fighting any social changes to maintain current ones for arbitrary reasons is highly dangerous. Appeal to tradition alone, is fallacious.
I wasn´t fighting a social change, I was fighting the arbitrary government change of the language.

No, homosexual marriage was not the will of the people, was not a societal change. In every state where homosexual marriage was on the ballot, as I recall, it was defeated.

So the government, in spite of what the people wanted, totally disregard their will.

I was on the side of civil unions, not the fiat arbitrary redefining of a word with the same definition for thousands of years by 5 government employees
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
No, homosexual marriage was not the will of the people, was not a societal change. In every state where homosexual marriage was on the ballot, as I recall, it was defeated.

At that point the will of the people was useless. It wasn't to the people to decide if homosexual could be married. The people doesn't give marriage license. If marriage is perceived as a natural right, the mob can't deny it to a minority. It's inherant. If marriage isn't a natural right, but a status confered to certain couple by the government, then the opinion of the mob is also pointless. A countries legislature and its court are sovereign on such issue as per the norm in representative democracies. They were not bound or obligated to carry it to a referendum. National polls have also shown that from 2011 and then on, more then 50% of American supported same-sex marriage and has steadily augmented every year since then. Since same-sex marriage was legalised in the entirety of the US in 2015, it was done with the will of the people behind it to. Right now, only one State has a majority of its population in opposition and another one with a plurality of opposition. 44 have a majority of their population in approbation and 4 have a plurality in support. With such a broad support, you can't even use public opinion to defend marriage in such a way.

As for language, gay marriage was already legal ten years before in Canada where there are both english and french speaking people who used to word marriage to describe a same-sex union. Britain had also legalised it before you if I'm not mistaken as well as several other countries like South Africa where English is the official language. Considering you share this language not legalising it in the US would not have protected the definition of marriage. It was already changed by other countries.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
God and Creator are not mentioned in the Constitution. Show me where either word is.

Well, Jesus is God and Creator in the Bible, and he is most certainly mentioned in the Constitution:

It's dated, "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord" 1787."

"OUR LORD," not THE Lord.

Gotta love it!!
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, Jesus is God and Creator in the Bible, and he is most certainly mentioned in the Constitution:

It's dated, "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord" 1787."

"OUR LORD," not THE Lord.

Gotta love it!!

It gives me great pleasure to tell you that is just a common dating convention.

Constitutional references to God - Wikipedia

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have civilizations and societies to destroy and godlessness to spread.
 

Mitty

Active Member
What kind of Biblical evidence do you want prohibiting same sex marriage ? Your point is ridiculous. The Bible only mentions marriage in the context of a man and woman. Those who practiced homosexuality were executed at the time of Christ and the Apostles. Christ said not one thing regarding this law . Christian law is clear, homosexuals in the world can do whatever they chose, homosexuals in the Church must either repent and abstain, or be excluded from the Church. Paul makes this abundantly clear.

You are right about divorce. However, it has become acceptable in many denominations, which is no surprise, as we were told the corrupt world and many of itś practices would seep into many congregations.
Why didn't Paul and Jesus cleave to wives?

And was Jesus married to the disciple he loved (John 19:26 21:7), given that he said nothing about homosexuality apart from asking his followers to accept that some men do not marry women because they are so born from their mothers' wombs (Matt 19:12). And the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality and only condemns anal sex of women and men, which is described as "vile" and "unseemly" (Romans 1:26-27) and disgusting (Lev 18 & 20) as is eating oysters.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Why didn't Paul and Jesus cleave to wives?

And was Jesus married to the disciple he loved (John 19:26 21:7), given that he said nothing about homosexuality apart from asking his followers to accept that some men do not marry women because they are so born from their mothers' wombs (Matt 19:12). And the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality and only condemns anal sex of women and men, which is described as "vile" and "unseemly" (Romans 1:26-27) and disgusting (Lev 18 & 20) as is eating oysters.
Paul nor Christ were not married because of the nature of the most important thing in life to them spreading the Gospel. Christ knew he would die a young man, and Paul did nothing but travel, and face hardship in those travels, till he was imprisoned and executed.

I have 11 different translations, and your conclusion regarding Matthew 19 is erroneous. Eunuch is the term used, not men. Eunuchs are incapable of having sex, they have no testes and or penises. Some are born this way, some are made this way by castration, and some choose to act as a eunuch for their own purposes.

In the Koine Greek, in which the NT was originally written., there isn't one word "love", there are 5 different types of love. Sexual love is eros. This word is not used in reference to Christs "love" for John. The word used is the love of friendship.

The Bible does condemn female homosexuality, Romans 1:26, For even their women the natural use for what is against nature, LIKEWISE also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty which was due (death). Your quotation says nothing about anal sex, it uses the term sodomite. The term comes from sodom, the city where the men demanded demanded that the Angels be brought out so the could have sex with them, homosexuality. the term has evolved to mean anal sex.

Homosexuality by both sexes is condemned in both the old and new Testament. Paul makes it clear that is not to be tolerated in the church, period.
 

Mitty

Active Member
Paul nor Christ were not married because of the nature of the most important thing in life to them spreading the Gospel. Christ knew he would die a young man, and Paul did nothing but travel, and face hardship in those travels, till he was imprisoned and executed.
So why wasn't Jesus married to a woman, given that he didn't do any "spreading the Gospel" until he was about 30 years old. And how did Jesus know that he was going to be executed by the Romans for sedition and for claiming to have an inherited right to be the Jewish king as a teenager or in his 20s anyway? And why did Jesus love one of his disciples instead of a woman given he said nothing at all about homosexuality but condemned all remarried divorcees to hell unless they remain celibate and repent for their adulterous marriages (Mark 10:11-12 Matt 5:27-30)?

I have 11 different translations, and your conclusion regarding Matthew 19 is erroneous. Eunuch is the term used, not men. Eunuchs are incapable of having sex, they have no testes and or penises. Some are born this way, some are made this way by castration, and some choose to act as a eunuch for their own purposes.
Wrong. The word "eunuch" in the bible is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as a bedchamber attendant [f. Greek eunikhos (eune bed + okh- .st. of ekho hold)]
If you believe otherwise, then perhaps you can describe how to castrate an unborn person in-utero (Matt 19:12), and whether Philip determined that the bloke from Ethiopa was a eunuch by having a look at his genitalia or by groping him (Acts 8:27)

In the Koine Greek, in which the NT was originally written., there isn't one word "love", there are 5 different types of love. Sexual love is eros. This word is not used in reference to Christs "love" for John. The word used is the love of friendship.
That's just your personal opinion, and doesn't explain why he loved one of his disciples and didn't cleave to a wife before he had a change in lifestyle after his 30th birthday..

The Bible does condemn female homosexuality, Romans 1:26, For even their women the natural use for what is against nature, LIKEWISE also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty which was due (death). Your quotation says nothing about anal sex, it uses the term sodomite. The term comes from sodom, the city where the men demanded demanded that the Angels be brought out so the could have sex with them, homosexuality. the term has evolved to mean anal sex.
Wrong. There's nothing in Romans 1:26-27 about female homosexuality given that it obviously refers to anal sex of women as well as men. If you believe otherwise then where does Romans 1:26 say anything about women with women "working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" from penetrative sex with other women. Or are you claiming that the writers of Romans 1:26-27 described female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly" and that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman"?

The S&G story has nothing to do with homosexuality either, but is about inhospitality and about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah (Gen 18). Or are you claiming that Lot's sons-in-law wanted to have sex with the two blokes in Lot's house instead of with their future wives before Lot mocked them and then sexually assaulted their future wives after sneaking out of Zoar (Gen 19)?

Homosexuality by both sexes is condemned in both the old and new Testament. Paul makes it clear that is not to be tolerated in the church, period.
Nonsense. There is absolutely nothing at all about female homosexuality in the bible, given that they do not have anal sex as obviously described in Lev 18 & 20 and Romans 1:26-27.
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
So why wasn't Jesus married to a woman, given that he didn't do any "spreading the Gospel" until he was about 30 years old. And why did Jesus love one of his disciples instead of a woman given he said nothing at all about homosexuality but condemned all remarried divorcees to hell unless they remain celibate and repent for their adulterous marriages (Mark 10:11-12 Matt 5:27-30)?

Nonsense. The word "eunuch" in the bible is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as a bedchamber attendant [f. Greek eunikhos (eune bed + okh- .st. of ekho hold)]
If you believe otherwise, then perhaps you can describe how to castrate an unborn person in-utero (Matt 19:12), and whether Philip determined that the bloke from Ethiopa was a eunuch by having a look at his genitalia or by groping him (Acts 8:27)

That's just your personal opinion, and doesn't explain why he loved one of his disciples and didn't cleave to a wife before he had a change in lifestyle after his 30th birthday..

Nonsense. There's nothing in Romans 1:26-27 about female homosexuality given that it obviously refers to anal sex of women as well as men. If you believe otherwise then where does Romans 1:26 say anything about women with women "working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" from penetrative sex with other women. Or are you claiming that the writers of Romans 1:26-27 describe female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly"?

The S&G story has nothing to do with homosexuality either, but is about inhospitality and about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah (Gen 18). Or are you claiming that Lot's sons-in-law wanted to have sex with the two blokes in Lot's house instead of with their future wives before Lot mocked them and then sexually assaulted their future wives after sneaking out of Zoar (Gen 19)

Nonsense. There is absolutely nothing about female homosexuality in the bible, given that they do not have anal sex as described in Lev 18 & 20 and Romans 1:26-27.
Apparently you cannot grasp
So why wasn't Jesus married to a woman, given that he didn't do any "spreading the Gospel" until he was about 30 years old. And why did Jesus love one of his disciples instead of a woman given he said nothing at all about homosexuality but condemned all remarried divorcees to hell unless they remain celibate and repent for their adulterous marriages (Mark 10:11-12 Matt 5:27-30)?

Nonsense. The word "eunuch" in the bible is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as a bedchamber attendant [f. Greek eunikhos (eune bed + okh- .st. of ekho hold)]
If you believe otherwise, then perhaps you can describe how to castrate an unborn person in-utero (Matt 19:12), and whether Philip determined that the bloke from Ethiopa was a eunuch by having a look at his genitalia or by groping him (Acts 8:27)

That's just your personal opinion, and doesn't explain why he loved one of his disciples and didn't cleave to a wife before he had a change in lifestyle after his 30th birthday..

Nonsense. There's nothing in Romans 1:26-27 about female homosexuality given that it obviously refers to anal sex of women as well as men. If you believe otherwise then where does Romans 1:26 say anything about women with women "working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" from penetrative sex with other women. Or are you claiming that the writers of Romans 1:26-27 describe female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly"?

The S&G story has nothing to do with homosexuality either, but is about inhospitality and about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah (Gen 18). Or are you claiming that Lot's sons-in-law wanted to have sex with the two blokes in Lot's house instead of with their future wives before Lot mocked them and then sexually assaulted their future wives after sneaking out of Zoar (Gen 19)

Nonsense. There is absolutely nothing about female homosexuality in the bible, given that they do not have anal sex as described in Lev 18 & 20 and Romans 1:26-27.
So, in your view, men, like women (likewise) burned with lust for one another un naturally doesn't mean women committing homosexual acts. WRONG.

Yes, you are right about the literal meaning of eunuch. However, why were they made eunuchs? because they attended and defended the women's bedchamber, where wives and concubines were.

You have never heard of children being born asexual, or with "confused" sexuality? Born eunuchs. They existed in Judea, just as they exist today.

Gen, 19: 4 Speaking of the angels in lots house " The men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter surrounded the house and they called to him (Lot) Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we may know them carnally". You think that is about hospitality and not homosexuality? The people of sodom, sodomites, became equivalent to the later term homosexual.

It is not just my opinion, I know the basics of Greek, specifically Koine Greek, and I know how the language relates to the English word "love".

You seem obsessed by anal sex, you see it in the Bible, where it doesn't exist.

Christ wasn't married, so what? I don't understand why that bothers you so much. Men choose not to be married all the time, that doesn't make them defacto homosexuals.

Christ was not just any man, He is the perfect man, God Himself, therefore He was party to giving the original law regarding homosexuality. You are attempting to say that He who forbade homosexuality, and approved the death penalty for it, was at His incarnation a homosexual? Inanity.

The Church has taught for 2,000 years what the Apostolic Church taught about homosexuality, it is a sin, and cannot exist in the church.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Christ wasn't married, so what? I don't understand why that bothers you so much. Men choose not to be married all the time, that doesn't make them defacto homosexuals.

Plus, according to some apocryphal gospels, Jesus was indeed married or at the very least involved in a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene. There is no mention, even in apocryphal gospels and writtings, of Jesus having children, though, at the time, the birth of girls would not likely be mentionned. It was more common to only count boys as only they could inherit name, status and wealth.
 

Mitty

Active Member
Apparently you cannot grasp

So, in your view, men, like women (likewise) burned with lust for one another un naturally doesn't mean women committing homosexual acts. WRONG.
But Romans 1:26 DOES NOT say anything about women with women, nor does it say that female genitalia are "vile" and "unseemly" as described for the "men with men". And where does the bible say that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman". Or are you just making that up?

Yes, you are right about the literal meaning of eunuch. However, why were they made eunuchs? because they attended and defended the women's bedchamber, where wives and concubines were.
And there is no reason why homosexuals can't be bedchamber attendants. Afterall the late Queen Mother preferred to employ homosexual eunuchs for her household and joked that she was a real queen.
And why was Queen Candace's eunuch in Jerusalem to worship instead of attending and defending her bedchamber in Ethiopia (Acts 8:27-30). And did Philip determine that he was a eunuch by groping him in his chariot?

You have never heard of children being born asexual, or with "confused" sexuality? Born eunuchs. They existed in Judea, just as they exist today.
In the same way that homosexuals are so born from their mothers' wombs and do not choose their sexual orientation.

Gen, 19: 4 Speaking of the angels in lots house " The men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter surrounded the house and they called to him (Lot) Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we may know them carnally". You think that is about hospitality and not homosexuality? The people of sodom, sodomites, became equivalent to the later term homosexual.
Nonsense, that's just a dishonest fake version and a false interpretation. The KJV does not say that the S&G story is about homosexuality nor that all the men women and children (ie ALL THE PEOPLE) including Lot's sons-in-law wanted to have sex with the two blokes Lot met down the street. But the story describes how Lot's sons-in-law wanted "to know" what the two blokes were up to in Lot's house, and how Lot came outside and mocked his sons-in-law and tried to pimp their future wives and later sexually assaulted them in a cave after sneaking out of Zoar with a load of grog.

It is not just my opinion, I know the basics of Greek, specifically Koine Greek, and I know how the language relates to the English word "love".
Is your first language "Koine Greek"? Either way it doesn't change the fact that the bible says that Jesus loved one particular desciple and doesn't say that he was married to a woman. Nor did Jesus say anything about homosexuality.

You seem obsessed by anal sex, you see it in the Bible, where it doesn't exist.
So what on Earth do you think that Leviticus 18 & 20 and Romans 1:26-27 were referring to if you claim that it wasn't about anal sex and that Romans 1:26-27 therefore describes female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly" and that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman"?
Do you think that the two verses in Leviticus 18 & 19 were referring to men lying down and playing tiddly winks instead of playing tiddly winks with women, or does it refer to men eating oysters together and described as disgusting?

Christ wasn't married, so what? I don't understand why that bothers you so much. Men choose not to be married all the time, that doesn't make them defacto homosexuals.
So why wasn't he married, and why did he love one particular disciple instead?

Christ was not just any man, He is the perfect man, God Himself, therefore He was party to giving the original law regarding homosexuality. You are attempting to say that He who forbade homosexuality, and approved the death penalty for it, was at His incarnation a homosexual? Inanity.
Wrong. Jesus did not claim to be a god, nor to be without sin (Mark 10:18), and he unsuccessfully appealed for help from his god when he was being executed for sedition and mocked as "The King of the Jews" (Matt 27:46), which is hardly a god-like trait. Jesus only claimed to be a prophet even though his own family (including his mother and her husband didn't believe him) (Matt 13:55-58).

The Church has taught for 2,000 years what the Apostolic Church taught about homosexuality, it is a sin, and cannot exist in the church.
So what!!! And why have celibate homosexual priests and bishops and cardinals sexually assaulted altar boys for 2000 years?

But it still doesn't change the fact that the bible says absolutely nothing about female homosexuals since they do not have anal sex.
 
Last edited:

Mitty

Active Member
Plus, according to some apocryphal gospels, Jesus was indeed married or at the very least involved in a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene. There is no mention, even in apocryphal gospels and writtings, of Jesus having children, though, at the time, the birth of girls would not likely be mentionned. It was more common to only count boys as only they could inherit name, status and wealth.
So why did Jesus love one of his disciples if he was married and had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene?

But afterall David said that the love with Jonathon was more wonderful than with any of his wives and concubines (2Sam 1:26). And David was even his god's begotten son (Psalm 2:7) although he was also an adulterous murderer.
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
But Romans 1:26 DOES NOT say anything about women with women, nor does it say that female genitalia are "vile" and "unseemly" as described for the "men with men". And where does the bible say that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman". Or are you just making that up?

And there is no reason why homosexuals can't be bedchamber attendants. Afterall the late Queen Mother preferred to employ homosexual eunuchs for her household and joked that she was a real queen.
And why was Queen Candace's eunuch in Jerusalem to worship instead of attending and defending her bedchamber in Ethiopia (Acts 8:27-30). And did Philip determine that he was a eunuch by groping him in his chariot?

In the same way that homosexuals are so born from their mothers' wombs and do not choose their sexual orientation.

Nonsense, that's just a dishonest fake version and a false interpretation. The KJV does not say that the S&G story is about homosexuality nor that all the men women and children (ie ALL THE PEOPLE) including Lot's sons-in-law wanted to have sex with the two blokes Lot met down the street. But the story describes how Lot's sons-in-law wanted "to know" what the two blokes were up to in Lot's house, and how Lot came outside and mocked his sons-in-law and tried to pimp their future wives and later sexually assaulted them in a cave after sneaking out of Zoar with a load of grog.

Is your first language "Koine Greek"? Either way it doesn't change the fact that the bible says that Jesus loved one particular desciple and doesn't say that he was married to a woman. Nor did Jesus say anything about homosexuality.

So what on Earth do you think that Leviticus 18 & 20 and Romans 1:26-27 were referring to if you claim that it wasn't about anal sex and that Romans 1:26-27 therefore describes female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly" and that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman"?
Do you think that the two verses in Leviticus 18 & 19 were referring to men lying down and playing tiddly winks instead of playing tiddly winks with women, or does it refer to men eating oysters together and described as disgusting?

So why wasn't he married, and why did he love one particular disciple instead?

Wrong. Jesus did not claim to be a god, nor to be without sin (Mark 10:18), and he unsuccessfully appealed for help from his god when he was being executed for sedition and mocked as "The King of the Jews" (Matt 27:46), which is hardly a god-like trait. Jesus only claimed to be a prophet even though his own family (including his mother and her husband didn't believe him) (Matt 13:55-58).

So what!!! And why have celibate homosexual priests and bishops and cardinals sexually assaulted altar boys for 2000 years?

But it still doesn't change the fact that the bible says absolutely nothing about female homosexuals since they do not have anal sex.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
But Romans 1:26 DOES NOT say anything about women with women, nor does it say that female genitalia are "vile" and "unseemly" as described for the "men with men". And where does the bible say that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman". Or are you just making that up?

And there is no reason why homosexuals can't be bedchamber attendants. Afterall the late Queen Mother preferred to employ homosexual eunuchs for her household and joked that she was a real queen.
And why was Queen Candace's eunuch in Jerusalem to worship instead of attending and defending her bedchamber in Ethiopia (Acts 8:27-30). And did Philip determine that he was a eunuch by groping him in his chariot?

In the same way that homosexuals are so born from their mothers' wombs and do not choose their sexual orientation.

Nonsense, that's just a dishonest fake version and a false interpretation. The KJV does not say that the S&G story is about homosexuality nor that all the men women and children (ie ALL THE PEOPLE) including Lot's sons-in-law wanted to have sex with the two blokes Lot met down the street. But the story describes how Lot's sons-in-law wanted "to know" what the two blokes were up to in Lot's house, and how Lot came outside and mocked his sons-in-law and tried to pimp their future wives and later sexually assaulted them in a cave after sneaking out of Zoar with a load of grog.

Is your first language "Koine Greek"? Either way it doesn't change the fact that the bible says that Jesus loved one particular desciple and doesn't say that he was married to a woman. Nor did Jesus say anything about homosexuality.

So what on Earth do you think that Leviticus 18 & 20 and Romans 1:26-27 were referring to if you claim that it wasn't about anal sex and that Romans 1:26-27 therefore describes female genitalia as "vile" and "unseemly" and that anal sex is "the natural use of the woman"?
Do you think that the two verses in Leviticus 18 & 19 were referring to men lying down and playing tiddly winks instead of playing tiddly winks with women, or does it refer to men eating oysters together and described as disgusting?

So why wasn't he married, and why did he love one particular disciple instead?

Wrong. Jesus did not claim to be a god, nor to be without sin (Mark 10:18), and he unsuccessfully appealed for help from his god when he was being executed for sedition and mocked as "The King of the Jews" (Matt 27:46), which is hardly a god-like trait. Jesus only claimed to be a prophet even though his own family (including his mother and her husband didn't believe him) (Matt 13:55-58).

So what!!! And why have celibate homosexual priests and bishops and cardinals sexually assaulted altar boys for 2000 years?

But it still doesn't change the fact that the bible says absolutely nothing about female homosexuals since they do not have anal sex.
You are wrong, and are warping the Bible to fit your particular agenda. There are few, if any Bible scholars who agree with you. I reject your argument. We must agree to disagree.
 

Mitty

Active Member
You are wrong, and are warping the Bible to fit your particular agenda. There are few, if any Bible scholars who agree with you. I reject your argument. We must agree to disagree.
That's just your personal opinion and the personal opinions of those particular "Bible scholars" and their bible warping to fit their particular agenda, and doesn't change the fact that Romans 1:26-27 says nothing at all about female homosexuality or women with women and is obviously about what the men were doing with their women and other men which Paul described as "vile" and "unseemly" and the men's unnatural use of their women by anal sex, "and likewise also the men".

Nor does it change the S&G story in Gen 19 about how Lot mocked his sons-in-law for wanting to know what two strangers were up to in Lot's house and how Lot tried to pimp their future wives and sexually assaulted them.

Nor does it change the fact that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, and that he condemned all remarried divorcees to hell unless they repent their adultery and remain celibate and/or cut off their members and throw them away (Matt 5:27-30 Mark 10:11-12). It's your choice if you believe that Jesus and what he said is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Top