₦airaland Forum

NaijaTechnician:
Many arguments claming to prove the existence of God have been proposed throughout the centuries.
The response to many of these arguments, however, is:
"If God created the world, what created God?"

God is an Anomaly.
Nothing created God.

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

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

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?

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]

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

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

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

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

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

9inches:
You can never go wrong with Catholic teachings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Pardon me digressing a "little" with that bit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9inches:
Big difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9inches:
They don't mean the same thing

This has been addressed above

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

Thank you for being open, honest, and direct

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

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

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

Forceful good response.

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

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

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

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

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

Very impressive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9inches:
It evolves but within certain confines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this what you've got?
SMH.

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

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

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

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

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

delishpot:
Show me in the bible.

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

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

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

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

Do you know and understand what promiscuity is?

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

delishpot:
What type of bible do you read again?

Same bible you read.
Everybody walks according to their pace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cc 9inches

Aaronsrod:
This disgusting gays

Is that relatively?

Aaronsrod:
will be tortured unceasingly in hellfire for all eternity

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

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

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

delishpot:
Keep dreaming and claiming whatever

The world needs dreamers.
I dream of a better tomorrow

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

What you know, is an illusion of know

delishpot:
Jesus NEVER encourages sin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9inches:
Although my subjective opinion matters not on this issue, I'm going to answer nonetheless.

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

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

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

9inches:
I accept same sex relationship regardless of age, consent, honesty, sustainability and loyalty of the people involved
as long as it does not involve the act of homosexuality which I condemn

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

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

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

9inches:
As per main topic, no sinner should be forced out of the Church.
Salvation is for everyone. In fact, salvation is for sinners only.
Bible Ref:
Mark 2:16-17
When the scribes who were Pharisees saw Jesus eating with these people, they asked His disciples,
“Why does He eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus told them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure--who can understand it?
Matthew 9:12
On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.
Matthew 9:13
But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Luke 5:31
Jesus answered, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.
Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."
1 Timothy 1:15
This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst.

It's not like the church isn't organic anyway
Let whoever is forcing out, hold on to the buildings then

Ubenedictus:
I haven't yet responded to your post, am about to do that.

Before responding,
bear in mind, what's at hand, isn't a perfect world order, brother
We can later and/or further talk about other matters relating, besides this fact and truth

Ubenedictus:
let me state I don't condone any type of same sex sexually active relationship...

Ubenedictus, thank you for raising your head above the parapet and of much the thank you is for your honesty.
You dont condone consenting adults faithful, committed, honest, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship having no detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another person
but do you condemn consenting adults faithful, committed, honest, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship having no detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another person?

Or you neither condone nor condemn, consenting adults faithful, committed, honest, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship having no detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another person?

Ubenedictus:
I would seriously advise against such

What such, exactly, would you strongly advise against?

Ubenedictus:
unless of course it is non sexual...

Good, to see, someone for a change, giving ground
Now, explain what and all you mean by "unless of course it is non sexual"?

Ubenedictus:
loyalty and honesty are good things
but even criminal gangs can manage such it doesn't make them right

Ah, what is right.
Now, you will tell me, criminal gangs manage to do what is right,
and do so without a detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another or other person(s), abi?

delishpot:
I don hear you.
I do not wish for what I will be scared of

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

delishpot:
I said Jesus would not support...

You'll be surprised Jesus assisted.

delishpot:
two men taking dicks in their asses

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

delishpot:
Do you think otherwise?

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

delishpot:
or have you listened to those new agers who claim that jesus was something else?

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

delishpot:
I do not accept your gods blessing.

I think you need a miracle or specsavers

delishpot:
I am set apart from you.

You're under an illusion
When all else fails, there conveniently, is always delusion.

I dont doubt you being nice chap
and I doubt you're wet behind the ears too.

The thing is, truth may sometimes hurt
but tut-tut-tut delusion, big time, harms.

delishpot:
Your blessing is more or less a curse.

All I'll say is, be careful what you wish for, brother delishpot.

delishpot:
Many call on Jesus but they are lukewarm

I pray to God that lukewarmness will not be your portion

delishpot:
and shall be spat out on the last day.

I pray to God, you wont be part of such spat out on the last day.

delishpot:
Jesus would NEVER had encouraged men who Bleep each other in the arse to continue in their sins.

SMH. On some levels, you are sooooooo green, my dear sire.

delishpot:
Even lucifer can quote the bible.

If you do really know the bible well enough, you wouldnt be caught out slipping over something so this elementary and typing the mistake

budaatum:
I don't deify it is all since it is rather limited in what it has to say.

Why would anyone deify one's conscience?
Get real man.

budaatum:
Or have you not noticed it talks with one's own voice,
and can be deceived to say what one wishes to hear?

What talks with one's own voice?
What is it that can be deceived to say what one wishes to hear bud?
Has this thing got no name?
Please, tell, what is it called, what's this thing named as or after?
If its called by many or other names, please dont hesistate to tell what they are

budaatum:
As I mentioned earlier, people never seem to rely on their morality being prewired,
which is why quite a lot of prophets, holy people, ones parents as well as one's community, expend a lot of effort teaching morals.
I am certain you would teach your kids morals too,
but now I wonder why you'd bother if it is already prewired into their dna.

"Morality, is about good and bad behaviour.
Conscience, on the other hand, is intuition,
the capacity, as it were, without being learned or taught, to instinctively know, right from wrong"
- MuttleyLaff ©

"Let me make myself clearer,
I implied that conscience is hardwired into the psyche
Morality, if you want to put it into the equation, is a product of conscience"
- MuttleyLaff ©

bud, the two above inverted commas, were pulled out from some of my earlier posts on this thread,
where I was taking the trouble highlighting the distinction between morality and conscience

Teach your children right from wrong, and when they are grown they will still do right, is what Proverbs 22:6 says
If moral were prewired, why does the bible bother advising teaching them to our kids right from when they are young?

Only you can tell or explain, how you came up with "... moral prewired into their DNA"
Misrepresenting me is not good enough for you
so you try sticking your misinterpretation on me and falsely labelling it as mine

delishpot:
Hahaha enjoy handling your insults.

It's funny isnt it, as you too laughed. Hmm? Kikiki.

delishpot:
I have said my bit and you disagreeing would change nothing

You dont read to understand,
you read to reply with knee-jerk "I have said my bit" automatic and unthinking prejudiced comments.

delishpot:
I am strongly against sin no matter if it is mutual or not.

You dont know, what sin is.
You've completely missed the mark.

delishpot:
Prostitution is also done between two consenting adults same with adultery and gambling etc
but it doesn't make it right.

Where is faithfulness, commitment, honesty, lasting that's life-long and loyalty in prostitution or adultery done between two consenting adults, without a detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another person, delishpot?

delishpot:
I don't care what you think from now till kingdom come.

SMH, I dont need nor want you to care about what, I think

delishpot:
I can smell your demonic undertone hiding as an advocate of peace.
Satan is working overtime on earth sha.

So a pupil should be satisfied to become like his teacher, and a slave like his master.
If the head of the family is called Beelzebul,
(i.e. Beelzebul is a title of Satan, which stresses he is the prince over demons (''demonic flies''))
the members of the family will be called even worse names!
- Matthew 10:25

You couldnt resist it
but I take the insult as a badge of honour, worn with pride, delishpot.
May God bless you real good. Thank you

budaatum:
I do wish everyone had this small inner voice you mention,
but that just isn't the case.

Dont tell that you dont listen to your still small voice, inner voice or voice within

budaatum:
Lots of people don't have any such voice and some people's just talks crap.

Why arent I surprised
Where God hath a temple, the Devil will have a chapel
hence a cacophony of deafening other voices just talking crap

budaatum:
But since you appear to have placed even my voice amongst the latter,
I guess I'm done here.

"Or that voice could be saying crap, like,
"get a gun, go to a high school, shoot people, they don't deserve to live".
Or, "atheist are stupid", as one persons 'still small voice' recently claimed."
- budaatum ©

I guess you're done here
because you've had this figment of imagination that your voice was placed among the above inverted commas you previously aptly typed

Daviddson:
The true Christians here on the Religion Section
have to be very careful of the potpourri of false "prophets" that are roaming about here and turning the Bible upside down.
Such are MuttleyLaff, MrPresident1, etc.

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

Daviddson:
To them, morality is subjective, leaving them having very thin differences between them and professed atheists.

Dying to know but afraid to find out.
Face your fears and doubts,
and new worlds will open to you.

Daviddson, as Jefferson would say:
there is not a truth existing which I fear...
or would wish unknown to the whole world.

delishpot:
They are not natural

What is not natural in the circumstances surrounding committed, honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?

delishpot:
They should not be encouraged. I sympathise with them.

They should not be encouraged?
Should they not be encouraged to be in committed, honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?

delishpot:
But that is not the natural order of life for humans

You could only say that, if what's at hand, is a perfect world order, brother

delishpot:
Are you gay?

What help and/or understanding would it make, to know if I am gay or not?
Suffice to say, strong people stand for themselves, but stronger people stand for others.

delishpot:
Just asking no insults intended.

You can intend insult.
It doesnt matter, as I can take and handle insult(s)

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

Ubenedictus:
I don't agree with this.
Every one is welcome to Church, the saint, the sinner and even the criminal, the repentant, the repenting and even the unrepentant.

Well said Ubenedictus

Ubenedictus:
Catholics are never to lose hope in God's power to bring the most unrepentant into grace
they are welcomed the Church

Smiling at underlined emboldened

delishpot:
There is a difference between someone who knows he is a sinner and someone who believes his lifestyle is normal and should not be challenged.
A thief, prostitute etc knows that what he or she is doing is bad.
But when they persist in their sins and say, allow us live our lives the way we want do not judge us or challenge our lifestyle;
that is a different ball game.

Read my post again,
I did not say they should not be allowed at all
I only said when they persist in their ways
they should not be accepted same with any sinner who thinks his lifestyle even though sinful should not be challenged.
Gays are known for this.

Why shouldnt consenting adults, who persist in honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship be allowed in the "church"?
Why are you opposing consenting adults, persisting in committed, honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship being in the "church"?

9inches:
You're trying to devolve the argument from it's source;

I would never dream of doing such thing

9inches:
he's not the source of moral law.

No one said he was the source of moral law.

9inches:
The question you should ask is does God "condone or condemn consenting adults honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?"

Posing question at one person at a time 9inches.
Since as for now, it's Ubenedictus, who is faced,
does he, Ubenedictus, condone or condemn consenting adults honest, lasting and loyal same sex relationship?

9inches, 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?

Ubenedictus:
this below may be Budaatum's opinion

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

Ubenedictus:
but for the Christian Church morality is not determined by society but by God,
so even if society says murder is OK, it will still be immoral... at least that is my perspective as a Catholic Christian....

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

Ubenedictus:
you are of course free to disagree

As in, free to disagree to what

Ubenedictus:
you have created a strawman,
doctrine in the context I used it refers to revealed Truth not human tradition.
I speaking of that which God has revealed about himself and about us and has been received and taught by the Church for 2000yrs

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

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

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

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

Ubenedictus:
eg Jesus is the Son of God, lived died and rose again for us, now at the father's right hand interceding etc,
God has taught man not to steal or practice homosexuality etc

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

Ubenedictus:
those are not human rules...
and by quoting the passages above it shows you are attacking a straw man of your own creation

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

Ubenedictus:
nobody has the power to change the truths God has revealed certainly not a conference of clerics as the Church of England has done

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

Ubenedictus:
tradition of men change all the time whenever they are judged unuseful

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

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