₦airaland Forum

blueAgent:
No.1 Mary had Sin and was never sinless

2. what ever righteousnesses or Holiness a man has is like a rag before God's Holiness not excluding Mary's on Holiness.
No matter how many bible verses you bring know that Mary had Sin.

Isaiah 6, 7.
-- "All our righteousnesses are
as filthy rags, and we all do fade as a leaf, and
our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us
away."

In Luke 1:46-47, Mary said: “My soul doth
magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced
in God my Saviour." Mary knew that she
needed a savior.


Romans 3:23 says “For all have sinned, and
come short of the glory of God." Revelation
15:4 says, “Who shall not fear thee, O Lord,
and glorify thy name? For thou only art
holy." Romans 3:10 says, “There is none
righteous, no, not one."

You are doing a strawman

LordReed:
You start something and then start crying later.
Don't be starting something you know you can't take.

Show me when and where this imagined something was started
Dont be inventing and starting rumours about things you know never happened, that will slandering

LordReed:
That you should go suck a dick, I thought it was clear enough. LoL

Why fell@tio, why would you particularly suggest it?
To what end, what purpose is it serving bringing in the X-rated word?

LordReed:
Hahahaha, I thought a picture is worth a thousand words, apparently not for you. LMFAO!

I literally took off my specs and stood up away just like as in that from the post, astounded at what you suggested.
What picture were you trying to paint and really message with that risqué remark?

LordReed:
Suck on this 8====D' ' '. LMFAO!

[img]https://s2/images/MuttleyStandLeave..gif[/img]
You always know the mark of a coward
Inferior cowards, hide behind using "8====D' ' ' ", instead of typing the actual word
Your day of reckoning will come for your vulgarity. SMH

LordReed:
LMFAO! As they say about empty barrels... LMFAO!

Truth be told. Suck it up

LordReed:
LMFAO!
Crybaby mutt,
I spanked your butt,
Now you're all hurt.
Called me a stain,
Cos I put you in pain,
Shows you're going insane.

Go and frame this

LordReed:
No wonder its always gibberish. LMAO!

No wonder you trip over your own foot.
Me and you, no dey for the same category.
O kere si number wa

LordReed:
LoL! Don't start what is only going to make you cry mutt.

You're nothing, than just a stain.
Too late, crying or laughing are the only options left and my heart already started crying ...

LordReed:
Since when did you become his spokesman?
He is capable of answering the question himself so please pocket your unsolicited intervention.

Since time immemorial.
My spokesman services are free

Originakalokalo:
Human's body is different.

Demons cannot ENTER THE PLACE WHERE THE HOLY SPIRIT RESIDE.

I say again, that Humans are yet to come to terms with the wonder that happen on the cross.

Its like saying that a demon enters Jesus while he was on earth but didn't possess him..same with Paul and Peter.

Don't tell me they are different . It is the same spirit of God in us....but of different measure .

The death of Jesus activates the spirit of God to live in humans....those that accept the sacrifice.

A demon can influence... like Jesus was tempted... he was influenced ..

The devil did not enter into him.

Entering IS NOT possession

Demon tried to influence, tried to take control, tried to possess, but failed.

Demons enter everywhere and anywhere, demons enter places of worship or fellowships

Yes, its saying that the devil entered Jesus' mind or thoughts while He was on earth but didn't possess Him... same with Paul and Peter.

Originakalokalo:
Demons may try to influence from a distance.. no matter how far the distance is...

But CANNOT. enter a child of God and possess the body..

Billion of trillions of them cannot do it... They will just amount to innumerable sets of weak spirits .

Many of us do not know what it means for the Holy Spirit to Dwell in someone.

Angels are not permitted to posses a man... or even receive worship From man.

the Devil himself and his demons are fallen angels...

Nothing has changed.. A child of God is free.

Humans are yet to come to terms with what was done on the cross of Calvary.

Do you, always, possess everywhere, you enter?

LordReed:
And you think like a mutt.

Your perception of me is a reflection of you
No matter how much you think, you'll never be the brightest tool in its box.

LordReed:
Did he thank the surgeon at all in the post?

Since when does absence of him thanking the surgeon at all in the post equate to evidence of him never or not thanking the surgeon at all?

When I went for surgeries, I always thanked the surgeons, in addition to praising God for remaining alive after etcetera.
It's called good manners and I know MarkMiwerds has plenty of them.

Ihedinobi3:
Hello friend.

Good to still see you out and about.

Hi, my brother from my other mother

Ihedinobi3:
I don't know if your are referring to it,
but the part I put in italics in your comment reminds me of Satan entering Judas.
If you were, that event was only possible because Judas Iscariot was not a believer when it happened.
In fact, he was never a believer at all.

So, Satan can never enter into a believer for any reason.
It is impossible. Before such a thing could happen, the believer must apostatise first.

The devil entered Judas and possessed him
and Judas influenced and/or controlled by the devil is the evidence he was possessed

The devil entering a believer, doesnt mean the devil enters, to possess the believer
I've entered so many properties, that I never bought or took over
I've entered so many cars, that I didnt end up possessing or owning

The fact is, the devil has a free pass to travel or wander about anywhere the devil fancies
So means, the devil can enter into a believer, for a lot and many reasons.

The question is, would Satan be able to make home, on any or each visit(s)
The thing is, when the devil enters a believer, it expectedly should rapidly vamoose, on sight of the strong man

The devil likes to talk, and so, enters into dialogue with all and sundry
Remember the devil with Eve in the garden, remember the devil with Jesus in the wilderness
Remember the devil with Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira
So reiterating, though a believer cannot be possessed by the devil,
it does not mean the devil cannot enter a believer.
The devil will enter into dialogue with believers.

LordReed:
I think you should thank the surgeon rather than god.

You think like the being you want to become
Why couldnt you think he thanked the surgeon, as well as praised God

lensdam:
This is a question that is causing arguement in the body of Christ if possible a Christian can be possess by the devil or not.

Your contribution is highly welcome on this thread.

Of course, ignorance, is the mother of argument

Though a believer cannot be possessed by the devil,
it doesnt mean the devil cannot enter a believer.

The devil can pay a believer a visit, not necessarily wanting to make home of the believer,
but merely out of want to do a "flying visit/courtesy call"

blueAgent:
But Mary herself never claimed to be Holy she acknownledge that she needs a Saviour.

"Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,
as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit"
- Ephesians 3:5

"Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling,
fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest."
- Hebrews 3:1

"For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy:
and if the root be holy, so are the branches."
- Romans 11:16

blueAgent:
Who made her Queen and Holy?

Ubenedictus:
heck that must be God.

Maybe you missed it in your Bible study so maybe later you can check it out.

The mother of the king in the davidic kingdom has the office of Queen mother in the Bible, from Beersheba downward... Every woman who gives birth to the davidic king is Queen mother. Not rocket science.

God prophesied and brought to manifestation that Jesus will be King in that dynasty
Luke 1
You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
his mum is automatically Queen mother. No long story there.


As for holy, that is what we call people who as full of grace, who God is with, they can't be anything but holy.

Because it is written:
“Be holy, just as I also am holy.”
- 1 Peter 1:16

blueAgent:
Other books are not valid only the bible which is God's word that is valid.

budaatum:
Well, since it seems you haven't read much, you might want to start with a simple one like Alice in Wonderland. It's available online for free, as is Orwell's 1984, which is good too. Then consider Achebe's Things Fall Apart and Adichie's Purple Hibiscus, both which I consider essential reading for Nigerians. They are fiction, but would at least make you consider that the written word is written by human beings, and that 'believing' is a choice.

"¹⁶All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
¹⁷That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
2 Timothy 3:16-17

Do these Orwell, Achebe and Adichie or even Nairaland's own OtemA, tick all the boxes in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 above?

budaatum:
For non fiction, try Swedenborg's Heaven and Hell. It's an interesting book about the author's trips to heaven and hell.
And if you can handle a book in Yoruba, try Fagunwa's Ogboju Ode Ninu Igbo Olodumare.

To be sincere though, any reading apart from religious text would most likely benefit you since it does not appear to be a thing you've done much of.

I remember reading "Ogboju Ode Ninu Igbo Irunmọlẹ" and not "Ogboju Ode Ninu Igbo Olodumare"
Baba Fagunwa never wrote any book titled "Ogboju Ode Ninu Igbo Olodumare"

This is evidence that Wikipedia is not gospel
and why it always, has to be taken with a pinch of salt

Wikipedia got wires crossed with another book titled "Igbo Olodumare" (i.e. Forest of God)

YomzzyDBlogger:
Today is Saturday and a little throwback will not hurt anybody.

Popular Nigerian Comedian Bright Okpocha aka Baskemouth goes down the memory lane as he shared this throwback photo of himself and fellow comedian Teju Babyface.

https://static.pulse.ng/img/incoming/crop5205675/570467497-chorizontal-w1200-h630/Basketmouth-Teju-Azadus-DJ-tee.jpg
Basketmouth, Azadus, Teju, ? and DJTee in 2002

jesusjnr:
YOU ARE RIGHT!

Its good, you've all of a sudden dont want to anymore, share your ignorance(s) about Paul, with others, to poison them with your twisted, pathetic and half baked understanding of Paul's letters.

Nobody is contesting with you about who is right or who isn't right.

I dont care, you manage to be cool or manage not be cool
The matter on ground is, is it right that you've decided to pin on Paul the misogyny label?

I asked you:
What statement exactly are you asking me to take back concerning Peter?

But instead of you, to repeat, word for word, what you're accusing me off, you wouldn't, you couldn't
so you go for the easy option out, to run away, like a yellow bellied, lilly livered person does, when found out, found wanting and/or caught standing on shaky grounds

jesusjnr:
As you can see the difference between me and you, if i make a mistake i own up to it even if it gives you the opportunity to gloat. Maybe that's why we are on different pages concerning Paul's many mistakes in his writing for you feel to proud to admit your mistakes. I asked you to take back what you said erroneosly concerning Peter, or if not take off my own part because you are alone on that matter, you refused to do both, so i taken it off myself. And i'm done with you as far as this matter's concerned. Peace!

You only admitted making a mistake, because you were caught and found out.

I asked you:
What statement exactly are you asking me to take back concerning Peter?

Instead of you repeating word for word what you're accusing me off, you wouldn't, you rather run away, as your lot usually does, when found out or caught standing on shaky grounds

jesusjnr:
Sorry i missed this part. So you could possibly think that someone is egoistic and yet you're going out of your way to defend someone who was clearly egoistic in a sense, from being tagged such. I'm beginning to be convinced that this your passionate defence of Paul and his sayings is purely sentimental and nothing else. For you already tried to dissuade me from going public with my criticism of Paul's sayings, yet you at the same time endorse his public criticism of Peter. Hence what i said on that occasion stands for you've proven my judgment right, or do you think what i'm talking about is intellectual, no my friend it' spiritual for unless God gives you such knowledge you won't have it. So if you like be claiming that you know so much and don't humble yourself as a little child so that God can give this knowledge which he hides from the wise and the prudent.

" know that there're different levels of spiritual understanding,
so i appreciate the fact that you not able to grasp this yet, but what i'm about here is not subject to opinions as yours for it's already past that stage"
- by jesusjnr(m): 12:31pm

I see ego and self delusion written all over the above quote extract.
I also see you make the habit of going off tangent and doing strawmans

I defend anyone, speak up for anyone and speak out at injustice and against slander at anyone or wherever I see it

jesusjnr:
Sorry i thought you insinuated that, since were're talking Paul...

I am glad you admit to your own goal.
Imagine, if you are already misunderstanding Paul, who and what am I in the scheme of things

jesusjnr:
so i'll remove Paul from the equation, but still maintain that your statement there about Peter's so not true and you can go back to my response to get my reason, for Peter broke that jinx even to the infuriation of his fellow Jews, hence i think you ought to take back that statement concerning him and give credit to whom it's due. If not just take out my part from it for i'm not with you on that.

What statement exactly are you asking me to take back concerning Peter?

Do you know who exactly the credit goes to, for Peter being persuaded even though he still refused to play ball when advanced warned in a dream not to be prejudiced?

Do you know what event made the difference?

jesusjnr:
However despite that Peter's ahead of Paul in my scale, he's not my favorite, for my favorites are John and Stephen, and the reason is because they remind more about my master Jesus than the rest!

Your prerogative

jesusjnr:
But you don't need to tell me about your own favorite for it's well obvious. But i have no apologies, for it's a matter of eternal life and death, so do not waste time trying to stop me.

Funnily enough, now that you brought up mentioning favourites, come to think of, I never thought any or saw any of them in that way.

By the way, asides matter of eternal life and death, you will make account for every word

jesusjnr:
I know that there're different levels of spiritual understanding,
so i appreciate the fact that you not able to grasp this yet, but what i'm about here is not subject to opinions as yours for it's already past that stage.

What a pitiful comment to make
You need deliverance from your ego and self delusion

jesusjnr:
Point of correction though that Paul brought the gospel to us, for that's so untrue. It seems you're one of those who's been deceived by the biblical coverage of his own experience, for the first ever converted gentile was the centurion who Jesus had sent Peter to meet for that purpose. And you also should know about John, Barnabas, Apollos, Philip etc. significant roles in that despite not getting as much coverage, it didn't mean any less. It seems sentimental to think it's okay for Paul to do it to Peter, but not for it to be done to him.

You are going off on a tangent, doing a straw man and hopelessly just being unnecessarily defensive.

Please quote where I typed that Paul brought the gospel to us and if you are unable to, which I know you cant, then retract your remark and tender apologies.

Please re-read slowly and carefully again what I wrote about Peter and socialising with gentiles etcetera and then respond to my question about what was Paul criticised Peter over

jesusjnr:
As much as i really respect Peter even much more than Paul, despite him being an unlearned man in the world sense, and that saying of his could cause me to have a rethink, not because of the destructive aspect but that this came from one who learnt from Jesus' feet, i also know that he'd also make a mistake in his judgment and words as Jesus himself showed in an instance i earlier pointed out when i distinguished the difference between Jesus and men.

JJ, I accept your right or choice in respecting Peter over Paul,
however there really isn't a need to publicly make that known.

If left to Peter, you and I will be left languishing as a bloody gentile not to be publicly associated or socialised with.

Everybody have distinctive ways of writing, have distinctive styles in writing.
You have, I have and Paul is no different.
Paul is not misogynistic, where would he have learned that from.
Certainly not from Jesus nor not from the Holy Spirit.
If needed to, I can explain all those verses Paul is wrongly accused of about his stance on women.

jesusjnr:
As I can see that you mean well and not as some others here, for i can detect these things even though we may not agree, i want you to know it's ok to disagree on some, for even Paul himself also criticized Peter, despite Peter being an apostle long before him, and appointed leader of the church by Jesus. So it's ok!

You do know why
and what specifically Paul criticised Peter about?
Don't you?

jesusjnr:
Even the pharisees thought the same about Jesus when he came and identified the imperfections in their most revered law that they wanted to even destroy him for it. So this won't be the first time when the ignorants and those who are blind to the truth would see themselves as the otherwise but view those see and know the truth as being ignorant and blind. Ignorance and blindness means different things to different folks. So enjoy yourselves with what you view as knowledge and the truth, for it's allowed!

"He (i.e. Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.
His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant
and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction"
- 2 Peter 3:16

Even when no specific moniker is mentioned, a truthful post will prick a guilty conscience, every time enough, to respond to it!

I need say no more because you're smart enough to know, that a word to the wise is sufficient

TruthHurts100:
I pity you.
When you think you're too intelligent, this is how you curse yourself. 2 Timothy 3:16,17
Go read and pray and fast for forgiveness of your madness

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers,
because you know that we who teach will be judged more severely than others."
- James 3:1

Especially when "teaching" what you dont have an idea and informed knowledge about, the koboko will more.
Truth really hurts 100%.

TruthHurts100:
LOL..... Who's spirit is speaking through you?
Even Satan comes out like the angel of Light.
If you are saying that same holy spirit God used to inspire Paul to write the Bible is wrong, then you must be very mad.

You need help.

Makes me remember, the African proverb about the hunter, the herding or hunting dog and the whistle.
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear!

Ihedinobi3:
@frank317, for courtesy's sake... I don't think I have anything further to add to our conversation.

@LordReed, also for courtesy's sake...
The issue in the first argument is this: possession of the Holy Spirit now is what makes you able to understand the Bible, not possession of the Holy Spirit before. I don't doubt that you were a true believer, not at all.
Of course I believe firmly that you believed a lot of errors including the speaking in tongues part.
Nobody has been given the true gift of speaking miraculously in foreign languages without learning them first since before the last apostle died in the first century.
As for Bible School, I have been in this Christianity thing for a long time as well and I know that many Bible Schools, seminaries and churches have a very poor understanding of the Bible where they have anything biblical at all,
so it doesn't mean that you went far enough to ever have known any of the things I talk about now.
But it does not mean that you were never a believer.
There are many true believers even today whose understanding of the Bible and the Lord Jesus is just terrible, to put it mildly.
Some are actively enemies of the Cross without even really knowing that they are. Make of that what you will.
But my argument was that you don't have the Spirit of God right now and therefore do not possess the qualification the Scriptures demand that you must have to understand them today. What was the case in the past does not count in the present.

The only thing I can see you doing is dismissing this entire argument as you have done every other that I have presented.
I don't expect you to have any actual rebuttal to it.
But if you do, I will read it, and if there is meaningful reason to, I will respond to it.

As for the rest of your responses, I have nothing more to add.
I have already gone above and beyond my intended limits for this discussion.
I never set out to convince you of anything.
I never set out to prove to you that there is sense in what I believe.
Only those who have faith can see the sense in what I believe (as you yourself have affirmed multiple times).
So, all I find myself having to do with you is explain the obvious and provide answers that you immediately find objectionable.
So there is little point.

For example, Satan is never stationed permanently in Heaven.
That he may spend more time there during the Tribulation does not mean that he has been granted rights to stay there.
The Tribulation is a special time. During that time, what is currently a Cold War between God and Satan is going to blow very hot very fast. Special conditions will exist that warrant special "concessions" and special "provisions". On the Earth side, for example, many, if not all, of the spiritual gifts that were special in the first century but which were removed from the Church will become operational again. Prophecy, for example, miracles of healing etc, maybe even true speaking in tongues, dreams and visions will all come back again. Angels will preach the Eternal Gospel. There will be supernatural phenomena occurring and visible all over the world.
This will go on for seven years until the Lord Jesus returns. If this is true, it only makes sense that Satan at that time may actually be compelled with all the other fallen angels to present themselves in Heaven for a longer period than ever before. Left to his devices after all, Satan would rather be throwing his weight around on Earth.

Now, I don't expect you to believe a thing I say. I do hope that you do but I am not saying it so that you will believe it.
I am explaining what I believe to you so that you know what it is you object to.
In other words, this is to eliminate straw man arguments that atheists are very apt to make.
You can claim expertise on the Bible all you want. I won't contest your claim.
But I have at least as much right to correct you on what the Bible says as atheists do to correct us on what atheism really is
- and you lot do it enough. As I said, what you were before has little to do with what you are able to do right now.

So, cheers. I have to stop at this point since there is no further value going forward.

Dont let anyone off that easily.
You have lot more further to add to the conversation(s) because anonymous others are following, reading and taking in
so, yes, if there is any meaningful reason to, please do respond on the thread

solite3:
your definition of unnatural is laughable
at best construct of a desperate mind trying to rewrite the bible to further a delusion.

You find the definition laughable because you want to give a definition of natural that is absolute

I have no need nor cause to rewrite the bible

solite3:
here is the true meaning of unnatural
unnatural
adjective
un·nat·u·ral | \ˌən-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl
\
Definition of unnatural
: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events 1
: not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior
: PERVERSE
: lacking ease and naturalness :
CONTRIVED
// her manner was forced and
unnatural
: inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected
// an unnatural alliance

Is it natural or unnatural, for someone to drink from a cup, using their foot?

solite3:
everyone knows the normal sexual relationship is between a man an a woman.
God created Adam and Eve and that my friend serve as the stand for normal, natural sexual relationship not homosexyslity.

Romans 1:26
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:
for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: "

Romans 1:27
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;
men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

solite3, honestly and sincerely answer this question:
Would consenting adults, in a faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and is not harmful to an object or neighbour suffer the brunt of Romans 1:27?

The more informed you are solite3, the less arrogant and aggressive you'll become
so you should just calm down, farabale, and slowly but loudly read, not just Romans 1:26-27 alone
but more and properly, read Romans 1:18-32, to get the context and full gist.

For your information, Romans 1:18-32, especially verses 24, 26 & 27 is a rehash of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
where at, Paul, is echoing what happened around when the Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 instructions were given

The same abominable practice, that was happening in Canaan then, as in during the Leviticus 18:22 & Leviticus 20:13 times,
were still around and again happening in and around Rome.

Incidentally, the Leviticus 18:22 & Leviticus 20:13 times practice, the Romans 1:24, 26 & 27 times practice,
is still in this 21st century, very much around, and as far as I know, happening in, at least, pocket areas of present day, India

As a matter of fact, again, this abomination to God, the abominable act that God in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 hates,
that continued happening in Romans 1:24-27, in this modern world, still happens in India

Ranchhoddas:
I thought you were Christian.

You thought close
Please dont take what I am about say next personal and please don't feel insulted.

I thought you were a nigger
I didn't mean to offend you, as in, no offense was intended
but just trying to make a point, with that remark,
as something about it, in relation to your thought of me being a christian, to reflect upon

Ranchhoddas:
How come you are in favour of homosexuality?

I am in favour because God is not against consenting adults, in a faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and is not harmful to an object or neighbour.

Ranchhoddas:
No problem.
I'm sure you have your reasons!

I sure do but oh, don't get me started

Ranchhoddas:
Anyway let me ask you.

The floor is yours, ask, fire away

Ranchhoddas:
Is sexual attraction to little children natural?
What about corpses, animals or even inanimate objects (objectophilia)?

These are relative questions
but I'll answer them still, before I get accused of dodging them

Sexual attraction to little children natural, corpses, animals or even inanimate objects (objectophilia) are not natural
It is not natural because none of them in what you listed, can give consent to the behaviour
I will, leave it at that, without going biblical, except you do or want to

Ranchhoddas:
I'm guessing you think they are unnatural

It's not a matter of whether I think they are unnatural or not
I clearly and without doubt, know they are unnatural

Ranchhoddas:
How are these perverse sexual attractions different from same-sex attractions?

They are different because of lack or absence of consent
It's a straightforward and simple answer, even with how you vaguely expressed "same-sex attractions"

Ranchhoddas:
What do you mean by "genuine gay couple attraction"?

Genuine gay person sexually attracted to another genuine gay person with consent

Ranchhoddas:
Is there a counterfeit "gay couple attraction"?

Yes, there is counterfeit "gay couple attraction"
Counterfeit "gay couple attraction" happens because of all sorts of different reasons.
It can be caused from being a crackhead, because of perverted religious beliefs, result of sexual business transactions, due to poverty etcetera

Out of curiosity Ranchhoddas, did you watch Menace II Society, when it hit the cinemas in 1993?

Ranchhoddas:
How can you tell the difference?

This is like asking, how can you tell, a prostitute is faking it

Ranchhoddas:
A surrogate can never be the parent of the child as a DNA test would tell you.
Carrying a child in your womb or incubation in this case does not a mother make!

I guessed right that you want to argue for the sake of argument

Remember that I wrote, but now paraphrasing:
"budaatum is not only celebrating
but is also highlighting an important proven fact that being gay doesnt mean you never can be a parent.
Surrogate or not, parent is parent"

The point I made there, was that, gay couples can have kids and so be parents, albeit via initial help of surrogate(s)
So surrogate or not, parent is parent for gay couples privileged to make use of and derive benefit from that option

Ranchhoddas:
A gay couple cannot procreate naturally because their behavior is unnatural

Genuine gay couples behaviors are natural to them.
Just became some societies and most heterosexuals look at gay couples behaviour as unnatural, doesnt mean their behaviour is unnatural
Genuine gay couples behaviour is natural to them, just as heterosexuals behaviours are natural to them too.

It is behaviour that is natural for a genuine gay person to be sexually attracted to another genuine gay person.
It will be unnatural behaviour, for me to be sexually attracted to another person of same sex or gender as me.

It becomes an unnatural behaviour, if a genuine gay person, is sexually attracted to a person of the opposite sex.
There is nothing unnatural in the behaviour of a genuine gay person sexually attracted to a person of the same sex.

Ranchhoddas there are couples who cannot procreate naturally, so therefore go for the IVF option, would you say their behaviour is unnatural?

Ranchhoddas:
Parent is not parent!

Ranchhoddas c'mon now, I hold you in high regard more than this
What before "... parent is parent" did I type?
Or you just want to argue for the sake of argument?

Ranchhoddas:
What are you celebrating if the egg came from another couple?

Not only celebrating
but also highlighting an important proven fact that being gay doesnt mean you never can be a parent.
Surrogate or not, parent is parent

Godsfavour78:
stop trying to twist the Bible to supports homosexuality

It is you bent on twisting the bible and trying to denounce consenting adults, having a faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving, lasting that's life-long and in a loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and is not harmful to a neighbour

Godsfavour78:
Whether its right or wrong is immaterial here.
God doesn't support homosexuality and you know that deep in your consciousness if you are a Christian.

From the deep recess on my heart, I know that consenting adults, having a faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and is not harmful to a neighbour, is not wrong, is not evil and is not abnormal.

Godsfavour78:
Personally I think its a form of mental disease

Well, you think and thought wrong that it is a form of mental disease.
Does Leo Varadkar have a mental disease?

Godsfavour78:
Just like paedophillia, necrophilia and zoophiles

Consenting adults, having a faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and is not harmful to an object or neighbour,
is not, in the same category as paedophillia, necrophilia and zoophiles.