9inches:
I wish I could keep up with your mental gymnastics, but at least you got the message - condone and accept are different terms.

Like I said, you wanted me to use "accept", instead of "condone" that was my deliberate choice.
I accepted to switch for the sake of accomodating you
and besides, it wouldnt make any difference to me, as I have enough room to swing a cat,
Using "accept" wouldnt put me in a straight jacket, and since it wouldnt restrict my moving, it makes no difference to me switching to what you prefer

Remember my question was, do you condone or condemn.
Or is it a case you neither condone nor condemn
If I recall clearly, I think your response was a reply in the manner of: "I condemn"

9inches:
IAct of homosexuality = homosexual act. Basic English language usage.

I'll meet you below about this homosexual ace of spade card you keep slamming down on the table

9inches:
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).

9inches:
2. Yes, I'm familiar with hermaphroditism.

I actually meant human hermaphroditism, as in intersex
and not merely or plainly hermaphroditism

Without a doubt, with intersex, there is a glaring fault, that isnt the norm nor part of what a perfect world order is or should be.
Now, you didnt refute, when I alluded that the gist of your explanation, seems to say, you cant sin a fault until it becomes an action
You actually was elated over the observantion, so and because of that, my inquiry question or next line of questioning is.
1/ What sexual attraction to, should human hermaphrodites have?
2/ Is intersex a violation of divine and natural law or not?
3/ You declared homosexual act has an act intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex and so condemned. What is your position with intersexes?

9inches:
Gbam! Your head dey there.

"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"
- MuttleyLaff ©

You do realise that the content of that section post that you did "Gbam!" to is, reproduced above, talked about same sex or otherwise?

9inches:
I do for sure.

9inches:
You lied...

SMH, below the belt punch

9inches:
Let's troubleshoot and see where the issue is.
You approved!
I reminded you

You reminded me, serving as a caveat, knowing fully well that what you're about dishinhg out was not necessarily going to be based on fact or informed knowledge

9inches:
And then you decided to switch!

How was I to know your opinions would be without factual stuffs

9inches:
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.

Dont you see the incongruency in your "This is an opinion formulated due to my reliance/faith on an objective source" statement?

Upon reading that, it is right for me to say:
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

9inches:
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.

You read about how Jesus, trampled on cultural norms and beliefs, turning them on their head to the chagrin of the Pharisees
Mark 7:7-8 and Matthew 15:9 are instructive in letting us know how damaging human rules taught as though they were God's laws is

9inches:
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)

The core message of the Good News is LOVE
and that there is no longer male and female, for all, are one in Christ Jesus

9inches:
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."

Gbam, God is Love, so be perfect like God
It is not about WHO you love, but about HOW you love, 9inches.

9inches:
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.

Same here too.

9inches:
This implies you are more at risk of misinterpreting the Word of God
because you don't have any backup information

That's what you'll think
but thanks to God for the promise & fulfilment of John 14:26 and John 16:13-14

9inches:
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?


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.

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?


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.


Ok.


Ok

OK.

9inches:
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

[img]https://s1/images/Abomi.jpg[/img]
I am just going to paste this screenshot here to stare at
I am sure you will see the list of abominations
and to whom the relevant or each abomination is concerned to

Leviticus 18:24-30, is referring to what is abomination unto you and what is, to God
(i.e. the screenshot clearly details these)

Leviticus 20:13 is Leviticus 18:22 and vice versa
Paul re-echoed them with 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, because the problem which isnt about same sex relationships with fidelity
but something else reared its head with the Gentile

There is a strong common thread through Leviticus 20:13, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and it ties them together
but it eludes you

It isnt what you think and learned it to be.
First step, will be, to review 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, are look into what "malakois" and "arsenokoites" really means,
then the epiphany of what the "the detestable customs that were practiced" in Leviticus 20:13, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 were, will occur.

It is an insufferable practice and that's why God is reprehensive about the detestable custom being practised

It's only ONE reason that this sexual sin, that this sexual immorality is condemned as committing abomination unto God
but sexual sins or sexual immoralities like, adultery in Leviticus 20:10, incest in Leviticus 20:11-14 or bestiality in Leviticus 20:15,
escape the mention to be condemned as committing abomination unto God

delishpot:
No gays should be allowed in the church unless they are new converts seeking deliverance.

So, how does this work? Do you get people to fill out a questionnaire, "are you gay?" Or do you only allow people with non-same gender partners into your church? Or perhaps just have a testing room in the church to check gayness? You could place women in it to test the men, and men in it to test the women.

The good thing is that most churches are learning they are not God, and that Jesus is a god of sinners. You don't need him if you already have salvation!

MuttleyLaff:
Like I said, you wanted me to use "accept", instead of "condone" that was my deliberate choice.
I accepted to switch for the sake of accomodating you
and besides, it wouldnt make any difference to me, as I have enough room to swing a cat,
Using "accept" wouldnt put me in a straight jacket, and since it wouldnt restrict my moving, it makes no difference to me switching to what you prefer

Remember my question was, do you condone or condemn.
Or is it a case you neither condone nor condemn
If I recall clearly, I think your response was a reply in the manner of: "I condemn"

I was essentially telling you it's homophobic of you to include the word "condone" in the options. It seems you didn't quite get it and you're tripling down on that. Only bigots come off that way. Although I don't see you that way (yet), but I'm surprised you are using these mental gymnastics to defend it.

I actually meant human hermaphroditism, as in intersex
and not merely or plainly hermaphroditism

Without a doubt, with intersex, there is a glaring fault, that isnt the norm nor part of what a perfect world order is or should be.
Now, you didnt refute, when I alluded that the gist of your explanation, seems to say, you cant sin a fault until it becomes an action
You actually was elated over the observantion, so and because of that, my inquiry question or next line of questioning is.
1/ What sexual attraction to, should human hermaphrodites have?
2/ Is intersex a violation of divine and natural law or not?
3/ You declared homosexual act has an act intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex and so condemned. What is your position with intersexes?

1,2&3. First of all, sexual attraction should go with biology. That said, God created humanity and its pattern of sexual distinction. When anomalies occur, there is danger that those who suffer these conditions will be psychologically and sexually abused. So, more education continues to be needed to understand that hermaphroditism is a matter of unfinished sexual development.

The ultimate question of which sex is properly identifiable in a given case is left to the medical specialist. People have the right to have the inconsistencies of their sexual anatomies corrected by plastic surgery and/or pharmacological therapy. In true hermaphroditism, where sexual variables may be totally equivocal, the individual, or in the case of infants, the parents in consultation with the medical specialist, may decide the sex toward which the correction will be sought. In the relatively more common case of pseudohermaphroditism, where one sex is identifiable as predominately predetermined, the corrective measures must be in the direction of the predominate sex determined.

It's important to note that an Intersex person is not a Transexual person. The most agreed upon definition of a Transexual person is someone whose "psychological identity" is at variance with their innate biology. This means that a fully normal and biological male views himself as being a female. The Church INTENTIONALLY remained silence concerning this issue of intersex, especially that of true hermaphroditism, where sexual variables may be totally equivocal means that there is not a certainty that one can make a general rule. Therefore, one does not legislate until one has moral certainty on an issue. On those things which the church remains officially silent, one then must resort to one’s own conscience, laws governing similar situations, and the advice of a spiritual director to determine the morality of such an issue. All laws must reflect the Church’s purpose, the salvation of souls.
But to use some excuse that doesn't meet up to this threshold to justify homosexuality would be immoral coupled with its underlying issue of dishonesty.

"The most Christian response of all is to understand and accept those grappling with this enigmatic and vexing cross, one that only very few of us have had to carry." - William Van Ornum

"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"
- MuttleyLaff ©

You do realise that the content of that section post that you did "Gbam!" to is, reproduced above, talked about same sex or otherwise?

Yes I did realize that. One should be faithful in every relationship regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or what have you.

Even if you are in an immoral relationship, cheating is still cheating and wrong, right?

You reminded me, serving as a caveat, knowing fully well that what you're about dishinhg out was not necessarily going to be based on fact or informed knowledge

Wrong! My opinion was well informed and I highlighted that.

How was I to know your opinions would be without factual stuffs

You probably thought I was as naive (mildly put) as you. I have the fact to spew but you asked for opinion and you still didn't get anything different because my opinion is well aligned with the objective truth. I guess you didn't get the answer you expected and you dishonestly switched.

Dont you see the incongruency in your "This is an opinion formulated due to my reliance/faith on an objective source" statement?

Upon reading that, it is right for me to say:
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

There's no incongruency in my statement. I corrected the incongruency in your own statement. You are shooting yourself in the foot in the name of doubling down. You already have my answer/correction to your statement.

You read about how Jesus, trampled on cultural norms and beliefs, turning them on their head to the chagrin of the Pharisees
Mark 7:7-8 and Matthew 15:9 are instructive in letting us know how damaging human rules taught as though they were God's laws is

Sure. You said cultural norms and beliefs, right?

The core message of the Good News is LOVE
and that there is no longer male and female, for all, are one in Christ Jesus

You quoted a passage which I explained to you. Don't employ a moving the goalposts fallacy.

Gbam, God is Love, so be perfect like God
It is not about WHO you love, but about HOW you love, 9inches.

Right on point! I can't agree more. Even the bible made it clear HOW we should love.

budaatum:
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.

Bud, how isnt subjugation of women not what first came to your mind?
How come subjugation of women isnt the first to start with?
You picked up slavery, next was homosexuality, but the subjugation of women isnt on your radar.

I have this unpublished post relating to the GOJ thread, sitting on my laptop and left simmering away.
It is about how and when the closure was put to stop the woman blame game
plus how and when, ending the subjugation backlash against the woman was brought about or carried out.

budaatum:
Let's try homosexuality.

Homosexual and/or homosexuality, actually is a word barely 200 years old.

The word "homosexual" was invented in 1868, and the word "homosexuality" certainly was not around in Biblical times

Suffice to say, it is glaring what Paul's "malakois" and "arsenokoites" in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 are

budaatum:
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.

People have been sleeping together with others, having same gender or sex, as them, long before the Greek ever did
Jesus didnt stand against same sex relationship.
I am having misty eyes writing this...
Jesus was even willing to visit someone in a same sex relationship but persuaded it wasnt necessary
God is just too Good

budaatum:
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

Justin Fashanu didnt get a beating but definitely was let them down completely by his closest and family he confided in
Isnt it funny that John, that gave Justin £100,000 to buy Justin's silence about Justin's same sex attraction
now accepts homosexuality as "a normal thing"

budaatum:
Up till the 1900s, you'd have gone to jail.

Yep, that's right, go to jail à la Oscar Wilde
or submit and be subjected to a chemical castration treatment à la AlanTuring.

budaatum:
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.

There should be a health warning about the herd thing, that herd mentality and/or mob mentality is not good for the health

budaatum:
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.

We touched on this with the GOJ thread
Remember, the beginning started with only ONE law

I am not about making up what the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil means.
The original word used in that verse instead of Good, in the original text was "Beautiful"
and the original word used in that verse and elsewhere it's used in the original text was "Adversity"

Anyone familiar with merisms, knows that:
Merism, is a figure of speech that has a combination of two contrasting words to refer to an entirety and all parts within each of them

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is a merism
"Good evening ladies and gentlemen" is a merism

Well, the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil figure of speech, is a merism.

Good, in that context, is translated from a word, that means and typifies "Beautiful"
Evil, in that context, is translated from a word, that means and typifies "Adversity".

"Beautiful", as in, everything dandy and good
"Adversity", as in, every hardship, bad and ugly difficult or unpleasant situation that possibly can happen.

Eating off the tree, opened up the eater to experience several of parts of all that's "Beautiful" and all that's "Adversity"
Eater opened to experience and begin judge between beautiful and adversity.
Experience and begin to judge what 's a good time or bad time, what's pretty, what's ugly.
Essentially the whole shebang spectrum unfolds into the eater's world.

Eating off the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil,
will open the eater to experience several of parts of all that's "Beautiful" and all that's "Adversity"
As said earlier, the Adversity other side, is, as it were, like opening a Pandora Box, of some sort.

Bud, post eating TTKGE, we're taught morals, not taught conscience
Conscience lets you know what's moral and immoral

Conscience, is a mere conduit, a channel DNAed into you for conveying "messages"

Your conscience works with intuition,
that's how, it has the capacity, as it were, without being learnt or taught, to instinctively know, right from wrong[/i]

So conscience essentially, is, triggers, thoughts or feelings
that warns, criticizes, cautions, and/or advises a person,
in areas or in the manner, in which a person behaves, like when being in particular places, unknown territory, at crossroads etcetera

budaatum:
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!

I hear a voice of reason

budaatum:
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.

I think, it was David in Psalm 51:10, that said:
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me
(i.e. create pure thoughts in me, and renew a right attitude within me)

The faculties of the Spirit comprises of:
Fellowship, Conscience,, Discernment or Intuition

The Psalm 51:10 David prayer, kicks in, when these formidable three amigos are in full gear and force
So it will be as if one's behaviour is taking a Director's cue and reading from a script
That's where "written into the DNA" comes from Bud.

Only God knows, aside me, who the other two are, that also, liked generally, what you posted

cc 9inches

MuttleyLaff:
Same here too.

Cool. I thought you are one of the sola scriptura apologists.

That's what you'll think
but thanks to God for the promise & fulfilment of John 14:26 and John 16:13-14

I thank God for that too. But it does not end there; this Holy Spirit does not exist just for the preference of sanctifying the individual Christian. That idea is a very individualistic (and fundamentalist) view of the Spirit - that the Spirit exists for my well being only. It's a faulty understanding of the Holy Spirit and also a faulty understanding of ecumenism. I'm not saying non Catholics don't receive the Holy Spirit, but there's more to it. I had point that out, just so you don't think it ends at 'I have the Holy Spirit, period.'

Leviticus 18:24-30, is referring to what is abomination unto you and what is, to God
(i.e. the screenshot clearly details these)

Leviticus 20:13 is Leviticus 18:22 and vice versa
Paul re-echoed them with 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, because the problem which isnt about same sex relationships with fidelity
but something else reared its head with the Gentile

There is a strong common thread through Leviticus 20:13, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and it ties them together
but it eludes you

It isnt what you think and learned it to be.
First step, will be, to review 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, are look into what "malakois" and "arsenokoites" really means,
then the epiphany of what the "the detestable customs that were practiced" in Leviticus 20:13, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 were, will occur.

It is an insufferable practice and that's why God is reprehensive about the detestable custom being practised

It's only ONE reason that this sexual sin, that this sexual immorality is condemned as committing abomination unto God
but sexual sins or sexual immoralities like, adultery in Leviticus 20:10, incest in Leviticus 20:11-14 or bestiality in Leviticus 20:15,
escape the mention to be condemned as committing abomination unto God

Totally wrong and misleading! Romans 1:27 and Wisdom 14:26 blows your argument out of the water. [Sexual] immorality is the underlying factor that made these acts condemnable. You are trying to make it about their superficial attributes and perceptions like "abomination" "shameful" "disgusting" "pervasive" "detestable".... a mind exercise which I am willing to indulge you in, but not without making it categorically clear to you that Scripture condemns all acts of sexual immorality, especially the "unnatural" act of homosexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 - "Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a man can commit is outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body."

1 Corinthians 6:13 - "The body is not intended for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body."

Edited

MuttleyLaff:
cc 9inches

The Bible on Homosexual Behavior

Revisionist scholars have published several recent books that argue the Bible does not condemn same-sex behavior. These include recent academic treatments like James Brownson’s The Bible, Gender and Sexuality (2013) and Matthew Vines’s popular book God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (2014).

The arsenokoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians
The other biblical passages that condemn same-sex intercourse are 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and its repetition in 1 Timothy 1:10. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul says: “Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” The Revised Standard Version Bible notes that Paul is not condemning the possession of same-sex attractions, or homosexuals as persons, but only those who engage in immoral sexual activities.

Revisionists usually argue that the word “homosexuals” is not in this passage but rather two unique Greek words: arsenokoitai and malakoi. They claim that malakoi is ambiguous and could mean simply “weak” or “soft,” while arsenokoitai refers to some kind of sexual exploitation of children or pederasty (Sharpe, The Gay Gospels, 55).

Christian ethicist David Gushee writes in his book Changing Our Mind, “How might the history of Christian treatment of gays and lesbians have been different if arsenokoitai had been translated ‘sex traffickers’ or ‘sexual exploiters’ or ‘rapists’ . . . such translations are plausible, even if not the majority scholarly reconstruction at this time” (79).

But proposals that seek to exclude consensual same-sex relations from the meaning of arsenokoitai and malakoi are not plausible. If Paul was condemning predatory man-boy love, then why didn’t he use the Greek word for pederasty (paiderastes)? Also, if this is what Paul condemned, then why did he single out female same-sex couples in Romans when he was only concerned with predatory man-boy sex and not same-sex relations in general?

Keep in mind that before Paul condemns the malakoi and arsenokoitai for their persistence in sin, he condemns idolaters and adulterers and then condemns thieves and greedy people. Adultery and idolatry are often associated in the Bible and thievery and greed certainly go together. This makes it likely that arsenokoitai goes hand-in-hand with malakoi.

The fact that arsenokoitai matches the Greek words in the Septuagint’s translation of Leviticus 20:13 is unmistakable. The word breaks down to arseno (or “male”) and koite (or “bed”). It literally means “man-bedder.” It makes more sense to say that malakoi referred to the soft or effeminate passive recipient of same-sex behavior, while arsenokoitai referred to the active partner in that kind of intercourse, and not just sexually exploitative relationships.

Hope for all
I want to close with a word for those who experience same-sex attractions. What Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 6 is not that anyone with these attractions is doomed. In fact, he says in verse 11, “this is what some of you used to be [emphasis added]. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” As the Catholic apostolate Courage shows, the fact that people once engaged in same-sex relations is no barrier to them being sanctified by the grace of God.

Please note that I am not advocating a naïve, pray-away-the-gay solution. Instead, Courage helps men and women with same-sex attraction lead chaste and fulfilling lives, lives that you can learn more about at couragerc.org. At the Courage website, you can watch a free documentary called Desire of the Everlasting Hills (everlastinghills.org) that shows how two men and one woman with same-sex attractions separately found hope and healing through the sacraments of the Catholic Church.

If you’re skeptical, I encourage you to at least watch the film and listen to these people’s experiences. You’ll see that it is possible to transcend the labels of “gay” or “straight,” and focus instead on our identity as sons and daughters of the Most High who seek him with all our heart, mind, body, and soul.
Read full article: https://www.catholic.com/index.php/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on-homosexual-behavior

MuttleyLaff:
Bud, how isnt subjugation of women not what first came to your mind?
How come subjugation of women isnt the first to start with?
You picked up slavery, next was homosexuality, but the subjugation of women isnt on your radar.

Do the examples I chose not fit the topic at hand? Surely you are aware I left out quite a lot more than the subjugation of women. Incidentally, BBC4 was running a program on the Suffragettes while I was writing what I did. I just chose not to include it.

MuttleyLaff:
Homosexual and/or homosexuality, actually is a word barely 200 years old.

The word "homosexual" was invented in 1868, and the word "homosexuality" certainly was not around in Biblical times

Well, we are not talking about the word, but the act itself which is as old as humans, probably. As you said, "People have been sleeping together with others, having same gender or sex, as them, long before the Greek ever did" .

MuttleyLaff:
Jesus was even willing to visit someone in a same sex relationship but persuaded it wasnt necessary
God is just too Good

I have no recollection of this myself. But if true, its commendable that you mention it. Source please.

MuttleyLaff:
Justin Fashanu didnt get a beating but definitely was let them down completely by his closest and family he confided in
Isnt it funny that John, that gave Justin £100,000 to buy Justin's silence about Justin's same sex attraction
now accepts homosexuality as "a normal thing"

Justin was a victim of his time as homosexuality was, and is still discriminated against in football. John was bothered at the stigma of having a gay brother so would have rather he didn't mention it.

Incidentally, Fani-Kayode also had a brother, Oluwarotimi Adebiyi Wahab Fani-Kayode who was gay. He too died in his prime at 34 but of a heart attack while recovering from an AIDS-related illness. Most people don't even know Kayode had this brother. Shows how such things are hidden under the carpet.

MuttleyLaff:
I think, it was David in Psalm 51:10, that said:
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me
(i.e. create pure thoughts in me, and renew a right attitude within me)

The faculties of the Spirit comprises of:
Fellowship, Conscience,, Discernment or Intuition

The Psalm 51:10 David prayer, kicks in, when these formidable three amigos are in full gear and force
So it will be as if one's behaviour is taking a Director's cue and reading from a script
That's where "written into the DNA" comes from Bud.

Only God knows, aside me, who the other two are, that also, liked generally, what you posted

cc 9inches

You baited me with the dna thing, and I felt a need to respond. Didn't you say you didn't support that view when it was discussed, yet here you go again! Thing is, in a non-technical discussion, I can live with it, except, there are dangers inherent in the idea that "morality is pre-wired into his dna before he was born", especially where the person who made that comment is concerned.

Whatever the faculties of the spirit may be, I am certain you would not agree that the spirit itself is in ones dna, least not if by spirit we mean the holy spirit. Most tend to acquire it through extensive bible reading and church going, both of which constitute learning. But let's stick with homosexuality.

Personally, I understand Nigeria's stance on it. It was after all the same stance UK had about 100 years ago. Yet, today we've completely abandoned the idea that homosexuality is immoral. Now, if morality was in their dna a hundred years ago (and they did claim God said homosexuality was immoral) then would we today say "God changed his mind", and homosexuality is now moral?

The facts are that we start learning what is right and wrong from a very early age. If morals are dna based, like eye and skin colour, no one would feel the need to teach their kids morals they hope they wouldn't depart from. And the danger of thinking morals are prewired into ones dna excludes the need to learn and improve one's morals. But we see that sort everyday. They think they are upright but in reality they are the most bent and crooked.

Nigerians will learn not to discriminate against homosexuals in due time. It took quite a lot for it to happen in UK but it did eventually and will in Nigeria. Peoples' love of their gay children just eventually trumped the hatred they had for faceless gays.

9inches:
The Bible on Homosexual Behavior

Revisionist scholars have published several recent books that argue the Bible does not condemn same-sex behavior. These include recent academic treatments like James Brownson’s The Bible, Gender and Sexuality (2013) and Matthew Vines’s popular book God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (2014).

A magazine article doesn’t allow sufficient space to address every revisionist argument, nor can I demonstrate the Bible’s overwhelming positive evidence for sex being the unique “one-flesh” bond that exists only between men and women (e.g. Gen. 2 and Matt. 19). Instead, I’ll focus on the attempts to reinterpret the passages in Scripture that condemn same-sex intercourse.

The abomination in Leviticus
Let’s start with Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which say, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”

One way to argue against these passages is to make what I call the “shellfish objection.” Keith Sharpe puts it this way: “Until Christian fundamentalists boycott shellfish restaurants, stop wearing poly-cotton T-shirts, and stone to death their wayward offspring, there is no obligation to listen to their diatribes about homosexuality being a sin” (The Gay Gospels, 21).

In other words, if we can disregard rules like the ban on eating shellfish in Leviticus 11:12, then we should be allowed to disobey other prohibitions from the Old Testament. But this argument confuses the Old Testament’s temporary ceremonial laws with its permanent moral laws.

Here’s an analogy to help understand this distinction.

I remember two rules my mom gave me when I was young: hold her hand when I cross the street and don’t drink what’s under the sink. Today, I have to follow only the latter rule, since the former is no longer needed to protect me. In fact, it would now do me more harm than good.

Old Testament ritual/ceremonial laws were like mom’s handholding rule. The reason they forbade the Israelites from using certain fabrics or foods, or interacting with bodily fluids, was to keep them ritually distinct from their pagan neighbors. Rites involving external purity and cleanliness helped the Israelites better understand the internal purity God’s law requires. But by the time of the New Covenant, the ceremonial laws were no longer needed to accomplish this goal and so they were repealed (Mark 7:19).

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial laws could be repealed, its moral laws that forbade intrinsic evils like murder or adultery are forever binding. They are more like my mother’s ban on Drano martinis than her handholding rule, because those acts can harm people, regardless of cultural circumstance. That we don’t enforce the penalty associated with these laws (such as death for adultery) doesn’t mean these acts are not grave violations of the moral law.

So, are Leviticus’s prohibitions on same-sex intercourse part of the Old Testament’s temporary ceremonial law or its permanent moral law?

First, notice that Leviticus 18:22 is sandwiched between moral laws and not ceremonial ones. Verse 20 condemns adultery, verse 21 condemns child sacrifice, and verse 23 condemns bestiality. It’s true that verse 19 refers to a ceremonial law related to menstruation, but this prohibition merely forbids sex during menstruation. The other verses in this section describe moral evils that are “defilements,” “profane,” “perverted,” and—in the case of same-sex behavior—“abominations.” Illicit sex with a menstruating woman is never called an “abomination” or a “perversion” like the other moral crimes listed alongside it.

Second, unlike idolatry, murder, adultery, or breaking the Sabbath, the Bible never prescribes the death penalty for violating the ceremonial laws. For example, Leviticus 20:18 prescribes exile for someone who becomes unclean by having sex with a menstruating woman; but it prescribes the death penalty for adultery, bestiality, incest, and same-sex behavior, all of which fall under the unchanging moral law. Leviticus 18:24-25 makes it clear that actions like adultery, bestiality, and same-sex relations were part of the moral law that applied to non-Jews as well, because God had previously judged other pagan nations for engaging in these “defilements.”

Finally, the claim that because the Bible condemns same-sex intercourse only a few times means it’s not “that bad” is faulty. Bestiality and sex with one’s parents are also condemned only a few times, but who would say this means that these behaviors aren’t “that bad”?

Idolatry, patriarchy, or immorality?
Some revisionists say the moral prohibition against same-sex intercourse applied only in contexts related to ancient Judaism and doesn’t apply today. Boswell claims that the passages in Leviticus refer to sex only in the context of prostitution or pagan temple sacrifices, not consensual and loving same-sex relationships, which he claims were unheard of at the time (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 100).

But ancient Mesopotamian texts like the Almanac of Incantations do attest to consensual, same-sex relationships, and Leviticus 18 doesn’t use the Hebrew term for “temple prostitutes” (qadesh), so Boswell is setting up a straw man. Also, do we really think that other violations of the law like bestiality or adultery would become acceptable as long as they were done in a non-idolatrous way? If not, then why think same-sex behavior would be treated any differently?

Vines claims that even if this prohibition included consensual encounters, the rationale behind it was that same-sex intercourse lowered a man’s status to the inferior one held by a woman (87). Since we no longer endorse what Vines calls “patriarchy,” male-male intercourse can be seen as the loving exchange of equals and not as the antiquated degradation of a man to the status of a woman.

But Vines has missed the point of these passages due to a modern sense of political correctness.

For example, saying an adult is being childish does not mean children are bad or subhuman. It just means adults are not children, and so they shouldn’t act like children. Likewise, ancient writers calling men in the passive role of anal intercourse “effeminate” or “man-women” does not mean women are bad and therefore men should not be brought down to their level. It simply means men are not women, and so they should not be treated like women by being sexually penetrated.

Another objection to these passages in Leviticus deals with female-female sex. Former priest Daniel Helminiak maintains these passages can’t be used to condemn same-sex female activity, because there is “no hint of lesbianism” in them (What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, 51). Vines agrees that if Leviticus were about sexual complementarity and not patriarchy, it would have condemned female-female sexual relations as well (90).

But the reason Leviticus does not condemn lesbianism is because the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 were written for a male audience. Leviticus 18 does not prohibit women from engaging in incest, but the fact that men were prohibited from engaging in this behavior meant that the same rules applied to women as well. Therefore, the prohibition against male same-sex relations would also apply to women.

In conclusion, if the author of Leviticus were alive today, he would say that prohibitions on same-sex intercourse apply not just to Jews who were given the Mosaic Law but also to people who can understand the natural law through their moral conscience. This is a theme St. Paul explores in the Bible’s other explicit condemnation of same-sex behavior.

The “unnatural exchange” in Romans
Romans 1:26-27 contains perhaps the most explicit condemnation of same-sex behavior in the Bible. In this passage, Paul speaks of idolaters and how God “gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

There are many revisionist responses to this text.

First, Boswell says: “The persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons” (Boswell, 109). But this doesn’t explain Paul’s condemnation of behavior that is rooted in a person’s inner desires, which corresponds to our views of modern homosexuality. Even Vines recognizes this: “Paul seems to be describing latent desires that were being expressed, not brand-new ones. . . . I don’t think it’s consistent to say that Paul rejected same-sex behavior only when it didn’t come naturally to the people involved” (Vines 103).

Others revisionists say Paul would have believed the ancient notion that everyone could be attracted to the opposite sex, and so same-sex behavior was just a sign of weakness or excess (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd edition, 245). They say that Paul had no experience of people who were attracted only to those of their own sex and could therefore form loving unions only with those people. If Paul had known of modern homosexuality, they say, he would not have condemned it.

But the book of Acts shows that Paul had a deep knowledge of Greco-Roman culture (see Acts 17:28 and 22:22-29). It would be astonishing if Paul had been unaware of the examples, in both popular literature and the bustling cities he visited, of monogamous relationships between people with deep-seated same-sex attraction.

For example, Plato’s Symposium (180-185, B.C. 385) speaks of women who “do not care for men but have female attachments” and of men who exclusively “hang about men and embrace them.” One character named Pausanias admonishes those who indiscriminately have sex with men, boys, and women but praises those who seek after older boys for lifelong, loving commitments. The Roman satirist Juvenal even records his contempt for men who married other men in private wedding ceremonies (Satires, 2.117–148, A.D. 127).

A same-sex couple’s emotional bond did not change Paul’s view of the wrongness of same-sex intercourse any more than the emotional bond between the man and his stepmother in 1 Corinthians 5 changed Paul’s view of the wrongness of incest. To him, both were violations of the moral order.

By “unnatural,” Paul did not mean these relationships contained excess sexual desire or that they were an affront to social mores (such as when he admonished men with long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14). Paul meant that the general idea of same-sex intercourse violates the image of God made known in human bodies that were created male and female.

Creation unraveled
In response to this, Vines says that the “unnatural” relations Paul was referring to were the man taking the woman’s passive role in sex and the woman taking the man’s active role. Like the condemnation in Leviticus, Paul’s prohibition had everything to do with patriarchy and nothing to do with the natural purpose of the genitals or the body as a whole (108).

But this misses the point of the “exchange repetition” in Romans 1.

Prior to Romans 1:26, Paul says that creation proves there’s one true God and idolaters have no excuse not to worship him (Rom. 1:20). The reason they do not is because the idolater’s minds were darkened and they exchanged the proper end of their worship, or God, for an improper end, or idols (Rom. 1:21-23). Next, their bodies were defiled, and they exchanged the proper object of their belief, or “the truth about God,” for “a lie.” Paul repeats this cycle of destruction and exchange when he says the unbeliever’s passions were degraded and women exchanged the natural object of their sexual desires—men—for women, and men did the same with men.

What all of these exchanges have in common is not a failure to adhere to society’s moral norms but a failure to adhere to the natural order seen in creation itself -- whether it’s worship of the creator or sexual relations with the natural partner. Paul even uses the Greek words for “male” and “female” instead of the Greek words for “men” and “women,” no doubt referring to the creation account in Genesis 1 which describes how God made humans “male and female” (Gen. 1:27).

Finally, some revisionists say that God is condemning only idolaters who reject God and engage in same-sex behavior, not monogamous gay Christians who have same-sex relations. But this makes as much sense as saying that the “envy, murder, and deceit” idolaters are given over to in verse 29 would have been okay provided it was done in a non-idolatrous context.

No, Paul is saying that if people engage in something as bad as idolatry, then they will be given over to other bad desires and actions, including same-sex intercourse.

The arsenokoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians
The other biblical passages that condemn same-sex intercourse are 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and its repetition in 1 Timothy 1:10. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul says: “Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” The Revised Standard Version Bible notes that Paul is not condemning the possession of same-sex attractions, or homosexuals as persons, but only those who engage in immoral sexual activities.

Revisionists usually argue that the word “homosexuals” is not in this passage but rather two unique Greek words: arsenokoitai and malakoi. They claim that malakoi is ambiguous and could mean simply “weak” or “soft,” while arsenokoitai refers to some kind of sexual exploitation of children or pederasty (Sharpe, The Gay Gospels, 55).

Christian ethicist David Gushee writes in his book Changing Our Mind, “How might the history of Christian treatment of gays and lesbians have been different if arsenokoitai had been translated ‘sex traffickers’ or ‘sexual exploiters’ or ‘rapists’ . . . such translations are plausible, even if not the majority scholarly reconstruction at this time” (79).

But proposals that seek to exclude consensual same-sex relations from the meaning of arsenokoitai and malakoi are not plausible. If Paul was condemning predatory man-boy love, then why didn’t he use the Greek word for pederasty (paiderastes)? Also, if this is what Paul condemned, then why did he single out female same-sex couples in Romans when he was only concerned with predatory man-boy sex and not same-sex relations in general?

Keep in mind that before Paul condemns the malakoi and arsenokoitai for their persistence in sin, he condemns idolaters and adulterers and then condemns thieves and greedy people. Adultery and idolatry are often associated in the Bible and thievery and greed certainly go together. This makes it likely that arsenokoitai goes hand-in-hand with malakoi.

The fact that arsenokoitai matches the Greek words in the Septuagint’s translation of Leviticus 20:13 is unmistakable. The word breaks down to arseno (or “male”) and koite (or “bed”). It literally means “man-bedder.” It makes more sense to say that malakoi referred to the soft or effeminate passive recipient of same-sex behavior, while arsenokoitai referred to the active partner in that kind of intercourse, and not just sexually exploitative relationships.

Hope for all
I want to close with a word for those who experience same-sex attractions. What Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 6 is not that anyone with these attractions is doomed. In fact, he says in verse 11, “this is what some of you used to be [emphasis added]. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” As the Catholic apostolate Courage shows, the fact that people once engaged in same-sex relations is no barrier to them being sanctified by the grace of God.

Please note that I am not advocating a naïve, pray-away-the-gay solution.
Instead, Courage helps men and women with same-sex attraction lead chaste and fulfilling lives, lives that you can learn more about at couragerc.org.
At the Courage website, you can watch a free documentary called Desire of the Everlasting Hills (everlastinghills.org) that shows how two men and one woman with same-sex attractions separately found hope and healing through the sacraments of the Catholic Church.

If you’re skeptical, I encourage you to at least watch the film and listen to these people’s experiences.
You’ll see that it is possible to transcend the labels of “gay” or “straight,”
and focus instead on our identity as sons and daughters of the Most High who seek him with all our heart, mind, body, and soul.

9inches, all this for me
"Long epistles" bug has got you. Kikiki ki.
Shame though, as you've got more holes in this your post than Swiss cheese
Pity, you spent a lot of time and energy, composing a post, that will come apart like a cheap suit, that has its loose threads yanked and pulled

budaatum:
Nigerians will learn not to discriminate against homosexuals in due time.
It took quite a lot for it to happen in UK but it did eventually and will in Nigeria.
Peoples' love of their gay children just eventually trumped the hatred they had for faceless gays.

"I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven.
No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place,
I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this."
- Desmond Tutu

MuttleyLaff:
9inches, all this for me
"Long epistles" bug has got you. Kikiki ki.
Shame though, as you've got more holes in this your post than Swiss cheese
Pity, you spent a lot of time and energy, composing a post, that will come apart like a cheap suit, that has its loose threads yanked and pulled

"I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven.
No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place,
I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this."
- Desmond Tutu

I forgot to include the link to the article. I wanted to post the segment highlighted in red "The arsenokoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians", but then I decided to include the whole article because folks like me don't like clicking on links.

I would like to see the holes you can find in the article. You don't have to read the whole article though.

9inches:


I forgot to include the link to the article. I wanted to post the segment highlighted in red "The arsenokoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians", but then I decided to include the whole article because folks like me don't like clicking on links.

I would like to see the holes you can find in the article. You don't have to read the whole article though.

I first thought Muttley posted it, but he doesn't write so clearly so I searched and found its source. Next time do include links please. People get vilified on here for plagiarism.

Personally, while I don't think the Bible mentions the act of homosexuality, certain verses have been pointed out that it might. If it implicitly was against the act, that would have been its death as people become more tolerant and unacceptable of such bigotry and narrowness.

budaatum:

I first thought Muttley posted it, but he doesn't write so clearly so I searched and found its source. Next time do include links please. People get vilified on here for plagiarism.

Personally, while I don't think the Bible mentions the act of homosexuality, certain verses have been pointed out that it might. If it implicitly was against the act, that would have been its death as people become more tolerant and unacceptable of such bigotry and narrowness.

I agree with you. I think the fundamentalists are to blame for this perception of Christianity and the bible as bigoted.

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

Man,stop spewing trash
Here are Bible verses were Homosexuality is thoroughly condemned ...

"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 vs 13
I saw how you skipped reading from verse 13 of Leviticus chapter 20 & started reading from vs 15 ...just not smart enough from you !

And here is another read...

" Thou shall not lie (have sex) with mankind ,as with WOMANKIND ; it is abomination "...
---Leviticus 18 :22
And here too,I got another read 4 you...
Roman 1:18-32....especially verse 24 & 27

With these,you're a messenger from hell trying to deceive many gullible Christians with your grammar & twist of words .....

I wonder people that takes you serious on religion section
Cc Delishpot ,these guy can twist & confuse the feeble minds against what's right & wrong in the sight of God oh...just imagine.
I really appreciate how you stood on ur convictions ......na so false prophets full everywhere .

#Tufiakwa !

budaatum:

So, how does this work? Do you get people to fill out a questionnaire, "are you gay?" Or do you only allow people with non-same gender partners into your church? Or perhaps just have a testing room in the church to check gayness? You could place women in it to test the men, and men in it to test the women.

The good thing is that most churches are learning they are not God, and that Jesus is a god of sinners. You don't need him if you already have salvation!

".....& that Jesus is the GOD of the Righteous, who have great detest for sin....nevertheless, willing to forgive mankind his/her sin if they are willing to wholeheartedly repent of it...and also you need Him more when you have repented in order for Him to guide you to the very end of the Spiritual race for eternity.."

Fixed !!

Glycolysis:

Man,stop spewing trash
Here are Bible verses were Homosexuality is thoroughly condemned ...

"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 vs 13
I saw how you skipped reading from verse 13 of Leviticus chapter 20 & started reading from vs 15 ...just not smart enough from you !

And here is another read...

" Thou shall not lie (have sex) with mankind ,as with WOMANKIND ; it is abomination "...
---Leviticus 18 :22
And here too,I got another read 4 you...
Roman 1:18-32....especially verse 24 & 27

With these,you're a messenger from hell trying to deceive many gullible Christians with your grammar & twist of words .....

I wonder people that takes you serious on religion section
Cc Delishpot ,these guy can twist & confuse the feeble minds against what's right & wrong in the sight of God oh...just imagine.
I really appreciate how you stood on ur convictions ......na so false prophets full everywhere .

#Tufiakwa !

Look brother, the children of the dark one can dedicate all the time in the world to seduce the weak. Can you see his steadfastness in converting and softening the hearts of men? Did you notice how he takes his time to write and breakdown every single word you use to condemn his evil gospel. When I see people like him, it makes me feel sorry for christians. The devil's agents can work their asses off and fully dedicate themselves to the gospel of their master while christians can not give half the time to stand for what God has shown through Christ Jesus. He is a true worker of his father.

budaatum:
I have no recollection of this myself.
But if true, its commendable that you mention it.
Source please.

It is true.

Do you think, I made up that:
"Jesus was even willing to visit someone in a same sex relationship but persuaded it wasnt necessary"

The source is the bible

budaatum:
Incidentally, Fani-Kayode also had a brother, Oluwarotimi Adebiyi Wahab Fani-Kayode who was gay.

I didnt know he not only had a brother, but also didnt know the brother was gay too

budaatum:
He too died in his prime at 34 but of a heart attack while recovering from an AIDS-related illness.

Promiscuity, or maybe one night stand

budaatum:
Most people don't even know Kayode had this brother

Elder brother to Kayode,
just like Justin, was John's elder brother

budaatum:
Shows how such things are hidden under the carpet.

It's true, hidden under the carpet, unnoticed and conveniently forgotten about

The thing is, the mass exodus gradually started in around 86/87/88/89
Rotimi returned back to the UK in '83 and died in '89

Justin died in 1998, he was high profile, media covered him, as was in the news for both the right and wrong reasons
and Naija community by '98, has swelled, so easier to know about Justin than Rotimi

delishpot:
Look brother, the children of the dark one can dedicate all the time in the world to seduce the weak.
Can you see his steadfastness in converting and softening the hearts of men?
Did you notice how he takes his time to write and breakdown every single word you use to condemn his evil gospel.
When I see people like him, it makes me feel sorry for christians.
The devil's agents can work their asses off and fully dedicate themselves to the gospel of their master
while christians can not give half the time to stand for what God has shown through Christ Jesus.
He is a true worker of his father.

[img]https://s1/images/MuttAmin.gif[/img]

MuttleyLaff:
It is true.

[s]Do you think, I made up that:
"Jesus was even willing to visit someone in a same sex relationship but persuaded it wasnt necessary"

The source is the bible
[/s]
I didnt know he not only had a brother, but also didnt know the brother was gay too

Promiscuity, or maybe one night stand

Elder brother to Kayode,
just like Justin, was John's elder brother

Hidden under the carpet indeed
The mass exodus gradually started in around 86/87/88/89
Rotimi returned back to the UK in '83 and died in '89

Justin died in 1998, he was high profile and Naija community by '98 has swelled, so easier to know about Justin than Rotimi

[img]https://s1/images/MuttAmin.gif[/img]

Show us the sauce na. Why is that too hard for you to do? Bla bla bla bla bla. Show source and let every tongue stop wagging you no gree. I thought you swore you never said that Jesus enables the act? You ask for proof and I showed you. You ask for proof where Jesus condemned the act I pointed it out. Every time you ask for some proof from the bible I do show you. Common request to show me your own proof you turn am to fight claiming I want to be spoon fed. LoL the next thing you will say because Jesus ate with tax collectors he supported them or because Jesus allowed the woman caught in adultery to walk away with her life it means Jesus loves the act. Nobody said sinners should be neglected or barred from hearing the gospel. The point here is that you are saying Homosexuality is right and should NEVER be challenged. We are not arguing if homosexuals should be allowed to repent or if God wants them to become born again. Stop twisting the word of God. Just Openly reject the God of the bible and state what you believe so that we all know where you are coming from. There was a time I also felt that a God who would ask people to go kill, plunder and destroy was not worth my time. I made it clear. You can just say that and then we will see that you stand for a free world where no man shall be judged for his sexual preference and No God has a right to condemn him. I believe that the 10 commandments is supreme till date. What is not written there or implied through other way when an in depth study is made is not for me. So yeah even the 10 commandments did not mention homosexuality as a normal way of life. It did not say a man and a man can lie with each other nor a woman with a woman. It made it clear that a man ought to have a wife and vice versa when it said thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife. Not thou shalt not steal or covet thy neighbor's sex partner. It stated it that men have wives which means wives had husbands. So please give me your source where Jesus said Homosexual life is right and allowed. Using the fact that the lifestyle has been around since time immemorial in almost every society is not proof enough that jesus supports it like you claim. If Fani kayode's whole ancestors are gay..... It doesn't make it right even from our ATR point of view and it sure doesn't mean that it is acceptable by God. We can say same about prostitution, Adultery, Murder for whatever reason, Cheating merchants using false weights, Gossips and the list goes on and on. Do we also say they are fair game because they have been here since time immemorial?

delishpot:
Show us the sauce na.
Why is that too hard for you to do? Bla bla bla bla bla.

Is that the best Jerry Maguire you can do

delishpot:
Show source and let every tongue stop wagging you no gree.

My momma used to say:
"Won nkin la obe gbigbona"
Loosely translated means
"One doesnt slurp up hot sauce and soup"

delishpot:
I thought you swore you never said that Jesus enables the act?

#1/ I never swore about anything
#2/ I have never anywhere said: "Jesus enabled the act"
#3/ You need to get your facts right about me,
get your facts right about how I posted
and get your facts right about what my post replied to, sister

delishpot:
You ask for proof and I showed you.
You ask for proof where Jesus condemned the act I pointed it out.

You must have dreamt you did

delishpot:
Every time you ask for some proof from the bible I do show you.
Common request to show me your own proof you turn am to fight claiming I want to be spoon fed

You really like stroking you ego

delishpot:
LoL the next thing you will say because Jesus ate with tax collectors he supported them

Are you now saying Jesus doesnt support them and is so against tax collectors then?

delishpot:
or because Jesus allowed the woman caught in adultery to walk away with her life it means Jesus loves the act.

You dont see the wood for the trees in that GOJ narrative

Since you've brought in "... love the act..." Let me ask you a question:
Has God at any particular time, taking cue from you, ever "love" the incest act?

MuttleyLaff:
Is that the best Jerry Maguire you can do

My momma used to say:
"Won nkin la obe gbigbona"
Loosely translated means
"One doesnt slurp up hot sauce and soup"

#1/ I never swore about anything
#2/ I have never anywhere said: "Jesus enabled the act"
#3/ You need to get your facts right about me,
get your facts right about how I posted
and get your facts right about what my post replied to, sister

You must have dreamt you did

You really like stroking you ego

Are you now saying Jesus doesnt support them and is so against tax collectors then?

You dont see the wood for the trees in that GOJ narrative

Since you've brought in "... love the act..." Let me ask you a question:
Has God at any particular time, taking cue from you, ever "love" the incest act?

Yinmu. Answer my simple question and lets move on from there. Source pleaseee! You think say I be ewu wey go dey answer your question while you use more questions to avoid mine ba? Kick ball go left kick ball go right. wetin concern me with your mama? Where did you see anything that can be qualified as hot soup? When has sharing the truth you know from the bible become qualified as hot soup? SOURCE aka proof from the bible where Jesus said Homosexuality is acceptable to God or keep kwayiet and continue with those who were enjoying your dark gospel. I don't need your long write ups and deflections from the truth. Your lips are filled with lies. You claim we did not discus bible passages where homosexuality is considered wrong? I did not post a screenshot of you saying I will be surprised jesus enabled Homosexuality? Keep deceiving yourself. Please, leave me out of your demonic talk. I am not interested in dialogues with your point or view. I stand firm on mine.

delishpot:
Yinmu. Answer my simple question and lets move on from there.
Source pleaseee!
You think say I be ewu wey go dey answer your question while you use more questions to avoid mine ba?
Kick ball go left kick ball go right. wetin concern me with your mama?
Where did you see anything that can be qualified as hot soup?
When has sharing the truth you know from the bible become qualified as hot soup?

It is agonizingly slow paced for you to catch up and in due time have all information that you need know about whole matter
At the moment, you cant handle the truth

delishpot:
SOURCE aka proof from the bible where Jesus said Homosexuality is acceptable to God
or keep kwayiet and continue with those who were enjoying your dark gospel.
I don't need your long write ups and deflections from the truth.
Your lips are filled with lies.
You claim we did not discus bible passages where homosexuality is considered wrong?
I did not post a screenshot of you saying I will be surprised jesus enabled Homosexuality?

You are continually just showing yourself up

In the screenshot you uploaded, where in it, is where, I've been alleged to say:
"I (i.e. meaning you, delishpot) will be surprised Jesus enabled Homosexuality"
Did I say or use "enabled" at all?
What do you know or think, was the context of, what I wrote?

You see how you've misunderstood my reply and misrepresented my response to your post

delishpot:
Keep deceiving yourself.
Please, leave me out of your demonic talk.
I am not interested in dialogues with your point or view.
I stand firm on mine.

Better you be on firm ground, if you're going to accuse me of something
You're standing on a table will uneven and wobbly legs

MuttleyLaff:
It is agonizingly slow paced for you to catch up and in due time have all information that you need know about whole matter
At the moment, you cant handle the truth

You are continually just showing yourself up

In the screenshot you uploaded, where in it, is where, I've been alleged to say:
"I (i.e. meaning you, delishpot) will be surprised Jesus enabled Homosexuality"
Did I say or use "enabled" at all?
What do you know or think, was the context of, what I wrote?

You see how you've misunderstood my reply and misrepresented my response to your post

Better you be on firm ground, if you're going to accuse me of something
You're standing on a table will uneven and wobbly legs

Too much bla bla bla...... Show me a bible passage where Jesus okays Homosexuality or get off my back. Your doctrine is evil until you show me proof and source of your proof.

delishpot:
Too much bla bla bla......

Are you talking to me?

delishpot:
Show me a bible passage where Jesus okays Homosexuality
or get off my back.

"the next thing you will say because Jesus ate with tax collectors he supported them"
- delishpot ©

So you can distort it, quote me out of context
and come up with something like the inverted commas above you came up with. Hmm?

delishpot:
Your doctrine is evil
until you show me proof and source of your proof.

Fascinating

MuttleyLaff:
Are you talking to me?

"the next thing you will say because Jesus ate with tax collectors he supported them"
- delishpot ©

So you can distort it, quote me out of context
and come up with something like the inverted commas above you came up with. Hmm?


Fascinating

Quit your evasion of truth. Show me proof or remain silent. Go continue brainwashing your followers. I am not a candidate for your lecture. All you have succeeded in doing since I started chatting with you is to whine about my choice of language. If at first I said "bought" and later I interchange with the word "purchase" you start crying foul. point out a bible passage where homosexuality is accepted, get behind me. I will not engage in this topic again unless you do as I have requested then we can analyze whatever proof or fact you have presented from the bible and discuss more.

Accidental post discharge

delishpot:
Quit your evasion of truth. Show me proof or remain silent.
Go continue brainwashing your followers.
I am not a candidate for your lecture.
All you have succeeded in doing since I started chatting with you is to whine about my choice of language. If at first I said "bought" and later I interchange with the word "purchase" you start crying foul.

The least I expect from you, is if at all, you want to interchange my word, interchange and use it, in the same context I used the original word.
Is that not fair asking?
Is it too much to ask?

What you don't know is,
what exactly, was THE abomination to God, that the people inhabiting Canaan and it's surrounds were practising before the Israelites arrived

delishpot:
point out a bible passage where homosexuality is accepted

I have said it before and will repeat it here again,
your two star scriptures, that you've learned are talking of men lying down with men, like as if lying down with women,
IS NOT talking of same sex relationships that is committed, faithful, honest and long life lasting.

You will find the corroborated verse in Deuteronomy.

Those two scriptures in OT and the other two by Paul in NT, are talking of the same thing you are ill-informed about.
The two in OT and the two in NT are similar and so why they're related

delishpot:
get behind me.

Get behind you, to do what. Kikiki ki.
Not that I am predijuced, only that, it isn't natural to me.
I pass.

delishpot:
I will not engage in this topic again unless you do as I have requested then we can analyze whatever proof or fact you have presented from the bible and discuss more

Like as if I care more or less, if you engage, or not engage, again, in the thread.
You haven't the stamina to discuss.

Be careful, what you wish for sister.
You go wound ooo, as I will pound you left right and centre, top, bottom and under

You'll come out and fall apart, like a cheap suit, that has its loose thread yanked and pulled.

MuttleyLaff:
The least I expect from you, is if at all, you want to interchange my word, interchange and use it, in the same context I used the original word.
Is that not fair asking?
Is it too much to ask?

What you don't know is, what exactly, was THE abomination to God, that the people inhabiting Canaan and it's surrounds were practising before the Israelites arrived

I have said it before and will repeat it here again, your two star scriptures, that you've learned are talking of men lying down with men, like as if lying down with women, IS NOT talking of same sex relationships that is committed, faithful, honest and long life lasting.

You will find the corroborated verse in Deuteronomy.

Those two scriptures in OT and the other two by Paul in NT, are talking of the same thing you are ill-informed about. The two in OT and the two in NT are similar and so why they're related

Get behind you, to do what. Kikiki ki.
Not that I am predijuced, only that, it isn't natural to me.
I pass.

Like as if I care more or less, if you engage, or not engage, again, in the thread.
You haven't the stamina to discuss.

Be careful, what you wish for sister.
You go wound ooo, as I will pound you left right and centre, top, bottom and under

You'll come out and fall apart, like a cheap suit, that has its loose thread yanked and pulled.

delishpot:

Kilari, you have nothing to say about the emboldened?

Whats the matter?
Are you, again, reading too much into my words?
Or cat got your tongue?

MuttleyLaff:
Kilari, you have nothing to say about the emboldened?

Whats the matter?
Are you, again, reading too much into my words?
Or cat got your tongue?

delishpot:

Ignorance on the subject of being gay humbles

I know sister, I understand the mouth shut.
I know the score, that it's better to keep sealed lips and be thought ignorant than to open them and remove all doubt.

MuttleyLaff:
Ignorance on the subject of being gay humbles

I know sister, I understand the mouth shut.
I know the score, that it's better to keep sealed lips and be thought ignorant than to open them and remove all doubt.

delishpot:

You're predictable.
Oya, another one

Change the record luv! The needle is stuck!

MuttleyLaff:
You're predictable.
Oya, another one

Change the record luv! The needle is stuck!