MuttleyLaff:
I'll like you to give examples of:
1/ any kind of sinful desire
2/ the desire not to act out and/or not to encourage
3/ deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out

So you do accept then,
that there is no ongoing action between consenting adults in a same gender relationship that could and would be faulted
provided the union is honest, truthful, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime, faithful and meaningful?

Mariangeles:
Wickedness in high places...

sunbestie:
Let me manage this abeg.... I can't come and kill myself

MuttleyLaff:
I can tell for free, what the people, we all along, are refering to
The people, we all along, are refering to, are consenting adults in a honest, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime, faithful and meaningful same gender relationship
So now, 9inches, please, tell, in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, if at all there is any,
how consenting adults in a honest, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime, faithful
and meaningful same gender relationship could and would be committing sin

MuttleyLaff:
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:
I understand where you are coming from, but the Holy Spirit does not sow confusion. And no, Christ did not give permission to forge one's own subjective interpretation. That's the reason he made his apostles (the early Church) the custodian of his Word and additionally promised them his Holy Spirit to guide them in the light of truth. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Truth is not guaranteed outside the Church (1 Tim 3:15). That's all I'm saying.

9inches:

It was the sin of disobedience and PRIDE that separated Martin Luther from the Body of Christ, the Church.

Exactly! And Martin Luther is the reason there are now over 33,000 different denominations interpreting the bible differently whilst claiming the Holy Spirit (which we all agree does not sow confusion). The Body of Christ (the Church) is undivided. The Body of Christ is one, not 2, not 5, not 20 and definitely not 33,000.

Exactly! That's why Catholics don't leave the "average Joe Public" to interpret what "average Joe Public" thinks or feels the interpretation should mean.... The Church is authoritative custodian of the Word of God (including the bible), so you can be rest assured it remains uncorrupted until the end of time. You can't get such guarantee outside the Church.

9inches:
Actually, you are not allowed to forge your own subjective interpretation of Christianity (or the bible) in the Catholic church. The bible is not confusing to the Church; the Church compiled the bible and was the ONLY body instituted by Christ through which unadulterated Christianity can be taught and learned.

So, yes! We already have our milk bottled for hundreds of centuries; and it comes with original seal of authenticity. Why selfishly replicate and risk corruption?

9inches:
I agree with you. I think the fundamentalists are to blame for this perception of Christianity and the bible as bigoted.

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. 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?

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

budaatum:


On the assumption the phrase "we are referring to" , has a "do" at the end, since you don't "know what they do so as to say if it's sin or not", why the condemnation? And is it for the Church to judge?

By the way, this might be an old Catholic thing. They have tended to play God in the past. However, read my acknowledgement of ATFmedia's comment above.

The CoE has never had such holier than thou attitudes or godlike powers as it has always been subject to the law of the land, which currently is the Equality Act 2010 which makes it illegal to discriminate against anyone because of their:

age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or on maternity leave disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation

Effectively, if, as the op claimed, "Members [are] Being ‘forced Out’ Of Church Of England For Being Gay" (and by the way, I know it isn't true because I am a member of the CoE and would raise hell myself if I saw anything of the sort!), then they are committing a crime and would be sanctioned for it!

As an aside, that act also affected primogeniture such that the first born, regardless of gender, would be first in line to the throne of England, and also removed ancient restrictions barring Catholics becoming king or queen.

MuttleyLaff:
OK, brother, I hear you
Now let me rephrase that then
by saying please, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is the sin, that requires changing.
Please dont make dodging from answering this question turn into a habit
So, tell in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, what it is please

MuttleyLaff:
Brother, the meaning of sin in a simplistic and biblical term is, missing the mark.
Now, please, I repeat, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that requires changing.
Why are you dodging from answering this question?
Tell in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, what it is please.

MuttleyLaff:


No, dont ask me to check the meaning of sin,
as all that's asked you is that, in this context, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that requires changing.
Why are you dodging from answering this question, in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt?

MuttleyLaff:


Let's put "righteousness" for a short time, aside and latch on to " sinful ways"
We'll come back to "righteousness" later, properly and fully.
So what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that it requires changing?

MuttleyLaff:

1/ What right information exactly is this, that will force them to change?
2/ What precisely are they changing from, and what exactly are they changing into?

Senselin:
Half-caste siblings.

Wake me up when this gets to FP.

xpmode:


Why should they be allowed if they have not repented of theirs evil ways. why should they polute the congregation of the Lord. Allowing them to -come inside the church is against Biblical Principle (Act 2v41-47). If they wanted to come in the door is open, as long as they are ready to repent.

As at today, there are non LGBT who are yet to repent from their old ways, we see them causing troubles in the church

budaatum:

The Church of England's creed, which is Anglican reads as follows:
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints

The more detailed Nicene Creed, also read in the Anglican Church of England, reads as follows

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

They don't say "catholic" to "differentiate between us and the other sects" but to show the opposite, joint communion.

Every church claims to teach the version of the early Apostles. It also seems every church wants to claim their's is more godly than anyone elses.

budaatum:

They say, "History is written by the conqueror", and that is what you have, history according to the Catholic Church. They were many Churches before the Catholic Church consolidation. Wiki has some good writing on the topic.

But I was referring to those in existence now, which mostly do, as you say, "came out of the Catholic Church". Every Church claims authority from God, and subjectively interpret scripture.

One could claim there permission to do so was established by Christ. The 'Church' in his day could be said to be the High Priest and synagogue of his time, who's authority was 'given by God'. Jesus however challenged their authority by claiming his came from God too. I guess the fact that he had studied a different doctrine in Egypt had something to do with it.

bloodofthelamb:
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the SAINTS which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus(Ephe 1:1.

Dear Father thank you for your "eternal truth" which is your power unto salvation. I pray as we believe may you confirmed it in our lives. Amen!

God has made us saints through Christ. We're the saints of God through Christ Jesus. You don't need to be canonized by mortal men before you could be a saint. You don't need to die before you can become a saint.

Believers in Christ Jesus are saints. While those who have not yet believe in Him can also become saints through simple faith in Christ Jesus. Our good works cannot make us saints, neither can our puny effort do. Jesus is the author of our sainthood. In Him all humanity have a chance to become saints of God.

It is foolishness to believe that the puny declaration of men can establish someone as a saint. Say no to the doctrine of men.
Say no to the deceit and lies of the devil.

Keep believing and keep winning! Peace!

MuttleyLaff:
Teach brother.
I wonder, whether or not, self-professed catholics,
the likes of Ubenedictus, 9inches, Syncan, italo etcetera agree to the emboldened up there
and accept that believers dont need to be canonized or formally recognized as biblical saints

budaatum:

I think only a Catholic would make such a claim, as they were one of the earliest! (Are you Catholic?)

All the other churches would like to claim the same authority, but would have to explain their defiance of the Popes authority.

budaatum:

That's the reason the Pentecostals split off from the Catholics. First, they accused the Catholics of forging their own subjective interpretation but calling it God's, and then they went ahead and forged their own interpretation and called their's God's.

As to being allowed. One could argue that Christ gave permission to forge one's own subjective interpretation with his "I have not come to change the law", but going ahead to modify some laws somewhat. And, wasn't subjective interpretation a consequence of the Holy Spirit? One person's HS doesn't always say what someone else's HS says.

That however is not an excuse for muttley claiming things that don't exist or that he can't provide evidence for at all are written in the Bible!

MuttleyLaff:
I know.
Martin Luther paid the price
and it wasnt as if his interpretation of the bible was subjective, it wasnt politically motivated

Doing the classic Acts 17:11 Berean
is not because the bible is confusing to the church 9inches
but is all about examining the bible daily, to see if things are really so, as led to believe.

Yes, this is correct, that the catholic church compiled the bible as we know and most generally used
but if not for the likes of Martin Luther et al, the whole world wouldnt be personally reading the bible in their own tongue
and seeing the text with their own korokoro eyes

Good try,
but I am not going to fall for that bait.
No way Jose

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, (i.e. will send as My representative)
will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
- John 14:26

Yet when the Spirit of Truth comes, he'll guide you into all truth.
He won't speak on his own accord,
but he'll speak whatever he hears and will declare to you the things that are to come
- John 16:13

9inches, you do remember Mark 8:27-30, dont you?
Well you might have "...milk bottled for hundreds of centuries; and it comes with original seal of authenticity" sic
but it doesnt stop God asking you the famous "But what about you?" question

God will say, what about you 9inches, you have/had the milk, you've got the milk,
so where is your cheese, what of the cheese, what about your cheese you've made from the milk?

The manner Jorge Mario Bergoglio sometimes acts and/or speaks,
can only be due to being privy to certain books kept in the Vatican vault that the average Joe Public hasnt access to
I am quite sure the alleged lost "book of the Righteous/Upright" or the "book of the Just Man" is in there
(i.e. the unknown book of Jaspher mentioned in the OT)

Why not for once, objectively say what the bible says, 9inches
as it happens, I can proffer you a list relating to the thread's subject matter
instead of selfishly reproducing corrupted words or erroneous expressions, that we know are changed from their original meaning and/or state.

MuttleyLaff:
Peoples perception of the matter isnt what they 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,
just as I earlier advised 9inches to do just that
but he opted to plastering that Catholic magazine entire article here instead.

Milk cow(s) alright but make your own cheese
Dont offer bottled milk, passed on, as if yours

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.

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

MuttleyLaff:
cc 9inches

MuttleyLaff:
Same here too.

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

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

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 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?

"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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth!!!

• 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

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, 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

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

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.

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

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.

Very impressive

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

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

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.

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

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