MuttleyLaff:
What's to be scared of?
After all, 2 Timothy 1:7 is instructive, with saying:
God has not given you the spirit of fear
but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

You'll be surprised Jesus assisted.

The idea and thought of "men taking dicks in their asses" continually preoccupies and intrudes on your mind.
You have again harped on dicks and asses
What is your fascination with dicks in asses?
Why the fixation?
It can only be, lacking knowledge or lack of well-informed awareness in general,
that makes you think that gay sex has to, ALL be, penile-anal penetration or involve dicks in asses

I think, you should think and wonder,
and wonder and think

When you resort to bringing in new agers to present a quasi point, you're just demonstrating a knowledgeability that profoundly knows nothing
You simply, are groping in the dark, desperately hoping some way must be there

Keep dreaming and claiming whatever. I am not groping. I know what I know. Jesus NEVER encourages sin. So whatever you know is from the devil and the false doctrine sure got a strong grip on you. Keep fooling your followers that gay sex doesn't include anal penetration. Its as if we say heterosexual sex has nothing to do with vaginal penetration. Show me a gay couple that throughout their sexual relations never did anal penetration. Or that the females did not use some tool to penetrate each other? Please save your deception. If you disagree with me give me proper facts to back your theory not some cooked up 'You may be surprised jesus enabled it ' ' Be careful what you wish for' ' You are groping in the dark' bla bla bla. I still haven't read one fact from you how Jesus would have encouraged or enabled them except your own personal conviction. I can show you pages from the bible where Sodomy was rejected can you show me one passage or verse to support your sodomy is allowed theory besides these your empty ramblings trying to deflect points I used to disprove your 'consensual sex between two adults is right in every circumstance theory' ?? If we go according to that theory then Prostitution, adultery, fornication etc is also allowed so long as no one is being raped.

This disgusting gays will be tortured unceasingly in hellfire for all eternity.

Let us take comfort from this fact of scripture and just focus our own efforts to make Heaven.

delishpot:
Keep dreaming and claiming whatever

The world needs dreamers.
I dream of a better tomorrow

delishpot:
I am not groping. I know what I know.

What you know, is an illusion of know

delishpot:
Jesus NEVER encourages sin.

Where on this thread, have you read anyone say, Jesus encouraged or encourages sin

delishpot:
So whatever you know is from the devil and the false doctrine sure got a strong grip on you.
Keep fooling your followers that gay sex doesn't include anal penetration.

Because of your fixation, your fascination with dicks in asses
The idea and thought of "men taking dicks in their asses" continually preoccupying and intruding on your mind,
prompted asking you the question:
What makes you think that gay sex has to, ALL be, penile-anal penetration or involve dicks in asses?

delishpot:
Its as if we say heterosexual sex has nothing to do with vaginal penetration.
Show me a gay couple that throughout their sexual relations never did anal penetration

You've been shown up to lacking knowledge and a victim lack of well-informed awareness in general
that's why you've changed tune, to:
"Show me a gay couple that throughout their sexual relations never did anal penetration"

delishpot:
Or that the females did not use some tool to penetrate each other?
Please save your deception.
If you disagree with me give me proper facts to back your theory not some cooked up
'You may be surprised jesus enabled it ' ' Be careful what you wish for' ' You are groping in the dark' bla bla bla.
I still haven't read one fact from you how Jesus would have encouraged or enabled them except your own personal conviction.

delishpot, you've grown tired of saying:
"Jesus would not support two men taking dicks in their asses"
and so now switched to:
"....how Jesus would have encouraged or enabled them..."

Can you now see, delishpot, how you're groping in the dark, desperately hoping some way out must be there for you.

delishpot:
I can show you pages from the bible where Sodomy was rejected

I dare you.
I will soooooo much love to see you, in a thoroughly and detailed manner, leaving no stone unturned,
show pages from the bible, where Sodomy was rejected.
You mustnt only show but must extensively and in depth, talk about it all, too.

delishpot:
can you show me one passage or verse to support your sodomy is allowed theory
besides these your empty ramblings trying to deflect points I used to disprove your 'consensual sex between two adults is right in every circumstance theory' ??

Yes, can easily be done, like as if reciting A B C

delishpot:
If we go according to that theory then Prostitution, adultery, fornication etc is also allowed so long as no one is being raped.

If prostitution, adultery, fornication etcetera is possible
without any detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another or other person(s), delishpot, they're fair game

Aaronsrod:
This disgusting gays

Is that relatively?

Aaronsrod:
will be tortured unceasingly in hellfire for all eternity

Please in layman terms, explain all the emboldened in the context you've used them

Aaronsrod:
Let us take comfort from this fact of scripture and just focus our own efforts to make Heaven.

Take comfort from the fact that, what's at hand, isn't a perfect world order, and God knows that too.

MuttleyLaff:
The world needs dreamers.
I dream of a better tomorrow

What you know, is an illusion of know

Where on this thread, have you read anyone say, Jesus encouraged or encourages sin

Because of your fixation, your fascination with dicks in asses
The idea and thought of "men taking dicks in their asses" continually preoccupying and intruding on your mind,
prompted asking you the question:
What makes you think that gay sex has to, ALL be, penile-anal penetration or involve dicks in asses?

You've been shown up to lacking knowledge and a victim lack of well-informed awareness in general
that's why you've changed tune, to:
"Show me a gay couple that throughout their sexual relations never did anal penetration"

delishpot, you've grown tired of saying:
"Jesus would not support two men taking dicks in their asses"
and so now switched to:
"....how Jesus would have encouraged or enabled them..."

Can you now see, delishpot, how you're groping in the dark, desperately hoping some way out must be there for you.

I dare you.
I will soooooo much love to see you, in a thoroughly and detailed manner, leaving no stone unturned,
show pages from the bible, where Sodomy was rejected.
You mustnt only show but must extensively and in depth, talk about it all, too.

Yes, can easily be done, like as if reciting A B C

If prostitution, adultery, fornication etcetera is possible
without any detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another or other person(s), delishpot, they're fair game

Bla Bla Bla all I said is..... Show me proof from the bible where jesus said being gay is acceptable unto God. Prove your stance or forever remain silent. I aint gat time for your long epistles of quotes and breaking down. Show me with proof why I am wrong. Show me in the bible.

At the colored text, does it mean that swinging is an acceptable act for Christians to engage in? So as long as the other partner doesn't feel betrayed and is in support of the act 3some and Bleep is fair game for Christians to indulge in? What type of bible do you read again?

As for your talk about me getting tired of saying Jesus was in support of gay sex, the fact that I borrowed your word to ask for proof of the term you used doesnt mean I am tired. I will sound it from now till kingdom come that Jesus would never support two men or two women engaging in sexual act. It is an abomination. So just note that I switch words or terms doesn't mean i am tired. It was you who stated that it will surprise me that Jesus enabled or encouraged it. Just give me proof from the bible and lets see your point in the open before you will say I am tired of asking for proof again.

MuttleyLaff:
If it makes you feel better, we can use the alternative or substitute verb "accept" in place of condone
Mind you, it wouldnt and doesnt make an iota of difference.

Big difference. They don't mean the same thing.

1/ What exactly, is the act of homosexuality, that you've openly declared saying you condemn?
2/ Why do you condemn, whatever it is, you deem, to be the act of homosexuality?
3/ In a thoroughly and detailed manner, leaving no stone unturned, tell, what is homosexuality?
4/ Would you assist couple in a same sex relationship, who come to you, because of being in dire need of immediate help?

1. A homosexual act is an act intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex.
2. I condemn it because such act is always a violation of divine and natural law.
3. The definition i gave in (1) is enough, it doesn't need much detail. However, let me use this opportunity to explain this: Homosexual desires are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.
4. I assist anyone depending on what they seek, as long as it does not violate my convictions.

You know, thats why you've done a tongue in cheek
Instead of doing opinion(s),
rather do JUST fact(s) and truth(s) formulated due to a reliance and/or faith on the recognised objective source

You essentially asked for my opinion, didn't you? A few scrolls would've reminded you of that. Having said that, my opinions are based on truth, absolute truth.

It's not like the church isn't organic anyway

It evolves but within certain confines. The manner of propagation may evolve but the core message will always remain the same.

Let whoever is forcing out, hold on to the buildings then

Gbam! The Church is for everybody (sinners) to obtain salvation. No man should be left out. That does not mean the Church accepts or approves of sin.

delishpot:
Bla Bla Bla all I said is..... Show me proof from the bible where Jesus said being gay is acceptable unto God.

Show me proof from the bible where Jesus said being gay is NOT acceptable unto God.

delishpot:
Prove your stance or forever remain silent.
I aint gat time for your long epistles of quotes and breaking down.
Show me with proof why I am wrong.

delishpot, get a grip.
True guidance, is like a small torch, in a dark forest.
It doesn't show everything at once, but gives enough light, for the next step, to be safe.

delishpot:
Show me in the bible.

You earlier said, you can show pages from the bible where Sodomy was rejected
but you went mute, when told you mustnt only just show
but must extensively and in depth, talk about it all, too, as well

Please show, with proofs, why you're right with your homophobia.
Show from or show in the bible.

delishpot:
At the colored text, does it mean that swinging is an acceptable act for Christians to engage in?
So as long as the other partner doesn't feel betrayed and is in support of the act 3some and Bleep is fair game for Christians to indulge in?

You're unable to think clearly and properly,
You're becoming progressively worse, to the extent that, the next thing after your mentioning of prostitution, adultery, fornication etcetera
that you've come up with, is now, wife swapping, husband swapping or partner swapping

Do you know and understand what promiscuity is?

If you understand what greed is, if you really understand what covetousness is,
you wouldnt combine your "prostitution, adultery, fornication etcetera, wife swapping, husband swapping or partner swapping"
with consenting adults faithful, committed, honest, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship,
that has no detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another or other person

delishpot:
What type of bible do you read again?

Same bible you read.
Everybody walks according to their pace

delishpot:
As for your talk about me getting tired of saying Jesus was in support of gay sex,
the fact that I borrowed your word to ask for proof of the term you used doesnt mean I am tired.

You didnt borrow any of my words.
You used your words, to exchange or add in place of mine

delishpot:
I will sound it from now till kingdom come that Jesus would never support two men or two women engaging in sexual act. It is an abomination.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination:
they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
- Leviticus 20:13

What exactly is the abomination here?
I bet you havent a clue, what the context of the abomination is in that verse.

I know you love your catfish delicacies, know you love your lobster, know you love your crab soups, know you love your bushmeats
Should I throw in rabbit, also for you?
Now tell, delishpot, are any of the lot above, abomination enough for you, and so, not to eat?

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,
neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:
for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
- Deuteronomy 22:5

What of times when you put on your partner's chequered shirt or boxers?
Oops, look at what Deuteronomy 22:5 says about you. Tut-tut-tut.
The point here, is that we often throw words about, without understanding them
and unwittingly use them in our typical relaxed and unconcerned attitude

Moving along, Johanna Siguroardottir, Leo Varadkar, Xavier Bettel, Ana Brnabic, Shabnam Mausi, Elio Di Rupo etcetera
I almost forgot to chip in Alan Turing, too
delishpot, you know these guys, right?
OK, please tell, delishpot, are any of them not supported by Jesus?

You dont even know the context and what the original word (i.e. toevah) translated as "abomination" means

delishpot:
So just note that I switch words or terms doesn't mean i am tired.
It was you who stated that it will surprise me that Jesus enabled or encouraged it.

I very much request that you, word for word, reproduce here how I allegedly made a statement of such sort.
Anything short of complying to the exact, then retract your false accusation and tender apologies for the slander

delishpot:
Just give me proof from the bible
and lets see your point in the open before you will say I am tired of asking for proof again.

Be reassured that the more you look at proofs, I give from the bible, the less you'll see.
You've been too long in the dark, to at all, see anything.
You really need to squint, in order to see a little better and clearer

Try this pin hole, for size, delishpot
Leviticus 20:10-16, shows a variety of sexual sins or sexual immorality and each is punishable by death

Adultery is in there. Incest is in there. Bestiality is in there
BUT why delishpot,
what makes or made Leviticus 20:13 stand or stick out like a sore thumb to be an ONLY one, flagged as committing abomination
What's the knowledge, fact, truth, wisdom behind why, in this context, adultery, incest or bestiality, isnt considered being committing abomination?

cc 9inches

MuttleyLaff:
Show me proof from the bible where Jesus said being gay is NOT acceptable unto God.

delishpot, get a grip.
True guidance, is like a small torch, in a dark forest.
It doesn't show everything at once, but gives enough light, for the next step, to be safe.

You earlier said, you can show pages from the bible where Sodomy was rejected
but you went mute, when told you mustnt only just show
but must extensively and in depth, talk about it all, too, as well

Please show, with proofs, why you're right with your homophobia.
Show from or show in the bible.

You're unable to think clearly and properly,
You're becoming progressively worse, to the extent that, the next thing after your mentioning of prostitution, adultery, fornication etcetera
that you've come up with, is now, wife swapping, husband swapping or partner swapping

Do you know and understand what promiscuity is?

If you understand what greed is, if you really understand what covetousness is,




Same bible you read.
Everybody walks according to their pace

You didnt borrow any of my words.
You used your words, to exchange or add in place of mine

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination:
they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
- Leviticus 20:13

What exactly is the abomination here?
I bet you havent a clue, what the context of the abomination is in that verse.

I know you love your catfish delicacies, know you love your lobster, know you love your crab soups, know you love your bushmeats
Should I throw in rabbit, also for you?
Now tell, delishpot, are any of the lot above, abomination enough for you, and so, not to eat?

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,
neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:
for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
- Deuteronomy 22:5

What of times when you put on your partner's chequered shirt or boxers?
Oops, look at what Deuteronomy 22:5 says about you. Tut-tut-tut.
The point here, is that we often throw words about, without understanding them
and unwittingly use them in our typical relaxed and unconcerned attitude

Moving along, Johanna Siguroardottir, Leo Varadkar, Xavier Bettel, Ana Brnabic, Shabnam Mausi, Elio Di Rupo etcetera
I almost forgot to chip in Alan Turing, too
delishpot, you know these guys, right?
OK, please tell, delishpot, are any of them not supported by Jesus?

You dont even know the context and what the original word (i.e. toevah) translated as "abomination" means

I very much request that you, word for word, reproduce here how I allegedly made a statement of such sort.
Anything short of complying to the exact, then retract your false accusation and tender apologies for the slander

Be reassured that the more you look at proofs, I give from the bible, the less you'll see.
You've been too long in the dark, to at all, see anything.
You really need to squint, in order to see a little better and clearer

Try this pin hole, for size, delishpot
Leviticus 20:10-16, shows a variety of sexual sins or sexual immorality and each is punishable by death

Adultery is in there. Incest is in there. Bestiality is in there
BUT why delishpot,
what makes or made Leviticus 20:13 stand or stick out like a sore thumb to be an ONLY one, flagged as committing abomination
What's the knowledge, fact, truth, wisdom behind why, in this context, adultery, incest or bestiality, isnt considered being committing abomination?

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Sodomy


Romans 1:27

No matter jow you twist the bible. JESUS NEVER supported sodomy. Keep decieving yourself and writting epistles to twist the word. Lol. One moment you say sexual promiscuitg is not a sin so long as no one is getting hurt and the act happenes between two consenting adults the next minute you want to filter your lie. LOL. Sodomy is immoral and evil no need to waste your time whitewashing it. LOL tagging me a homophobe. Isnt it funny how when you try to point out that what someone is indulging in is a sin they start tagging you with a phobia I dont have a phobia same way I can not say anyone against stealing has a phobia for thieves. It isnt a phobia mr it is just honesty. What is wrong is wrong. I do not stand against the man I stand against the wrong he does.
Hopefully your fans would see that you are sent to misslead them into darkness.

delishpot:
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Sodomy
Romans 1:27

No matter jow you twist the bible. JESUS NEVER supported sodomy.
Hopefully your fans would see that you are sent to misslead them into darkness.

Is this what you've got?
SMH.

PS: I see you've edited by adding more to the original post sister

MuttleyLaff:
Is this what you've got?
SMH.

Yes. Go and read it. Your long epistles wont save you. Comming here saying Jesus Christ enabled homosexual acts. How low can you go? Leading people to hell. You sure have a demon in you. No contesting it. A demon is in you.

Yes I edited my post up there. Just like you also edited yours when you saw a need to. I had more to say so I esited instead of creating a new comment space.

Mr man read chapter 13 of that leveticus you want to twist to misslead people

Leveticis 20 : 13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads

I hellped you post it just incase you will be lead to write another epistle of Jesus supporting the act of sodomy.

Now as to why it stands is because gays insist that their acts are normal and should not be called a sin. I have not seen an adulterer wjo claims to ne a christian yet insists that they are not sinning and their lifestyle should not be challenged. I am yet to see a thief who insists that even though he is a thief he should be allowed to lead the church and his lifestyle should not e questioned. Stop running in circles. It was you who said Sodomy is not a sin and Jesus enabled it. You and I have shown each other where it was forbiden. Where it was said to ne a no no in the bible. It is still left to you to show me in the bible where it was encouraged by Jesus. Because that was your atance from the beggining of this arguement. I said if they accept it as a sin and seek to repent I see no reason why they should be chased out of the church. You it was who said it isnt a sin and Jesus was in full suppirr of it. So please show me. I am waiting.

delishpot:
Yes. Go and read it.
Your long epistles wont save you. Comming here saying Jesus Christ enabled homosexual acts.
How low can you go?
Leading people to hell. You sure have a demon in you. No contesting it. A demon is in you.

Yes I edited my post up there. Just like you also edited yours when you saw a need to.
I had more to say so I esited instead of creating a new comment space.

If you were honest, you will admit there was a gaping hole in my post
I went back to fill it in because I mistakenly hit send whilst in transit still typing

You know what the fundamental problem is?
You want to be spoon fed, you want to be biblically nannied
You expect someone else to lift heavy weights for you,
dont want to lift a finger so not to get your manicured nails spoilt

MuttleyLaff:
If you were honest, you will admit there was a gaping hole in post
I went back to fill it in because I mistakenly hit send whilst still in transit still typing

You know what the fundamental problem is?
You want to be spoon fed, you want to be biblically nannied
You expect someone else to lift heavy weights for you,
dont want to lift a finger so not to get your manicured nails spoilt

Bla bla bla. Show me naaaaaaa. Stop blabbing. I even spoon fed you too so lets leave it at that. I have shown you where you can find my own arguement. Just drop a link and I will read it up. Afterall you asked me and I droped mine. So drop yours. Let me go read. I have searched but couldnt find what you said is allowed. Perharps you know the exact location in the bible to support your stance Hence I am asking for your help. Show me just the passage and I will investigate the rest. Because so far I have not been able to come up with a bible passage that encourages sodomy.

delishpot:
Yes. Go and read it. Your long epistles wont save you. Comming here saying Jesus Christ enabled homosexual acts. How low can you go? Leading people to hell. You sure have a demon in you. No contesting it. A demon is in you.

Yes I edited my post up there. Just like you also edited yours when you saw a need to. I had more to say so I esited instead of creating a new comment space.

Mr man read chapter 13 of that leveticus you want to twist to misslead people

Leveticis 20 : 13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads

I hellped you post it just incase you will be lead to write another epistle of Jesus supporting the act of sodomy.

Now as to why it stands is because gays insist that their acts are normal and should not be called a sin. I have not seen an adulterer wjo claims to ne a christian yet insists that they are not sinning and their lifestyle should not be challenged. I am yet to see a thief who insists that even though he is a thief he should be allowed to lead the church and his lifestyle should not e questioned. Stop running in circles. It was you who said Sodomy is not a sin and Jesus enabled it. You and I have shown each other where it was forbiden. Where it was said to ne a no no in the bible. It is still left to you to show me in the bible where it was encouraged by Jesus.
Because that was your atance from the beggining of this arguement. I said if they accept it as a sin and seek to repent I see no reason why they should be chased out of the church. You it was who said it isnt a sin and Jesus was in full suppirr of it. So please show me. I am waiting.

This is pathetic, did you not see and read that I had already quoted Leviticus 20:13 in my post
and sign posted you to read Leviticus 20:10-16?

This is a classic case of, the more you look, the less you see
I told you.

MuttleyLaff:
This is pathetic, did you not see and read that I had already quoted Leviticus 20:13 in my post
and sign posted you to read Leviticus 20:10-16?

This is a classic case of, the more you look, the less you see
I told you.

I only helped you highligt what you posted. Read it again. Unfortunately you are the pathetic one here. So na to find proof of Jesus supporting sodomy naim you dey hide up and down like cockroach wey dem shine torchlight for inside darkness? God pass the demon using you to destroy lives. I pray you oneday come to see that you can takeback your life and be free from manipukation be it human designed or spiritual oppression. That is all I have to say. PS please just give me a biblical passage to support your stance or leave me alone oooooo. I aint gat time for this game.


PS I said from the start that sexual sin is sin I did not ever for onece say sodomy was the only sin. So I wonder why you even feel I suport others. You it was who said sexual conduct between two consenting adults is good and anyone indulged in it who is not hurting other peoples feelings is fair game and should not be criticised.(and yes I edited again)

delishpot:
I only helped you highligt what you posted. Read it again. So na to find proof of Jesus supporting sodomy naim you dey hide up and down like cockroach wey dem shine torchlight for inside darkness? God pass the demon using you to destroy lives. I pray you oneday come to see that you can takeback your life and be free from manipukation be it human designed or spiritual oppression. That is all I have to say.
PS please just give me a biblical passage to support your stance or leave me alone oooooo. I aint gat time for this game.

As earlier said, you've been too long in the dark, to at all, see anything.
You really need to squint, in order to see a little better and clearer sister.

Try this pin hole, for size, delishpot
Leviticus 20:10-16, shows a variety of sexual sins or sexual immorality
and each is punishable by death

Adultery is in there. Incest is in there. Bestiality is in there
BUT why delishpot,
what makes or made Leviticus 20:13 stand or stick out like a sore thumb, to be an ONLY one, flagged as committing abomination

What's the knowledge, fact, truth and wisdom
behind why, in this context, adultery, incest or bestiality, isnt considered being committing abomination?

MuttleyLaff:
As earlier said, you've been too long in the dark, to at all, see anything.
You really need to squint, in order to see a little better and clearer sister.

Try this pin hole, for size, delishpot
Leviticus 20:10-16, shows a variety of sexual sins or sexual immorality
and each is punishable by death

Adultery is in there. Incest is in there. Bestiality is in there
BUT why delishpot,
what makes or made Leviticus 20:13 stand or stick out like a sore thumb to be an ONLY one, flagged as committing abomination
What's the knowledge, fact, truth, wisdom behind why, in this context, adultery, incest or bestiality, isnt considered being committing abomination?

I was once in the dark agreed. Now I am in the light. It is you that is darkness itself and your darkness seeks to cover every atom of light in its path. Show me proof. You said it will surprise me that Jesus enabled Sodomy. So show me proof. Why all these dribbles and unecessary shouting of foul?
LOL if you were wiser you would see that I replied your question two or three posts ago. Please go nack and read the one with leveticus I colored in red. The answer is there. Mr eyes wide shut.

MuttleyLaff:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination:
they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
- Leviticus 20:13

cc 9inches

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Example of this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1:26–27, Paul attributes the homosexual desires including other sins to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. Like other moral imperatives, it is rooted in natural law - the design that God has built into human nature.

delishpot:
I was once in the dark agreed. Now I am in the light. It is you that is darkness itself and your darkness seeks to cover every atom of light in its path. Show me proof.
You said it will surprise me that Jesus enabled Sodomy. So show me proof.
Why all these dribbles and unecessary shouting of foul?
LOL if you were wiser you would see that I replied your question two or three posts ago. Please go nack and read the one with leveticus I colored in red. The answer is there. Mr eyes wide shut.

Chai, diaris God ooo
I'll extremely like you to surprise me by showing when, where, why and how I said
"...surprise me that Jesus enabled Sodomy"

Word for word, reproduce here how I allegedly made a statement of such sort.
Anything short of complying to the exact, then retract your false accusation and tender your profound apologies for the slander

9inches:
While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Example of this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1:26–27, Paul attributes the homosexual desires including other sins to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. Like other moral imperatives, it is rooted in natural law - the design that God has built into human nature.

Thank you 9inches,
you seem more level headed than delishpot,
who resorts to calling me all sorts of ill-informed & uncouth adjectives imaginable under the sun she could think of

9inches though you too have misconstrued Romans 1:26–27, same with delishpot
nonetheless, have a stab yourself at the bit below about Leviticus 20:10-16

We will later deal and talk about 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in depth, extensively and properly

Leviticus 20:10-16, shows a variety of sexual sins or sexual immorality
and each is punishable by death

Adultery is in there. Incest is in there. Bestiality is in there
BUT why delishpot,
what makes or made Leviticus 20:13 stand or stick out like a sore thumb, to be an ONLY one, flagged as committing abomination

What's the knowledge, fact, truth and wisdom
behind why, in this context, adultery, incest or bestiality, isnt considered being committing abomination?

MuttleyLaff:
Thank you 9inches,
you seem more level headed than delishpot, who resorts to calling me all sort of ill-informed adjectives under the sun she could think of

I thank you too for indulging me in this effort to thrash out what the Truth is. You can never go wrong with Catholic teachings. Let me digress a little: "The Church" wrote the bible (New Testament), so we understand the underlying principles and backup teachings of the bible but which are not contained in the bible. Limiting your knowledge of Christianity (Christian teachings) to the bible alone is problematic when it comes to some topics. That's why the study of logic, philosophy and theology is relevant; you need them to be able to clearly explain the difficult parts of the Christian teaching. The Catholic church also boasts of numerous go-to sources like those of the Church Fathers (Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church) who are ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers. These scholars set the theological and scholarly foundations of Christianity. For example, Ignatius of Antioch (also known as Theophorus, c. 35–110) who was the 3rd bishop or Patriarch of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John. Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69 - c. 155) was a Christian bishop of Smyrna (now İzmir in Turkey) who had been a disciple of John.

9inches though you too have misconstrued Romans 1:26–27, same with delishpot
nonetheless

Please don't hesitate to tell me how I misconstrued the verses.

have a stab yourself at the bit below about Leviticus 20:10-16
We will later deal and talk about 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in depth, extensively and properly

Leviticus 20:10-16, shows a variety of sexual sins or sexual immorality
and each is punishable by death

Adultery is in there. Incest is in there. Bestiality is in there
BUT why delishpot,
what makes or made Leviticus 20:13 stand or stick out like a sore thumb, to be an ONLY one, flagged as committing abomination

What's the knowledge, fact, truth and wisdom
behind why, in this context, adultery, incest or bestiality, isnt considered being committing abomination?

Don't break your head over the word "abomination", it's an English translation. Some translations also use detestable, disgusting, repulsive instead of abomination. These descriptions don't necessarily make them sins OBJECTIVELY. What made them sins is the underlying thing they all have in common - Sexual Immorality!

MuttleyLaff:
Chai, diaris God ooo
I'll extremely like you to surprise me by showing when, where, why and how I said
"...surprise me that Jesus enabled Sodomy"

Word for word, reproduce here how I allegedly made a statement of such sort.
Anything short of complying to the exact, then retract your false accusation and tender your profound apologies for the slander

There it is. I said Jesus would not support such a life style you said it will surprise me that Jesus assisted the lifestyle. Please your demonic sermon is not convincing me. I don't know where in your deluded mind you think incest, adultery and other sexual sins are not frowned upon as gay sex. The only difference I see here is that those people when called out, do not go and form a body to attack and fight back that they should be left alone to continue sleeping with their sons or daughters. Those who do such abominable sins do it in the dark and when brought to the open are either jailed or taken for mental evaluation. So please keep your new age luciferian sermon to yourself. I honestly think you are an being used by the devil to lead people away from the truth. It isn't an insult. No need to quote the bible in a bid to hide your true intentions. You support sexual sins so long as no one is being hurt. If you like deny that one too.

9inches:
I thank you too for indulging me in this effort to thrash out what the Truth is. You can never go wrong with Catholic teachings. Let me digress a little: "The Church" wrote the bible (New Testament), so we understand the underlying principles and backup teachings of the bible but which are not contained in the bible. Limiting your knowledge of Christianity (Christian teachings) to the bible alone is problematic when it comes to some topics. That's why the study of logic, philosophy and theology is relevant; you need them to be able to clearly explain the difficult parts of the Christian teaching. The Catholic church also boasts of numerous go-to sources like those of the Church Fathers (Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church) who are ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers. These scholars set the theological and scholarly foundations of Christianity. For example, Ignatius of Antioch (also known as Theophorus, c. 35–110) who was the 3rd bishop or Patriarch of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John. Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69 - c. 155) was a Christian bishop of Smyrna (now İzmir in Turkey) who had been a disciple of John.

Please don't hesitate to tell me how I misconstrued the verses.

Don't break your head over the word "abomination", it's an English translation. Some translations also use detestable, disgusting, repulsive instead of abomination. These descriptions don't necessarily make them sins OBJECTIVELY. What made them sins is the underlying thing they all have in common - Sexual Immorality!

I wonder why you are massaging his pride sef. Thanking him for indulging you in his warped ideology? That a romantic relationship between two men or women is good? Are you sure you are catholic at all? Did Jesus massage satans ego on the mountain after his fast? Would paul have thanked a sinner for arguing why sin was right and tjose who say otherwise are wrong? Pick up your banner. People gave up their lives to stand for the word of God.

delishpot:


I wonder why you are massaging his pride sef. Thanking him for indulging you in his warped ideology? That a romantic relationship between two men or women is good? Are you sure you are catholic at all? Did Jesus massage satans ego on the mountain after his fast? Would paul have thanked a sinner for arguing why sin was right and tjose who say otherwise are wrong? Pick up your banner. People gave up their lives to stand for the word of God.

He's done me no offense or harm. He thanked me for engaging in a civil manner and I did same. His ideology is not personal to me, don't make it personal. Maybe your argument with him hasn't been courteous, I'm yet to experience that.

9inches:
He's done me no offense or harm. He thanked me for engaging in a civil manner and I did same. His ideology is not personal to me, don't make it personal. Maybe your argument with him hasn't been courteous, I'm yet to experience that.

I don hear you.

9inches:
Big difference. They don't mean the same thing.


1. A homosexual act is an act intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex.
2. I condemn it because such act is always a violation of divine and natural law.
3. The definition i gave in (1) is enough, it doesn't need much detail. However, let me use this opportunity to explain this: Homosexual desires are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.
4. I assist anyone depending on what they seek, as long as it does not violate my convictions.

You essentially asked for my opinion, didn't you? A few scrolls would've reminded you of that. Having said that, my opinions are based on truth, absolute truth.

It evolves but within certain confines. The manner of propagation may evolve but the core message will always remain the same.

Gbam! The Church is for everybody (sinners) to obtain salvation. No man should be left out. That does not mean the Church accepts or approves of sin.

I have to say amen to this

free to disagree with my understanding of morality

MuttleyLaff:
I like your choice of words.
In reality, it is nothing other than a Bud opinion

Morality is determined from a God's perspective
Your course of action is resolved on not missing the God mark

As in, free to disagree to what

It is useless for you to worship me, when you teach rules made up by humans."
- Matthew 15:9

It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach human rules as though they were my laws!
- Matthew 15:9

⁷It is no use for them to worship me,
because they teach human rules
as though they were my laws!’
⁸“You put aside God's command and obey human teachings.”
- Mark 7:7-8

You believe so, time will tell, if I've truly created a strawman.

Please list all, where God has taught man not to practice "homosexuality"
Also contextually give details of why, where, when and how these supposedly teaching came about
In addition, explain how and when did the word "homosexuality" first appeared in print and Bible?
From what word(s) in the original text was "homosexuality" translated from?

Again , time will tell, if I truly was attacking a strawman.
Cards face up, on the table, do you condone or condemn consenting adults honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?

Everyone has the power to change to the truth(s) God,
not only to, that, God has revealed but also to, that, Jesus Christ has certainly demonstrated

Tradition of men change all the time whenever they are not only judged unuseful but realised to be unhelpful, to say the least.

An instance or example that illustrates what is being discussed here, is in 2013, on the day before Good Friday when Jorge Mario Bergoglio changed a tradition of men, to become the first in the office he holds, to wash women feet.

MuttleyLaff:

You believe so, time will tell, if I've truly created a strawman.

Please list all, where God has taught man not to practice "homosexuality"
Also contextually give details of why, where, when and how these supposedly teaching came about
In addition, explain how and when did the word "homosexuality" first appeared in print and Bible?
From what word(s) in the original text was "homosexuality" translated from?

Again , time will tell, if I truly was attacking a strawman.
Cards face up, on the table, do you condone or condemn consenting adults honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?

Everyone has the power to change to the truth(s) God,
not only to, that, God has revealed but also to, that, Jesus Christ has certainly demonstrated

Tradition of men change all the time whenever they are not only judged unuseful but realised to be unhelpful, to say the least.

An instance or example that illustrates what is being discussed here, is in 2013, on the day before Good Friday when Jorge Mario Bergoglio changed a tradition of men, to become the first in the office he holds, to wash women feet.

I see others already provided the important passages, homosexuality is first condemned in the law and then Paul in the new testament tells us, that it is God abandoning man to his sinful disposition. all through the Bible it is recognized as sexual immorality.


of course that tradition was deemed unhelpful and so was changed by the pope, the Catholic Church is usually quick to differentiate between Church tradition and divine revelation.

morality isn't under Church tradition

9inches:
Big difference.

Going by the definition of the word ''condone'', you seem to be saying the behavior is morally wrong.
Therefore, to condone a morally wrong behavior would, in itself, be morally wrong.
Perhaps that's why you did not use the word "accept", which I'm going to use anyway
- 9inches ©

I am glad you paid attention and noticed the fact that I deliberately and consciously used "condone" instead of "accept".

You see, 9inches, I could have initially used "accept"
but in the state of things, as they actually exist, "condone", is a much appropriate and better choice of word to use.

9inches, you do accept, there are, lists in the bible, of things, not acceptable to God,
but God and/or Church condones or at some stage condoned some of them?

9inches, I never suggested that "condone" and "accept" mean the same thing
I said it wouldnt and doesnt make an iota of difference using "accept" instead "condone" because of the mere fact that I was accommodating you.

I have a big enough room to swing a cat using your "accept" preference
Cordone, after all, is about accepting, permitting, allowing, overlooking, excusing or tolerating something

He went on to say,
"Pay attention to what you're listening to!
(i.e. Pay close attention to what you hear)
[Knowledge] (i.e. facts, vital pieces of information) will be measured out to you by the measure [of attention] you give.
(i.e. The closer you listen, the more understanding you will be given--and you will receive even more.)
This is the way knowledge increases
- Mark 4:24

9inches, you've already demonstrated, how me using "condone", didn't escape your notice
(i.e. where and when I used "condone" or "condemn or not "condone" nor "condemn'')
but though, unlike another we're mutually acquainted with, you havent trouble reading "long epistles"
I still have this strong compulsion to stick Mark 4:24 out there to serve as a FYI

"long epistles" or not "long epistles"
It will be a travesty and great disservice,
not to respond line by line, section by section or paragraph by paragraph as when duly required or necessitated

Badgering me with
"can you show me one passage or verse to support ..." or "Show me just the passage" cries will not work.

I will not act or post information before the proper or appropriate time
That will be irresponsible and an accident waiting to happen
Toying with a loaded gun, and that, without unlearning bad habits

We don't get ahead of ourselves with those: "can you show me one passage or verse to support ..." or "Show me just the passage"

One has to walk before one can run.
Learn the basics before trying to do something more advanced

We will, do just that. Now game on and let the music play on.

9inches:
They don't mean the same thing

This has been addressed above

9inches:
1. A homosexual act is an act intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex

Thank you for being open, honest, and direct

The question asked you was:
"What exactly, is the act of homosexuality, that you've openly declared saying you condemn?"
but you responded with a homosexual act that obviously includes different types of things (e.g. including outercourse)
In spite of that, the "broad act" response, is still appreciated

I respect you for openly declaring & saying, you condemn the "broad act" intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex
You've legitimate rights to state the reason(s) for your condemnation,
and rightly so, based on your current ability in understanding or to understand others sexual attraction to people of their own gender.

9inches:
2. I condemn it because such act is always a violation of divine and natural law.

Forceful good response.

1/ Do you accept and take comfort from the fact that, what's at hand, isn't a perfect world order, and that God knows that too
2/ 9inches, now, just for a taste & sip of the tip of an ice-berg, you are familiar with human hermaphrodism right? Hmm?
No further questions at this juncture, as I will catch up with you next below and no doubt soon elsewhere again on the thread

9inches:
3. The definition i gave in (1) is enough, it doesn't need much detail.
However, let me use this opportunity to explain this:
Homosexual desires are not in themselves sinful.
People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control,
but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them,
either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out.
People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires,
are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

The gist of your explanation, is that you cant sin a fault until it becomes an action

Greed, covetousness, and lust are improper homo and heterosexual desires and/or faults
that when acted upon not only leads to prostitution, adultery, fornication, lewdness, promiscuity etcetera
but equally is at a detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another or other person(s) whom love, faithfulness, commitment, honesty, lasting that's life-long and loyalty was professed to whilst in a relationship, that's same sex or otherwise.

9inches:
4. I assist anyone depending on what they seek...

Very impressive

9inches:
... as long as it does not violate my convictions.

This is too good to be true
I sense you take pride in your convictions

I think, it's Charles Spurgeon who said:
"If a crooked stick is before you, and you need not explain how crooked it is.
Lay a straight one down by the side of it, and the work is well done."

9inches, make a mental note of the above inverted commas
or better still, keep it tucked somewhere safe at the back of your mind
as we will revisit it with the appropriate timed divulgence
This is not a sprint, rather it is a marathon

9inches:
You essentially asked for my opinion, didn't you?
A few scrolls would've reminded you of that.
Having said that, my opinions are based on truth, absolute truth.

No, I didnt, I was nowhere, essentially, asking for your opinion

"You raised your head above the parapet, so I'll extend the question to you too,
do you condone or condemn consenting adults honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?
Or you neither condone nor condemn consenting adults honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?"
https://www.nairaland.com/4555433/members-being-forced-out-church#68498605
- MuttleyLaff ©

9inches, when I extended the above inverted commas question(s) to you
I was expecting you to reply and respond back with fact(s) and not opinion(s)

I would have asked for your two cents, if that's what I wanted to hear or needed
but it wouldnt be good enough.
Why? Because opinion expresses someone's belief, feeling, view, idea or judgment about something
Facts, on the other hand, are statements that can be shown to be true or can be proved, or something that really happened.
Give me facts, next time, except when I ask for opinions or take

9inches:
It evolves but within certain confines.

It is useless for you to worship me, when you teach rules made up by humans."
- Matthew 15:9

It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach human rules as though they were my laws!
- Matthew 15:9

⁷It is no use for them to worship me,
because they teach human rules
as though they were my laws!’
⁸“You put aside God's command and obey human teachings.”
- Mark 7:7-8

Totally true, cant agree more
The confines are man made restrictions and traditions of men.
Barriers that we over time set up in our world,
teaching human rules as though they were God's.

9inches:
The manner of propagation may evolve
but the core message will always remain the same.

²⁶For you are all childrenm of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
²⁷And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.
²⁸There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female.
For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
- Galatians 3:26-28

Yes ooo. The core message is LOVE
Apart from Galatians 3:26-28, 9inches, please also read the whole Matthew chapter 5
It is not WHO you love, but HOW you love

9inches:
Gbam!
The Church is for everybody (sinners) to obtain salvation.
No man should be left out.
That does not mean the Church accepts or approves of sin.

But how can I curse those whom God has not cursed?
How can I condemn those whom the LORD has not condemned?
- Numbers 23:8

Numbers 23:8 succinctly buttresses this section, especially when what's at hand, isn't a perfect world order.
Thankfully, God knows about this too

9inches:
I thank you too for indulging me in this effort to thrash out what the Truth is.

Truth never diminishes or decreases by being shared
It is a pleasure 9inches.

9inches:
You can never go wrong with Catholic teachings

Wow, I never perceived you being Catholic
Many of the so-called truths you, others and I were raised with and forced to believe, are not truths at all.
I rather go with bible teaching, because of the simple truth & fact that, there's a fail-safe guarantee of never going wrong with bible teachings

9inches:
Let me digress a little:
"The Church" wrote the bible (New Testament), so we understand the underlying principles and backup teachings of the bible
but which are not contained in the bible.
Limiting your knowledge of Christianity (Christian teachings) to the bible alone is problematic when it comes to some topics.

That's why the study of logic, philosophy and theology is relevant; you need them to be able to clearly explain the difficult parts of the Christian teaching.

Old ways, wont open new doors, so travel places.
Be mindful that travelling is fatal to conviction(s), prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness
Close some doors though, not because of pride, incapability or arrogance,
but simply because they lead you nowhere
Like I do, travel visiting many good books, but live in the Bible.

9inches:
The Catholic church also boasts of numerous go-to sources like those of the Church Fathers
(Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church) who are ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers.
These scholars set the theological and scholarly foundations of Christianity.

For example,
Ignatius of Antioch (also known as Theophorus, c. 35–110) who was the 3rd bishop or Patriarch of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John.
Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69 - c. 155) was a Christian bishop of Smyrna (now İzmir in Turkey) who had been a disciple of John.

• Adam & Eve in Eden, fast forward to Matthew 16:18 and Acts 2:41
• Roman Emperors Constantine and Licinius' Edict of Milan in AD 313 which established a policy of religious freedom for all.
(i.e. a proclamation that permanently legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire)
• Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire.
• the sell-out and/or shady deal(s)(e.g. "Church" and State collaboration under Constantine)
• The regularisation and formation of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. RCC)
• Roman Empire's adoption of RCC as "official" church during Constantine's reign
• The supremacy of the Roman bishop (i.e. the papacy) created/aided with the support of the Roman emperors (i.e. Constantine and his successors)
• Constantine calling the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, in an attempt to unify Christianity when doctrinal disputes arose
(e.g. Arianism, doctrines named after Arius, a teacher in the early 4th century A.D) and presiding over this first ecumenical church council
• the exploits of the apostles, all charged up in their faith, preaching the Gospel and like Jesus willing to die horrible deaths because of it.
• The apostolic period (i.e. including The "patristic writings'') - about contemporaries of the apostles like Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, and who became the bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred
• the ante-Nicene (i.e. before Nicaea) period - about the likes of Ignatius and his "ekklesia katholicos" phrase, he was a disciple of the apostle John
• the post-Nicene "church" period - about the likes of Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine
• The term "Roman Catholic" defined by Emperor Theodosius on February 27th, 380 in the Theodosian Code.
In that document, he referred to those who hold to the "religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter"
as "Roman Catholic Christians" and gave them the official sanction of the empire
• the first canon (i.e. Muratorian Canon), the progressive acceptance of other books as canonical and have them make up the 66 books of the bible
• The fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476 and the rise of the Roman Catholic Church
• the Pontifex Maximus; the highest office in the state religion of ancient Rome and at the collapse of the Roman Empire, RCC popes taking on this title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors
• the tragic compromise of believers with the introduction of pagan religions and assimilation of paganism influences
(i.e. the Romanization and paganization of Christianity and the "Christianization" of pagan beliefs)
• Apostolic succession and Pope Gregory in AD 590, upon assuming office denying any responsibility or support for any ambition to the throne of Peter
• "Church" and State fully merged as the Holy Roman Empire
• Subsequent popes exercising authority over kings and emperors, taking on imperial powers along with ecclesiastical authority (e.g. St Leo III)
• the Filioque clause/Filioque controversy and/or The Great Schism
• John Wycliffe of England, John Huss of Czechoslovakia, and John of Wessel in Germany
• Protestant Reformation; division between the Catholic Church and Protestantism over interpretation of Biblical Testaments.
• The Edict of Worms (i.e. the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V and the Pope banning all writings of Martin Luther and labelling him a heretic and enemy of the state) etc
• Calvinism (i.e. named after French reformer and theologian John Calvin, he was Martin Luther's successor during the Protestant Reformation)
• The Edict of Nantes, The Edict of Restitution.
• King Henry VIII taking over jurisdiction of the Church, after kicking RCC out of England.
• Various political and ulterior motives
(e.g. translators forbidden by King James' official order from replacing the Greek word "ekklesia" with "congregation" (i.e. the true interpretation)
Compare Psalms 22:22 with Hebrews 2:12 for more details on this, bibles translated to fit the politics or traditions of men etc)
• Evangelicalism, Revivalism, Pentecostalism, Christian science, the Charismatic Movement, Mormonism/the Latter Day Saint movement, Word of Faith movement etc
• Institutional/organised church(es); licensed or incorporated as businesses/charities etc (i.e. to gain non-profit tax-exempt status)
• Church(es) under the jurisdiction of man (e.g. unincorporated charities/church(es), unregistered/registered church(es) etc)
• details of corrupted teachings or doctrines.
• Etcetera, etcetera

---

1st century AD - ekklēsia founded on the teachings of Jesus
2nd century AD - Christians already denouncing teachings seen as heresies, e.g Gnosticism, Montanism etc
4th century AD - ekklēsia transformed, church evolves, finally legalized and then promoted by Emperors Constantine and Theodosius I as the state church of the Roman Empire
11th century AD - Church within the Roman Empire excommunicated each other - West (i.e. Rome) and the East (i.e. Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria) officially excluded each other
16th century AD - Lutheran Church was founded by Martin Luther
16th century AD - Protestant Reformation
16th century AD - The Presbyterian denomination began by John Knox who was dissatisfied with Anglicanism
16th century AD - Anglicanism (i.e. Church of England) founded by King Henry VIII
17th century AD - The Baptist church launched by John Smyth in Amsterdam, Holland.
18th century AD - The Methodist church launched by John and Charles Wesley in England
18th century AD - The Salvation Army launched by William Booth, who quit the Anglicans, and then the Methodists to set up his own version of Christianity.
19th century AD - The Jehovah's Witness Church developed by Charles Russell.
19th century AD - The Christian Scientist religion began by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy, centered around an outright denial of Original Sin and its effects
19th century AD - Ballinger Booth, the son of William Booth, quit The Salvation Army and started his own church
19th century AD to date - The Seventh-Day Adventists, Apostolic Faith, Foursquare Apostolic Church, K&C, CAC, CCC, RCCG, MFM, Winners Chapel, KICC, BLW/Christ Embassy, SCOAN,
and various other Pentecostal Churches etc are among the hundreds of new churches founded by men within the past 200 years or so.

Pardon me digressing a "little" with that bit

9inches:
Please don't hesitate to tell me how I misconstrued the verses.

It's James Burgh who said:
"You need not tell all the truth, unless to those who have a right to know it all"

What comes easy won't last, what lasts won't come easy.
The thing about the truth is, not a lot of people can handle it.

Review the over-the-bar "Sexual Immorality" response you gave.
After I've already stated that Leviticus 20:10-16, is a variety of sexual sins or sexual immorality acts,
you unashamedly still went to blurt out "Sexual Immorality"
Nothing spoilt, let's touch on it, next below

9inches:
Don't break your head over the word "abomination", it's an English translation.
Some translations also use detestable, disgusting, repulsive instead of abomination.
These descriptions don't necessarily make them sins OBJECTIVELY.

9inches, there's a western part of the country colloquial, that says:
"Ti ogun eni ba daniloju, a ma nfi gba ori"
which loosely translated means:
"When you have confidence in your charm, you can knack or smack it on head, safely and without having any problem"

If I can break coconut with my head, the word "abomination" is soft work.
Meet me below, for the continuation of this matter about Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
and the controversial Leviticus 20:13, that's inside Leviticus 20:10-16

9inches:
What made them sins is the underlying thing they all have in common
- Sexual Immorality!

Nope. Fa-fa-foul, as there is more to that, than meets the eye.
We see adultery is in there, as sexual immorality. Incest is in there, as sexual immorality.
Bestiality is in there, as sexual immorality. Leviticus 20:13 is in there, as sexual immorality.

Each and all of them are sexual sins or sexual immorality acts, that we both accept to be and agree on
BUT, here are two linchpins why 9inches?
1/ What makes or made Leviticus 20:13 stand or stick out like a sore thumb,
to be the ONLY one, flagged, among all the other sexual immorality acts to be the ONLY one said to be committing abomination?
2/ What's the knowledge, fact, truth, wisdom, logic, philosophy and theology
behind why, in this context, adultery in Leviticus 20:10, incest in Leviticus 20:11-14 or bestiality in Leviticus 20:15,
is not considered being committing abomination but its Leviticus 20:13 only that does?

If them two, are reasonably & properly answered, we might get to move on, wade into deeper waters and get wet.

MuttleyLaff:

This has been addressed above

I wish I could keep up with your mental gymnastics, but at least you got the message - condone and accept are different terms.

Thank you for being open, honest, and direct

The question asked you was:
"What exactly, is the act of homosexuality, that you've openly declared saying you condemn?"
but you responded with a homosexual act that obviously includes different types of things (e.g. including outercourse)
In spite of that, the "broad act" response, is still appreciated

I respect you for openly declaring & saying, you condemn the "broad act" intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex
You've legitimate rights to state the reason(s) for your condemnation,
and rightly so, based on your current ability in understanding or to understand others sexual attraction to people of their own gender.

Act of homosexuality = homosexual act. Basic English language usage.

1/ Do you accept and take comfort from the fact that, what's at hand, isn't a perfect world order, and that God knows that too

1. The impeccable Catechism of the Catholic church comes handy!
a) God created the universe “in a state of journeying toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained” (ccc 302).
b) We refer to this intentional path to which God placed his creation as Divine Providence. Divine Providence can be defined as “the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection” (ccc 302).
c) God entrusts people with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it (ccc 307).
d) God intended that we humans, the best of his creation, would help complete the work of creation. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, we can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by our actions, prayers and sufferings. (ccc 307).

If your next question is "if God, the Creator of all things, cares for all his creatures, why did he create a world with evil?"

e) God freely willed to create a world ‘in a state of journeying’ towards its ultimate perfection” (ccc 310).
f) As intelligent and free creatures, both angels and human beings have to journey toward their ultimate destinies “by their free choice and preferential love” (ccc 311).
g) However, when “they … go astray” (ccc 311) and choose a path contrary to accomplishing God’s will, evil occurs.
h) although “God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil,” he permits it because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, “knows how to derive good from it” (ccc 311).
i) One primary example is, what the Catechism describes as “the greatest moral evil ever committed” (ccc 312).
j)This is ”the rejection and murder of God’s only Son,” caused by the sins of all humanity. The Catechism continues: “God, by his grace … brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all that, evil never becomes a good” (ccc 312).
k) Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God ‘face to face,’ will we fully know the ways by which – even through the dramas of evil and sin – God has guided his creation” (ccc 314).

2/ Now just for a form of a tip of an ice-berg situation, you are familiar with hermaphrodism right? Hmm?

2. Yes, I'm familiar with hermaphroditism.

The gist of your explanation, is that you cant sin a fault until it becomes an action

Greed, covetousness, and lust are improper homo and heterosexual desires and/or faults
that when acted upon not only leads to prostitution, adultery, fornication, lewdness, promiscuity etcetera
but equally is at a detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another or other person(s) whom love, faithfulness, commitment, honesty, lasting that's life-long and loyalty was professed to whilst in a relationship, that's same sex or otherwise.

Gbam! Your head dey there.

Very impressive

This is too good to be true
I sense you take pride in your convictions

I do for sure.

No, I didnt, I was nowhere, essentially, asking for your opinion

"You raised your head above the parapet, so I'll extend the question to you too,
do you condone or condemn consenting adults honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?
Or you neither condone nor condemn consenting adults honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?"
https://www.nairaland.com/4555433/members-being-forced-out-church#68498605
- MuttleyLaff ©

9inches, when I extended the above inverted commas question(s) to you
I was expecting you to reply and respond back with fact(s) and not opinion(s)

I would have asked for your two cents, if that's what I wanted to hear or needed
but it wouldnt be good enough.
Why? Because opinion expresses someone's belief, feeling, view, idea or judgment about something
Facts, on the other hand, are statements that can be shown to be true or can be proved, or something that really happened.
Give me facts, next time, except when I ask for opinions or take

You lied. Let's troubleshoot and see where the issue is.

9inches:
....he's not the source of moral law. The question you should ask is does God "condone or condemn consenting adults honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?"

MuttleyLaff:

No one said he was the source of moral law.

....so I'll extend the question to you too,
do you condone or condemn consenting adults honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?
Or you neither condone nor condemn consenting adults "condone or condemn consenting adults honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?"

9inches:

Although my subjective opinion matters not on this issue, I'm going to answer nonetheless.

You approved!

MuttleyLaff:
That's the spirit. Take the bull by the horns

I reminded you

9inches:
Disclaimer : This is an opinion formulated due to my reliance/faith on an objective source. I sincerely do not know what my real opinion would be if separated from this source.

And then you decided to switch!

MuttleyLaff:
Instead of doing opinion(s), rather do JUST fact(s) and truth(s) formulated due to a reliance and/or faith on the recognised objective source

1. You sought my opinion and you accepted it.
2. Facts/truths are not formulated; they exist as objective source on their own. We only formulate opinions based on them. Our opinions can either align or not align with them.

MuttleyLaff:
Totally true, cant agree more
The confines are man made restrictions and traditions of men.
Barriers that we over time set up in our world,
teaching human rules as though they were God's.

Wrong! The confines are not man-made. The scriptures you quoted are part of the confines. Man is free to alter or change mode of propagation due to culture or period in time, but he cannot go beyond the confines or 'push boundary' as the liberal progressives call it.

²⁶For you are all childrenm of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
²⁷And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.
²⁸There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female.
For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
- Galatians 3:26-28

Yes ooo. The core message is LOVE
Apart from Galatians 3:26-28, 9inches, please also read the whole Matthew chapter 5
It is not WHO you love, but HOW you love

The passage isn't talking about love. It's talking about what Faith (in Christ) has brought us. Apostle Paul was basically explaining to the Galatians (who are Gentiles) that since faith (Christianity) has come, they are no longer under the old Mosaic law (Verse 23-25). That they have received the promised Spirit by faith and have now become, as Paul says in Verse 3:29, Abraham’s descendant and heirs according to the promise - "that the blessing of Abraham might be extended to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" (Verse 14).

But how can I curse those whom God has not cursed?
How can I condemn those whom the LORD has not condemned?
- Numbers 23:8

Numbers 23:8 succinctly buttresses this section, especially when what's at hand, isn't a perfect world order.
Thankfully, God knows about this too

We both agree on on that. But mind you, there's difference between "God knows" and "God condones." God knows there is sin but he does not condone sin; he calls us to perfection. Refer to (1)(a) & (g) above.

Even Matthew 5, which you asked me to read, it says in Verse 48 "So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect."

MuttleyLaff:
Wow, I never perceived you being Catholic
Many of the so-called truths you, others and I were raised with and forced to believe, are not truths at all.
I rather go with bible teaching, because of the simple truth & fact that, there's a fail-safe guarantee of never going wrong with bible teachings

We both agree on the bible is a fail-safe guarantee, except you haven't realized the bible came from "the Church". By virtue of me being part of "the Church", I have the privilege of a more holistic knowledge of the Word of God than the bible itself alone can offer you. This implies you are more at risk of misinterpreting the Word of God because you don't have any backup information.

I'm assuming you know that Timothy (ordained bishop of Ephesus by Paul) and Titus (ordained bishop of Crete by Paul) were two of Apostle Paul's companions and disciples (assistants). But have you heard about Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons) who was a student of Polycarp? And Polycarp (ordained bishop of Smyrna by Apostle John)? Have you heard anything they taught or wrote? Do you know any of the early Christians apart from the apostles, and what they believed, taught or wrote? Have you studied the church (Christian) history from the time of Christ as recorded in the bible to present day? Or did you just pick the bible without giving a good thought where it came from and how it came to you? These are the questions you should answer to yourself IF YOU ARE A TRUTH SEEKER. You are an adult, don't be afraid to challenge your beliefs with these vital questions. You have nothing to lose by researching them, but everything to gain in terms of knowledge. If you seek the Truth, you'll find it, right?

Old ways, wont open new doors, so travel places.
Be mindful that travelling is fatal to conviction(s), prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness
Close some doors though, not because of pride, incapability or arrogance,
but simply because they lead you nowhere

Truth/objectivity does not get old. It does not change, not even by travelling or new experiences. Travelling and/or acquiring new experiences widens one's scope and challenges one's conviction, which is a great thing; it's reassuring if you have the Truth and fatal if you don't! Truth is remains the same everywhere you go! Pride, incapability or arrogance as you mentioned are merely symptoms of an insecure mind that lacks the Truth/objectivity.

Like I do, travel visiting many good books, but live in the Bible.

I live in the Church because I'm a part of it. The bible lives with me.

1. The Church is The Body of Christ - Rom 12:5; Col 1:24
2. Christ is the head of The Body (The Church) - Col 1:18
3. I'm an individual part of The Body (The Church) - 1 Cor 12:27; Rom 12:5
4. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth!!! - 1 Tim 3:15

Reflection: Are you a part of the Church according to 1 Corinthians 12:27 or are you independent (outside) of the Church like Martin Luther?

• Adam & Eve in Eden, fast forward to Matthew 16:18 and Acts 2:41
• Roman Emperors Constantine and Licinius' Edict of Milan in AD 313 which established a policy of religious freedom for all.
(i.e. a proclamation that permanently legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire)
• Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire.
• the sell-out and/or shady deal(s)(e.g. "Church" and State collaboration under Constantine)
• The regularisation and formation of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. RCC)
• Roman Empire's adoption of RCC as "official" church during Constantine's reign
• The supremacy of the Roman bishop (i.e. the papacy) created/aided with the support of the Roman emperors (i.e. Constantine and his successors)
• Constantine calling the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, in an attempt to unify Christianity when doctrinal disputes arose
(e.g. Arianism, doctrines named after Arius, a teacher in the early 4th century A.D) and presiding over this first ecumenical church council
• the exploits of the apostles, all charged up in their faith, preaching the Gospel and like Jesus willing to die horrible deaths because of it.
• The apostolic period (i.e. including The "patristic writings'') - about contemporaries of the apostles like Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, and who became the bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred
• the ante-Nicene (i.e. before Nicaea) period - about the likes of Ignatius and his "ekklesia katholicos" phrase, he was a disciple of the apostle John
• the post-Nicene "church" period - about the likes of Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine
• The term "Roman Catholic" defined by Emperor Theodosius on February 27th, 380 in the Theodosian Code.
In that document, he referred to those who hold to the "religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter"
as "Roman Catholic Christians" and gave them the official sanction of the empire
• the first canon (i.e. Muratorian Canon), the progressive acceptance of other books as canonical and have them make up the 66 books of the bible
• The fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476 and the rise of the Roman Catholic Church
• the Pontifex Maximus; the highest office in the state religion of ancient Rome and at the collapse of the Roman Empire, RCC popes taking on this title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors
• the tragic compromise of believers with the introduction of pagan religions and assimilation of paganism influences
(i.e. the Romanization and paganization of Christianity and the "Christianization" of pagan beliefs)
• Apostolic succession and Pope Gregory in AD 590, upon assuming office denying any responsibility or support for any ambition to the throne of Peter
• "Church" and State fully merged as the Holy Roman Empire
• Subsequent popes exercising authority over kings and emperors, taking on imperial powers along with ecclesiastical authority (e.g. St Leo III)
• the Filioque clause/Filioque controversy and/or The Great Schism
• John Wycliffe of England, John Huss of Czechoslovakia, and John of Wessel in Germany
• Protestant Reformation; division between the Catholic Church and Protestantism over interpretation of Biblical Testaments.
• The Edict of Worms (i.e. the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V and the Pope banning all writings of Martin Luther and labelling him a heretic and enemy of the state) etc
• Calvinism (i.e. named after French reformer and theologian John Calvin, he was Martin Luther's successor during the Protestant Reformation)
• The Edict of Nantes, The Edict of Restitution.
• King Henry VIII taking over jurisdiction of the Church, after kicking RCC out of England.
• Various political and ulterior motives
(e.g. translators forbidden by King James' official order from replacing the Greek word "ekklesia" with "congregation" (i.e. the true interpretation)
Compare Psalms 22:22 with Hebrews 2:12 for more details on this, bibles translated to fit the politics or traditions of men etc)
• Evangelicalism, Revivalism, Pentecostalism, Christian science, the Charismatic Movement, Mormonism/the Latter Day Saint movement, Word of Faith movement etc
• Institutional/organised church(es); licensed or incorporated as businesses/charities etc (i.e. to gain non-profit tax-exempt status)
• Church(es) under the jurisdiction of man (e.g. unincorporated charities/church(es), unregistered/registered church(es) etc)
• details of corrupted teachings or doctrines.
• Etcetera, etcetera

---

1st century AD - ekklēsia founded on the teachings of Jesus
2nd century AD - Christians already denouncing teachings seen as heresies, e.g Gnosticism, Montanism etc
4th century AD - ekklēsia transformed, church evolves, finally legalized and then promoted by Emperors Constantine and Theodosius I as the state church of the Roman Empire
11th century AD - Church within the Roman Empire excommunicated each other - West (i.e. Rome) and the East (i.e. Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria) officially excluded each other
16th century AD - Lutheran Church was founded by Martin Luther
16th century AD - Protestant Reformation
16th century AD - The Presbyterian denomination began by John Knox who was dissatisfied with Anglicanism
16th century AD - Anglicanism (i.e. Church of England) founded by King Henry VIII
17th century AD - The Baptist church launched by John Smyth in Amsterdam, Holland.
18th century AD - The Methodist church launched by John and Charles Wesley in England
18th century AD - The Salvation Army launched by William Booth, who quit the Anglicans, and then the Methodists to set up his own version of Christianity.
19th century AD - The Jehovah's Witness Church developed by Charles Russell.
19th century AD - The Christian Scientist religion began by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy, centered around an outright denial of Original Sin and its effects
19th century AD - Ballinger Booth, the son of William Booth, quit The Salvation Army and started his own church
19th century AD to date - The Seventh-Day Adventists, Apostolic Faith, Foursquare Apostolic Church, K&C, CAC, CCC, RCCG, MFM, Winners Chapel, KICC, BLW/Christ Embassy, SCOAN,
and various other Pentecostal Churches etc are among the hundreds of new churches founded by men within the past 200 years or so.

Pardon me digressing a "little" with that bit

Cool. That's a good history overview. Glad you know that. Now let's do the Early Christian writers' (Church Fathers) part:

1. Paul of Tarsus, "Apostle to the Gentiles", earliest New Testament author 45~65
2. Four Evangelists, traditionally identified as the authors of the canonical gospels 60~125
3. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, apostolic father 68~107
4. Clement of Rome, bishop of Rome, apostolic father 88~101
5. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, apostolic father 110~130
6. Polycarp of Smyrna, bishop of Smyrna, apostolic father 110~160
7. Justin Martyr, church father ~165
8. Melito of Sardis, bishop of Sardis, ~180
9. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, disciple of Polycarp, apologist 180~202
10. Origen of Alexandria, 185~254
11. Tatian, pupil of Justin Martyr, ascetic theologian ~185
12. Athenagoras of Athens, philosopher, apologist ~190
13. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus ~196
14. Montanus, self-proclaimed prophet and founder of Montanism, last quarter of 2nd century CE
15. Tertullian, church father, apologist, first Christian writer in Latin, later a Montanist 197~230
16. Hippolytus, church father, died a martyr 217~236
17. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, martyr 218~258
18. Clement of Alexandria, church father with gnostic sympathies ~220
19. Novatian, a rigorist and Antipope in 251
20. Dionysius, patriarch of Alexandria, pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church 248~264
21. Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, adoptionist, condemned at 269 Council of Antioch for Christological errors
22. Donatus Magnus, bishop of Carthage, (+355), leader of the Donatists from 313
23. Lactantius, apologist, "Christian Cicero" ~317
24. Arnobius, apologist ~330
25. Eusebius, wrote History of the Church ~325 after the victory of Constantine over paganism and is considered the Christian Herodotus, the first major Church historian.

It's James Burgh who said:
"You need not tell all the truth, unless to those who have a right to know it all"

What comes easy won't last, what lasts won't come easy.
The thing about the truth is, not a lot of people can handle it.

Review the over-the-bar "Sexual Immorality" response you gave.
After I've already stated that Leviticus 20:10-16, is a variety of sexual sins or sexual immorality acts,
you unashamedly still went to blurt out "Sexual Immorality"
Nothing spoilt, let's touch on it, next below

Ok.

9inches, there a western part of the country colloquial, that says:
"Ti ogun eni ba daniloju, a ma nfi gba ori"
which loosely translated means:
"When you have confidence in your charm, you can knack or smack it on head, safely and without having any problem"

If I can break coconut with my head, the word "abomination" is soft work.
Meet me below, for the continuation of this matter about Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
and the controversial Leviticus 20:13, that's inside Leviticus 20:10-16

Ok

Nope. Fa-fa-foul, as there is more to that, than meets the eye.
We see adultery is in there, as sexual immorality. Incest is in there, as sexual immorality.
Bestiality is in there, as sexual immorality. Leviticus 20:13 is in there, as sexual immorality.

Each and all of them are sexual sins or sexual immorality acts, that we both accept to be and agree on
BUT, here are two linchpins why 9inches?
1/ What makes or made Leviticus 20:13 stand or stick out like a sore thumb,
to be the ONLY one, flagged, among all the other sexual immorality acts to be the ONLY one said to be committing abomination?
2/ What's the knowledge, fact, truth, wisdom, logic, philosophy and theology
behind why, in this context, adultery in Leviticus 20:10, incest in Leviticus 20:11-14 or bestiality in Leviticus 20:15,
is not considered being committing abomination but its Leviticus 20:13 only that does?

If them two, are reasonably & properly answered, we might get to move on, wade into deeper waters and get wet.

1. Take a look at attached pic below.

Leviticus 20:10-21 and Leviticus 18:6-23 both say the same thing - Sexual Immorality
Leviticus 18:24-30 -- "Do not defile yourselves by any of these practices, for by all these things the nations I am driving out before you have defiled themselves. Even the land has become defiled, so I am punishing it for its sin, and the land will vomit out its inhabitants. But you are to keep My statutes and ordinances, and you must not commit any of these abominations—neither your native-born nor the foreigner who lives among you.

For the men who were in the land before you committed all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. So if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it spewed out the nations before you. Therefore anyone who commits any of these abominations must be cut off from among his people.

You must keep My charge not to practice any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you, so that you do not defile yourselves by them. I am the LORD your God.”

2. Because the act homosexuality is different from others.

Leviticus 20:13 - abomination
Leviticus 18:22 - abomination
Romans 1:27 - unnatural lust, shameful, perversity
Wisdom 14:26 - unnatural lust
-------------------------------------
1 Timothy 1:10 - sodomy
1 Corinthians 6:9 - sodomy

Ubenedictus:
this below may be Budaatum's opinion, but for the Christian Church morality is not determined by society but by God, so even if society says murder is OK, it will still be immoral... atleast that is my perspective as a Catholic Christian...

I wish it was my opinion, that humans decide the morals (right and wrong) of their own society. But let''s consider the evidence, shall we, and by 'morals' I will be very loose.

Slavery, let's start there. It is immoral to enslave another human being, or at least, that's the position today. It wasn't always immoral however, and was highly practised in antiquity, and some claimed justification from the gods. Today, however, would one say the gods changed their minds perhaps, or maybe humans did not understand where it says "thou shalt not enslave a human being" ? Thankfully, humans decided (or finally heard the gods say), "slavery is bad", and it got abolished.

Let's try homosexuality. Did you know it used to be a highly valued act in the Greek society long before the arrival of Jesus? It was not unusual for wealthy Greeks, and Romans, to have their favorite male on the side, and for centuries after. It was considered beneficial for the young male who acquired a teacher and benefactor (a "sugerdaddy", effectively), and for the benefactor who acquired a soyoyo of the male form. However, there were always those who stood against it and the history of the Greeks and the Romans is replete with acceptance of homosexuality, and its non-acceptance, and the laws were written accordingly. Britain is a classic example of this.

If you were gay in and up to the 70-80s in Britain, you better not let anyone know. Many gay people got married just so no one would know they were gay! If it was known, well, just better leave the country as you were fair game for a beating on the street. But that was still an improvement. Up till the 1900s, you'd have gone to jail. Today, however, many nations around the world are apologising for treating gay people so badly in the past. And its illegal to discriminate against gays

Here's another. All the way up to the 90s, though less obvious, "dogs, irish and blacks" were barred from certain places. You'd come across it if you wanted to rent a house or when you applied for a job, though the exceedingly polite English person would never tell you to your face. Funny thing is, when Americans came over during the second world war claiming their own G.I. blacks mustn't be sitting in the same places as G.I. Joes, the same English were not having it. Today however, you call me a black bastard on the streets of London, and your ass is going to jail.

Also consider numerous things humans have at one time or the other deemed moral, but not so anymore - exploitation of women, killing of witches, killing of twins, state legitimised human sacrifice, persecution of Catholics (Britain 1500s), persecution of Protestants (about the same time) and many more that laws have helped eradicate.

Now, if you look closely, it does sound like I am talking about the law, and not morality. However, laws are what have always been used to teach morals, after all those "thou shalt nots", are laws that are meant to teach morality. One wise person even went and wrote "Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."" Effectively, there is no sin if there is no law

The law in UK today is that "thou shalt not discriminate against a person because of their gender, race, sexual orientation and so on". The Church of England had an exemption to allow people to adjust but its run out, and they too have to now obey the law. And in my opinion, the world is a better place for it.

Here's a little secret however. The battle mentioned in the op is happening in the CoE and the Catholic Church. The CoE has no choice but to obey the law as it has 'established status', and the Catholic Church too, as it would not like to seem less 'established'. But go to a pentecostal church or a mosque in England and see how you'd get treated. And the amazing thing? While you would be arrested for calling a gay person on the street derogatory names, the police would not follow you to arrest a pentecostal preacher or imam denigrating homosexuality in his church or mosque. God help either of them if they preach homosexual hatred on the streets however. They be whisked off in handcuffs before you could say Allahu Akbar, or Jesus is Lord!

All said, I think when Christians say their morals come from God, they mean they learn their morals from the teachings written in their Holy Book. It would find agreement with the wise quotes above. Unfortunately, someone claimed he did not learn their morals, and by "from god" they claimed it was written into their dna from before they were born. It was in response to that claim that my response is what muttley quoted me as saying.