₦airaland Forum

shadeyinka:
In other words
Mark 10:6:
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Means that God made them male and female before He even created the heavens and the earth?

...like before the beginning
...or God made them before He created them


TV

bukatyne:
@TV01, Happy new year o, long time no see.

Sister B how far? Good to hear from you. How's family?

Ah! See the thread you mentioned me on


TV

shadeyinka:
Note that every other thing was created before human beings: hence "the beginning " Mark was referencing was the beginning of "MARRIAGE"/ Union of a man and woman.

The verse from Mark clearly states the "beginning of creation".


Cheers
TV

shadeyinka:
Gen 1:1-3:
1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In the beginning is a time in the past when God created the heavens and the earth. No one knows when this beginning was as a scientist, one can speculate the beginning as the time of the Big bang.


2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.

This was the state of the earth at this point. Some theologians speculate that something dreadful happened to submerge the earth (which was created from the beginning) in both water and darkness. No one is sure of what really happened: but it is assumed that the fall of Lucifer threw the world into the great darkness.

No one knows the interval of time before verse 1 and 2 of Genesis 1:



3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

This marks the beginning of the 6000 years in question. If you like , call it a recreation of the earth. Light (not the Sun) was the first creation in this sense.

Hi Shadeyinka

Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

The biblical record is clear; God brought forth the whole of creation - including mankind - in 6 days roughly 6'000 years ago. The genealogy from Adam to Christ is confirmation of that fact.


TV

EmperorHarry:
Well I cannot provide you with that evidence but I think there are evolutionist videos on YouTube that can if you care to research.

Does evidence for the change of one kind of creature into another exist? Is there - as you claimed - evidence for animals being able to undergo changes to the genome such that they become an entirely different kind of creature

EmperorHarry:
Did you really read the key areas I gave you in that link.If it is an explanation for the origin of all species would religious institutions adapt it to their creation stories? The evolutionists that use it as an explanation of the origin of life or to refute ID are the one's that are the problem.I stated this earlier on my first post on this thread. You should prolly reread the article I referred you to.

Yes I did, it did not answer my question. Please point it out if it did. This point is not about the origin of life or ID. I merely asked for the "observable, verified and evident" of macro-evolution that you asserted.

EmperorHarry:
Uhm it wasn't meant to answer your question but to enlighten you about the common mistakes people who have an objection to evolution make and even evolutionists themselves. I've always been sceptical about this theory cos of the gaps and missing links which are yet to be filled but in light of the evidence put toward it's actually plausible and in no way afffects ID except to a creationist who believes the earth is 6000 years old give or take.

I asked for enlightenment about something you specifically claimed. This was not an objection per se, nor about ID or the age of the earth. If you have no answer or would like to retract or otherwise modify your claim, please say so.

kkins25:
you see the problem with this Christian apologetics is that they know nothing outside the bible. Except for folks like muttleylaff and a very few other which im yet to see on the thread.

There has been no reference ot the bible, just a request to evidence an assertion. At this point, I can only take comfort from being on the opposite side of a doctrinal issue from you MuttleyLaff .

kkins25:
from what youve been saying since, i have to tell you to read some more on the topic. Kindly do sir. Youve got it wrong.

Another one without a clue

Evolutionist - Macro-evolution is proven, true, fact, evidenced, documented
Interlocutor - Could you please explain the mechanism for....
Evolutionist - You don't understand...you need to read more...you are ignorant...


TV

Thanks for your response, @EmperorHarry, You previously stated this...

EmperorHarry:
Evolution is closely related to, if not adaptation which is a observable and verified phenomenon in nature. So in no way should an open minded knowledge seeker dismiss evolution due to anthropocentric or supercilious mentality such an overwhelmingly evident phenomenon as a hoax.

...essentially claiming that "evolution" is "observable" and "verified", as well as having "overwhelming evidence" backing it.

You have subsequently stated this;

EmperorHarry:
You need to read extensively the concept of evolution. It's not necessarily an explanation for anything but an observation of a phenomenon that has occurred over billions of years hence it's flexibility

Repeating your description of evolution as an observable phenomenon. All I asked for was some insight and, or, evidence of the mechanism that drives this phenomenon.

Is evolution not an explanation, and claimed on this very thread as the consensus amongst creditable and reputable scientists, for the origin of all species by descent from a common ancestor?

If so, ther emust be a mechanism by which creatures acquire the new genetic information that enables them to undergo wholesale changes in morphology, such that an entirely new creature is the result.

Apologies if I may have read you incorrectly and for my clunky articulation - I'm not scientific or even technical. And thanks for the link. I did read it, but it didn't speak to my question.


Cheers
TV

EmperorHarry:
Evolution is closely related to,if not adaptation which is a observable and verified phenomenon in nature. So in no way should an open minded knowledge seeker dismiss evolution due to anthropocentric or supercilious mentality such an overwhelmingly evident phenomenon as a hoax.

Hi @EmperorHarry, @All,

Agreed that adaptation is an observable and verified phenom. Is your point that be extension "evolution" is also? Adaptation happens within the confines of already extant genetic information.

So, I visit the gym, pump some iron, as do my offspring, and theirs after them. Over generations we become more muscular. Yet we remain humans (homo muscularis ). I would see that as adaptation

For one creature, something "less evolved" than an ape say, to "evolve" into apes and humans (apes I know, but different by a degree of magnitude), requires the acquisition of new genetic material. Or more strikingly say a flightless/wingless creature, evolving into one able to fly.

Can the mechanism behind this acquistion of new material be clearly evidenced or demonstrated by experiment?


Thanks
TV

……. - kkins25, the atheist, homsexualist, blasphemer, that is MuttleyLaffs alter-ego. Or, MuttleyLaff by another name

MuttleyLaff...kissing his own arse...rightly you are called ButtleyStraff

TV

MuttleyLaff,

Let me get this right, you are only now replying to posts from quite a while ago using responses previously posted . One of the many subterfuges you employ, although by no means your worst one. And dude, liking one's own posts demeans one, please. .

You fail to produce anything new here, just the normal half-truths, tenuous associations, flagrant mis- or re-interpretations and full-bloodied butchering of scripture. You no dey shame, you no dey tire? Ah, ah!

MuttleyLaff:
"That is and was a non question shadeyinka.

It is a question you are asking, to which the answer is so clear that it's not worth asking, especially after, I have advised you shadeyinka, since you were latching on to Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, to please kindly visit the above link I pasted, and to read the bottom half for a quick "bring you" update and for getting a proper perspective of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Besides, I have in many sections, on this thread, deconstructed the myth(s) and lies perpetrated with Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.

You wouldnt have asked that question, if only, you had dutifully visited that link I volunteered,
but never mind and in order of me, not to be accused of prevaricating, the answer to your "very simple and straightforward question", very simply and straightforwardly is an obvious big fat No."
- Re: Deconstructing The Lies & Myth of Consensual Adult Homosexuality/Same Sex Union by MuttleyLaff: 8:26pm On Jun 08

Others have this irrational feelings of hostility that prevents them from asking meaningful questions, just like shadeyinka as seen above asking me that his a non question

I saw nothing inappropriate about shadeyinka's poser. However, please address any misgivings appropriately.

MuttleyLaff:
This is a thread opened because of a tireless pursuit of what is true, as in, to separate facts from fiction, to separate facts from lies, so please be my guest, as I dont mind you revisiting points over and to delve a little further, as what matters to me is truth revealed and be told.

As ever, I will certainly take the opportunity to do just that.

MuttleyLaff:
Now for the record, the case and position I made with Matthew 19:12a, is that the Jesus comment "there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb" was synonymous for and encompassed SSA person (i.e. homosexuals/lesbians) Mind you, before some trolling person starts to get ready to misquote me, I havent said, all "eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb" are homosexuals.

Now, it is fact that, Jesus, in Matthew 19:12a, stated emphatically and/or publicly, saying some are born that way from their mother's womb, as in from birth, same way as eunuch, some are born from the womb, that way with same sex attraction tendecies. Of course, because of the imperfect world we live in, eunuch(s), just as same as with same sex attraction persons (i.e. SSA person), people that are infertiles, people born with one physical defect or the other etcetera, all are as a result of the fall from grace.

Funny how you always trot out the "content is king but context is king-maker" line without ever adhering to it yourself. Hence why I ignored your attempt to get me to sign-up to your bogus charter - not that it fooled me for one moment. it's just another ruse you deploy.

That chapter was about marriage, it's high expectations and that passage specifically in response to the disciples chomping at those expectations - the implication of being unable to meet them being celibacy.

Leading up to the insight into celibacy, being hard (and a gift for the most part). Does your ideology accept that "homosexuals" can be made so by men? Does your ideology preach that some people become "homosexual/s" for the kingdom of heavens sake??

It was not a "capture-all" of imperfections resulting form the fall. In fact, the starting point was divorce, therefore the law of Moses. The Lord referenced the creational intent (Male & Female ) passage to show what was being ushered in - or rather restored - after His completed work.

Your "by extension" arguments are unsubstantiated and a pitiful attempt to read your ideology into scripture

MuttleyLaff:
What a pretense. I laughed too, at you, calling yourself a literalist.

TV01, before you set off digging into Matthew 19:12, let me quickly first ask you about what the scripture says in Leviticus 20:13, as shown as follows: "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination. They must surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Do you notice the Leviticus 20:13b part there, hmm? Have you been man enough to be literal, thrown stones yet to kill homosexuals, hmm? Oh no, your balls suddenly have shrivelled up at the prospect of you needing to be a literalist huh? Whats your excuse for having not to stone to death your homosexual neighbour, a fellow man, human being like you now, huh? I think for you, it seems like a good and right time to cherrypick parts of scripture, isnt it, hey?

OK, here is another one, why haven't you yet gouge out your eyes when you sin (i.e. Matthew 5:29) hmm? Or here is a good one, why don't you stone non-virgins (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:20-21) ehn? I bet you, most posters and their missus(es) on this thread including yourself and HRH, your madam weren't virgins. What happened to being a literalist there, ehn?

Ah, I've got more, plenty sef. Why do you wear clothing woven of two kinds of material (i.e. Leviticus 19:19) hey? Why do you eat catfish that has no fins and scales and other sea foods, like lobsters, crabs, shrimps etcetera (i.e. Leviticus 9:10) erh? Or why don't you give your other belongings, when you are sued in court (i.e. Matthew 5:40)

Cheyyyii!! You be confirmed and bonafide literalist indeed. You arent a literalist, as you dont literally follow the bible, you only follow and use the Bible, like a "far-to-see" Pharisee, to attack harmless, caring, loving, minding their own business minorities.

Indeed, I am a literalist and an inerrantist. However I know that not everything detailed in scripture is prescriptive. I don't actually harbour any ill-will towards those who practice homosex. My desire is to proclaim the truth as I understand it. Like my Father in heaven, my wish is that none should perish and all should come to repentance. What do you presume prompts my longsuffering on this thread ?

MuttleyLaff:
How I wish and pray, you read other bible texts in context, just as you've just demostrated above that you are capable of doing with Matthew 19:12

Have done, and again above.

MuttleyLaff:
Good, good, good. Another contextual reading attempt, keep it up, but the as for the "indissolubility" stance, is this applicable even in the face of adultery, domestic/marital abuse etcetera, hmm?

TV01, marriage is a shadow model, of a real thing, that means, it's of something real, as in, that's in heaven.

TV01, I bet you dont know that, marriage, as a matter of fact, is a union of the soul with God. There is no male or female in heaven, bet you've forgotten about that fact, as well.

Only death dissolves a properly entered into and consummated marital union. Happy to discuss further at a time and place of your choosing, let's not deflect from the matter at hand - as you are wont to do

MuttleyLaff:
God accepts everyone who is not harming another, who is kind and loving. Sexuality is secondary. Love is primary and supreme. It isnt about who you love, but rather, it is a great deal more about HOW you love

Repent, believe, obey - that's bible. keep trotting out your ideologically driven clichés - they don't save and could condemn. Take heed sir.

MuttleyLaff:
What is this your fixation and obsession with sex about sef gangan? Dont you know that sex is overrated ni?

Not the bout I had this morning - thank God for sexual dimophousity .

MuttleyLaff:
If you must insist on sex, then having is legitimate, binding, free from sin and pure, if, whether homosexual or heterosexual, it is between two consenting adults, that are at peace with each other, at peace with God and in truth, their intentions are good, they arent doing anyone any harm, their hearts are pure, they are faithful, caring and supportive to each other, they are in love with one another until death do them apart.

You, with an unerring singularity, refuse to touch on many points presented. The hetero/homo labelling being one. Nowhere in scripture does God parse or label sexuality in this manner. It's a social and ideological narrative which is not ground in the truth of scripture.

You will always hit a brick wall trying to sanctify and align it with male and female marriage. Consent does not sanctify physical intimacy - notice I don't refer to it as "s3x" or "intercourse", as it is not rightly described as that, it's sodomy. Peace with God is in Christ Jesus and love as you present it in nothing other than a feeling, no matter how intense or erotic.

MuttleyLaff:
TV01, the relevance to this discussion, is as I already have above advanced, some people have the tendency to have homosexual behaviour because partly due to epigenetics, meaning they are born from the womb that way, whilst on the other hand, others just adopt to be gay, they do so for paganistic ritual reasons, do so for financial reason or whatnot, case in point of the latter, will be our own and home grown, Denrele, Bobrisky etcetera

Being born that way does not make it right. The same argument is made for a number of pathologies. It is the behaviour the bible condemns, but more importantly, the gospel presents believers with a "re-birth". The old man dies and is re-born. The gospel does not preach re-packaging or refurbished the old man. .

MuttleyLaff:
TV01, you recall a true life story I shared earlier on this thread, hmm? Never mind, I'll repeat it here so that you'll get a bit of perspective on that my "some... due to epigenetics, are born from the womb that way" comment. The person, in this true life story incident, is a grown man now and is enjoying a lovingly same sex attraction relationship, supported by his mum, dad, sisters and brothers, I mean supported by the entire family, dog and all in short, but here is the most interesting part of the story and my favourite part of the story, his mum fondly recalls that, when the man was three years old, he passingly, you know like innocent kids do, that very one bright early morning day, said to her: "Mommy, when I grow up, I want to marry daddy"

How does one explain, a three year old boy coming out and saying at that age, that when he grows up, he wants to marry Daddy and not Mummy, hmm TV01? It comes from the pit of hell, right, I second-guess hearing, you say, hmm abi? Isnt it?

I have answered this - totally irresponsible parenting, child abuse and a failure of the social welfare system. A 3 year old is in no way a sexual being, so sexualising them and worse still allowing them to "self-identify" is a woeful inversion of order. Do you have children?

Data shows that of teens that identify as homosexual, up to 90% identify as "straight" by the time the reach their 20's. Are you losing your grip on reality. Is a 3 year old a sexual being or to be treated as such .

This is a clear indication and indicative of how you have erred and strayed from the truth. And, this is only the tip of the ideology you have apparently seemingly wholesale. Really concerning. It is really to pray for you, those like you and those you are potentially influencing

MuttleyLaff:
Give it a rest TV01, because you know there no scriptural backing against intimate same sex relationships. Scripture never expressly prohibits it, if it did, God wouldnt have allowed David and Jonathan's SS attraction/relationship to make it into the Bible. Now, wait for one troll to quote me, as saying they are gay or had godly homo love.

Why the attempt at a verbal sleight of hand? I have men I love. There is no romantic attraction or intimate physical relationship. We are friends or companions. What erotic intimacy between David and Jonathan occurred or is documented?

I'm a boxer, after a tough fight with a valiant protagonist, you just want to hug and congratulate them. To appreciate their efforts in the war and their bravery. Likewise soldiers have a bond that is hard to describe. Even teammates in sport. Yet you would sully that and manhood as a whole, by eroticising it and, effectively ruining it for everyone. Rightly the affection is termed "vile"

MuttleyLaff:
Clearly, there is no where in the Bible that faithful, kind, caring, loving, long term committed same sex relationships is called a sin or condemned.

It doesn't need to be. There is nothing in scripture to predicate it on. Nothing in scripture to parse ss behaviour as described above. Nothing in scripture in terms of a shadow, pattern, or a type. The very act of ss intimacy is verboten.


TV

For completeness, I am responding to part 3 of MuttleyLaffs tri-post screed ahead of possibly summarising and closing this one out.

MuttleyLaff:
PART 3 CONTINUED FROM ABOVE. I HAD TO SPLIT INTO 3 PARTS, AS WAS TOLD POST IS TOO LONG

OK, TV01, Shepherd00 and maybe openmine as well, now, the $64,000 question is, stating clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, what correctly, in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, is the committed abomination that was being done before God, hmm?
(i.e. what correctly and pato, in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, is the thing that was done, that God hates and/or detests?)

None of you guys, not even bigshot TV01, with all that his big chutzpah, ever answers those question(s)

That was the abomination of confusion, of going after "strange flesh" as it were. A depraved and detestable thing.

MuttleyLaff:
There is nothing bogus in my purview, but what is bogus, is the deception and lies you learned and strongly come to believe.

How you've given in to the false appearance(s) from the genuine and the false impression different to the true meaning of the text and words in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and/or 1 Timothy 1:10. The truth about the text and words, in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and/or 1 Timothy 1:10 have being exchanged and traded for a lie(s) that so are misleading the saints.

MuttleyLaff, you have repeatedly referred to "deceitful/misleading/mis-interpreted translations" " kindly provide the original and correct translations that Christian orthodoxy has overlooked these past 2'000 years

MuttleyLaff:
When uninformed people read their English version bible(s), I mean read it, especially without knowing certain or specific things beforehand, like about truth(s) trade and exchanged in for lies, they then for some reason, think that, what they read is how the Bible has always and originally said it. They read verses that the church is and has been using to condemn gays when the Bible really hasnt condemned and doesn't condemn gays at all in any of those seven clobber verses

Christianity does not and cannot condemn gays - Christianity does not recognise such a category of person. What Christianity recognises is ss intimate behaviour as abominable.

MuttleyLaff:
This thread will deconstruct the lies and shake the table that the discriminative myth of consensual adult homosexuality and unjust intolerance of consensual adult same sex union are standing on

I want to challenge people to fact check. With a presence of mind, reader(s) should investigate all I type, write or advance, in order to verify the facts, as I present them

We have done as requested and found your submissions, wanting. Ill considered as a result of ideological conviction, counter-factual, weasley, deceptive, wilfully twisted and chock full of falsehood.

MuttleyLaff:
As I've previously mentioned, the word "homosexuality" was not around in Biblical times and the word "homosexual" was invented in 1868

It is Karl-Maria Kertbeny, in Germany, who originally and/or previously used the word homosexual, when he coined and introduced it first, in a private letter written in 1868 to a friend, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs

Subsequently the first known appearance of the term homosexual in print appeared in an German pamphlet written by same Karl-Maria Kertbeny the following year in 1869

We know - and this was touched on earlier in the thread. Although this word was used to try and justify ss acts, needless to say, regardless of the descriptives used, physical intimacy between members of the ss is disordered and dysfunctional.

MuttleyLaff:
Another interesting to know, is that the original Greek word in the Bible (i.e. "arsenokoites'') that has now been adopted as meaning homosexual is actually a translation from the result of combining of two words "arsen" and "koites" which literally means "man and beds"

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 are the only two times, in the Bible's entire history, that the word "arsenokoites" is used and seen

It would be exciting to know, why Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, when inventing this word "arsenokoites", where in his construct, he used man, in singular and then used beds, in plural. Never mind, I'll tell you why and keep you out of misery. It had to do with Paul, talking about and/or against infidelity, promiscuity, philandering, hopping from one bed to another bed, having multiple and/or casual sexual relationships, having affair(s), screwing around etcetera

This is your intentionally false assertion, based on an intentionally false interpretation of the words used. Pauls use of the words arsenos and koites directly refers to Greek renderings of the OT prohibitions against ss intimacy in Leviticus (18;22 and 20:13 as noted).

Your pusillanimous attempt to pluralise the word "bed" and reach to claim it means "promiscuity", and promiscuity is the issue is stunning in it's audacity.

MuttleyLaff:
Man thinks he has given a witty response. SMH. At least from this your reply, there is nowhere in the Bible nor anywhere that God condemns same sex union

LEVITICUS!!!!!

MuttleyLaff:
I asked this comedian a question about context, biblical and historical context, that is, but he ignored the question and refused to address it. No problem, that is not going to stop anything. I have given 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 a mention and commented on them, so lets now start on Romans 1 too now.

As we can see, that TV01, in order to more likely obfuscate, rather than enlighten, TV01 volunteers the whole of Romans 1, as evidence, knowing fully well that Romans 1 is a book with a total of 32 verses. What a very crafty person, TV01 is behaving that way, isnt he?

Anyway, that wouldnt stop us forging on with this thread, as judging by the context of Romans 1, the evidence is there, that idolatry and with fertility gods, lust, temple sex, temple prostitution and promiscuous sex are the subject matter of the chapter. Idolatry and with fertility gods, lust, temple sex, temple prostitution and promiscuous sex matter are dealt with in that Romans 1 chapter and it really is important, to note that, all of these concerns, would be equally as sinful, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature.

Textual context cannot be divorced entirely from biblical context, so Paul with and/or in Romans 1 chapter, was in fact, talking of those going to the fertility temples of the day, to indulge in sex orgies and some engaging in ritual sex under the guise to get divine blessings and was not anywhere in that chapter criticizing consensual SS attraction and SS relationships adults or declaring them to be wrong or evil. This fact will be shocking for some, and be too much of a bitter pill, that they can not easily swallow, even if that does occurs, it will cause them indigestion like nothing they've ever had before.

Lies. First, the condemnation of ss activity only starts from around v18. Second it is a universal outcry against mankind suppressing, denying and rebelling against God, not specifically about temple prostitution or ritual sex orgies.

MuttleyLaff:
"No Israelite, whether man or woman, may become a temple prostitute."
- Deuteronomy 23:17

There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land;
the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.
- 1 Kings 14:24

Committed, faithful, honest, lasting life time same sex relationships have been there from time immemorial TV01, Shepherd00, openmine, jesusjnr etcetera, and Paul wasnt in Romans 1, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 ranting about that at all, at all.

Paul was "ranting" against all forms of ss activity/behaviour. The OT verses noted above just show that if Paul had wanted to refere to temple prostitutes, there were extant words that would have been quite suitable.

MuttleyLaff:
What Paul was ranting about in Romans 1, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 was the infidelity, promiscuity and the cult practice of having sex with patrons as a form of deity worship. This custom was rampant and happened in the Old Testament in the lands before the Israelites arrived too.

We all know Leviticus 20:13 is Leviticus 18:22 and vice versa, but not all, I mean the likes of TV01, Shepherd00, openmine, jesusjnr know or realise that, Paul actually re-echoed Leviticus 20:13 and Leviticus 18:22 with 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and know that the problem Paul was addressing with Romans 1, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 isnt and/or wasnt about same sex relationships with fidelity but it was something else entirely different to that, which has again reared its head with the Gentile

Answered above

MuttleyLaff:
There is this strong common thread going through Leviticus 20:13, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and it ties them together but it eludes the most astute. Peoples perception of this matter isnt what they think and learned it to be.

So what is happening and/or what happened in Romans 1:25-28?
Well, for your information TV01, Sheherd00, openmine, silite3 and others, Romans 1:18-32, especially verses 24, 26 & 27 is a rehash of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, like I've probably already mentioned, but with a twist

Shoot yourself in the foot. The Levitical prohibitions were universally against ss activity. If the verses in the NT echoed them, then they are also universal.

MuttleyLaff:
Paul, with Romans 1:18-32, especially verses 24, 26 & 27, is echoing what happened around when Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 were given. He then added the twist (i.e. Romans 1:26b: ... [b]for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature) which is, the women too, have joined to be participants in the ongoing "detestable customs practised". It essentially was like Deja Poo The feeling that Paul has "seen" and read this crap happen before way in the Canaan-Israelites days, but now in double force.

The remedy, the first step to realign, to shake off the lies, will be, for staters, to review 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, and look into what[/b] "malakois" and "arsenokoites" really means. I strongly advise the likes of TV01, Shepherd00, openmine, jesusjnr etcetera to do just that, instead of opting to alternatively plastering their opinions and beliefs here, as opposed the truth and real meaning of those words.

The epiphany of what the "the detestable customs that were practiced" in Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 were, will sooner or later occur, after the reviews.

It is an insufferable practice for God to bear and that's why God voiced His disapproval over the detestable custom being practised

It is the only ONE reason, that this sexual sin, that this particular sexual immorality, is condemned as committing abomination unto God
whilst other sexual sins or other 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 an abomination unto God or as one thing, God dislikes intensely

TV01, Shepherd00, openmine, jesusjnr etcetera, there are so many other places, in the bible about this satanic ritual, sex orgy and detestable custom being practised, a few case in points, like Deuteronomy 23:17 and 1 Kings 14:24, are mirror versions of Paul's 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10, where God, said, He so much, disliked intensely, the practice.

Yes. God decrees the confusion and depravity of ss behaviour abominable - standalone or as part of idolatrous temple worship

MuttleyLaff:
To those, getting very well tuned in to this frequency, there is evidence of homosexual(s), during Jesus times, building "church" for the Israelites. There is evidence of homosexual(s), during Jesus time seeking Him. There is evidence of Jesus engaging with homosexual(s) and not for a single moment minded or be bothered about that. Where is the evidence of Jesus objecting to adult consensual same sex couples having a romantic faithful caring and loving relationship until death do them apart etcetera, hmm?

Jesus actively engaged with sinners -it's why he came. And Jesus would not have recognised anyone as homosexual. Further The Lord pointed to the creational design and intent of sex between male and female within marriage.

MuttleyLaff:
What you've repeatedly done is to continually make extraordinary lies, because unlike what you, TV01, Shepherd00, openmine, jesusjnr etcetera believe, God never said homosexuality and/or homosexuals per se, was or is an abomination. Shepherd00 had been regurgitating and parrotting this belief, almost all over this thread, living up to the saying, that when the cat is not about, the mouse takes it upon itself to have fun and a field day

Oh yes He did. Directly - Leviticus etc. And indirectly - The Lord pointing to the male/female & marriage archetypes, and via Apostles, including Paul, Peter & Jude.

MuttleyLaff:
People like TV01, Shepherd00, openmine, jesusjnr etcetera have being parrying, dodging, sidestepping questions and/or give asked questions, a wide berth. None of them seems able nor capable to respond. They each and all act, in an evasive ways, when explicitly and clearly, asked, easy, simple, sensible, straightforward and direct pointed questions, like about,
1/ Why did God say "homosexuality" is an abomination?
2/ What is the reason why God found allegely "homosexuality" detestable?
3/ What is detestable about adult consensual same sex couples having a romantic faithful caring and loving relationship until death do them apart etcetera?

All responded to - repeatedly.

MuttleyLaff:
All and each questions of the three above questions should have been given outright answers, which could be: respond with details, respond with yes, no or I dont know, but what do we see, read or get as responses? Nada, nothing or at worst just proof-texting and doing gra-gra upadan the forum like TV01 and Shepherd00 do. They dont know it is the same historical reason, background and circumstances why God in Leviticus 19:28, was against tatooing, but like in a classic and typical sheeple style and way, hook line and sinker, just believe that, tatooing per se, is a sin. SMH.

Posters like TV01, Shepherd00, openmine, jesusjnr etcetera like dropping words, like "perversion" and/or "abomination" to sound big, but asking them why and how "homosexuality" is wicked, is an abomination, is perversion, becomes inexplicably for them to do or answer

They fancifully just drop and use the word "abomination", like as if they're well informed to know the context of how the word originally was used, when in actual fact dont u,nderstand and know.

Well, this thread is already long as it is, so that is why, I have just ordinarily pasted and left the above screenshot there, just for TV01, Shepherd00, openmine, jesusjnr etcetera, to stare at and be scratching their heads at too. Anyone interested in wanting to know more on it, should just holler, because even if you know a thousand things, the right is, to ask the man who knows, the one thing you don't know about

There is a lot more in this tank, I still havent scratched the surface, I havent delved into this thing and matter properly at all, all because Shepherd00 finds long posts to be dizzying. Besides, the portal had alreadt auto warned me that this post is too long, thus making me adjust and reduce it. Posters like Ranchhoddas, God bless him, for snapping at me with his interjecting caustic and irritable comments, that just humbles me. "Ni ile aiye, ka sha ma shey daada" loosely translated means "lets just be doing and saying good in this world we are living in" Though I still love you Ranchhoddas, I should be taking back that earlier given "oti sewọn" chilled cold bottle of orijin and a truckload of kolanuts.

My hands are tied for now to continue and go on. I will return whatever serve TV01, Shepherd00, openmine, etcetera brings and possibly might even up the ante a bit. You know maybe, go into the deep end, to increase what is at stake or widen the scope under discussion. So if you dont know how to swim or dont have a life-jacket, just stay on the thread, only be reading and not comment or contribute like sensible jesusjnr, solite3 and others like him do.

Watch some people, like TV01 and Shepherd00, in particular, are just a glutton for punishment,
so look out for them, as they gung-ho come back, and get punished more for their gluttony
cc Goshen360, elated177, Image123, jesusjnr, luvmijeje, budaatum, Ranchhoddas, ThothHermes, VBCampaign, Michellekabod2, Baddiezz, Agrogbeide, TV01, Shepherd00, kkins25, fykes, EmperorHarry, Heathen777, Ubenedictus, FOLYKAZE, Paraltero, alBHAGDADI, Maestro21, shadeyinka, HappyPagan, ujnwachukwu, openmine, solite3

It's over MuttleyLaff - quit while you are behind, lest you end up in the behind


TV

...ButtleyStraff right now


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIgJQaiOt4s


TV

One feels like he is cleaning out the Augean stables here - a mile high pile of homosexualist excrement. Below is a response to post 2 of MuttleyLaffs fantasy delusion posted earlier .

MuttleyLaff:
1/ From time immemorial, same sex attraction and/or same sex relationship always make up, less than 5% of worldwide population, so has never being and wont ever be a threat to anything or anyone, just as infertiles of all sorts arent.

A pointless and scripturally unattested assertion, and questionable piece of information. A believer should have zero tolerance towards sin which is "...reproach to a nation". Specifically the type which defiles a person and pollutes the land, potentially leading to a "vomiting"...judgement!

MuttleyLaff:
2/ God never said he hated homosexual(s) or homosexual acts per se, so please if you believed this, stop lying to yourself and stop deceiving others with your crass ignorance.

The abominable nature of ss intimacy is repeated throughout the bible. OT, NT. Clearly enunciated within in the biblical narrative. Scripture repeatedly referenced and exegeted here.

MuttleyLaff:
3/ If you are adamant, then show me in the Bible where God outrightly said he hates homosexuality, homosexual or homosexual acts per se and be prepared to clearly, cleanly and correctly defend it

Per 2 above. Meanwhile, feel free to show the board where God said he loves "homosexuality or homosexual acts. For bonus points, please show us where God confirms the distinction between, yet equivalence of, "heterosexual" and "homosexual" relationships, and/or how the He instituted the marriage institution for both opposite and same sex couples. For yet more reward points, please show us how ss couples cleave to one another .

MuttleyLaff:
4/ The words, homosexuality and homosexual are not in the original texts of the Bible
In fact, the words homosexuality and/or homosexual, actually are words that's barely 200 years old.
The word "homosexual" was invented in 1868, and the word "homosexuality" certainly was not around in Biblical times
Another fact, is that, the word "homosexual" was first printed in a German book in 1869, and then after placed in the German Bible in 1946 and later then in the English bible in 1950s.

Something I pointed out on this thread earlier. Whatever the rendering of the words used to describe the acts, the acts themselves are clearly condemned .

MuttleyLaff:
5/ God has never had any objection to the homosexuality act of my purview

Learned friend, please demonstrate it, kindly evidence it from scripture. Scholarly nwanne, assertions, no matter how strenuous or repeated, are not evidence .

MuttleyLaff:
6/ It is glaring, except if in denial, what the meaning of Paul's "malakois" and "arsenokoites" used in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 translated to "homosexual" ( or homosexual acts in 1946 and 1950s are

On the contrary, the use of these words by Paul attest to a blanket condemnation of any form of homosexual activity. And relatining it to the prohibitions on Leviticus - which were themselves universal - and unambiguously so - makes the case all the more.

MuttleyLaff:
7/ If you know, you know, that there is no sin grading. No sin, except for the one against the Holy Spirit, is bigger than any other sin. If you're sinful, you are a sinner. Period and that's all, even if the occassional lies, white lies and all too. So even, if same sex attraction were to a be a sin, thank God it isnt, then stop being like a lot of inexcusable people on this thread, looking and pointing at the speck, in a brother's eye, but failing to notice, the beam log in their own hollier than thou eye.

Sin grading is not the point of this discussion and merely a ruse by you - and a clear flaw in your argument. No one argues that lies are acceptable to God, which is what you assert with regards to ss acts.

MuttleyLaff:
8/ Greed, covetousness, and lust are improper homosexual 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

God did not create heterosexual or homosexual categories of person. God created humans sexed male & female, and with a complimentary sexual function. "Homosexual" is merely a social euphemism for dysfunction, and "heterosexual" is an attempt to present that dysfunction as a natural/normal option. That is the deceitful narrative presented by the world. The scriptures - the word of our Creator - clearly states otherwise.

MuttleyLaff:
9/ There's a lot of things when you read in the Bible you have to know what you're reading about, know the context, the history of it and the customs of the land and so you know what these words, like in #6 etcetera originally means

Cultural context and historical understanding certainly help, however, they don't advance your case in this instance.

MuttleyLaff:
10/ All the scriptures, that most Christians, whatnot or otherwise, the likes of TV01, elated177, jesusjnr, shepherd00, solite3, Goshen360, openmine, alBHAGDADI, VBCampaign, Ubenedictus, ujnwachukwu, Image123, Ranchhoddas, ThothHermes, kkins25 etcetera use to condemn consensual SS attraction and SS relationships adults, do not talk about consensual SS attraction and SS relationships adults at all.

In a very limited sense you are right here - the do not talk specifically about consensual ss acts - they are a blanket condemnation of all ss acts.

MuttleyLaff:
11/ The word sodomite, historically and originally, was never and is not another word for consensual SS attraction and SS relationships adults (i.e. not gays or homosexual). The word sodomite, from the on set, as in the Bible, is a word originally meant for a male temple prostitute(s) and never the definition of consensual adults same sex couples, that are in a kind, trusting, caring, loving, faithful, no harm done to each other or any other person and committed life long, until death do them apart relationships (i.e. gays)
so be a good idea to understand the

Sodomite 0, catamite 0, rent boy 0, whatever. The prohibition is against all acts of a ss nature. Your attempt to find cause for a certain kind fails woefully. Flat on your face buddy .

MuttleyLaff:
12/ In Paul's day there were at least, 17 words in Greek that Paul could have used to talk about gays if he wanted to say gay is sin but instead of using any of those already existing 17 Greek words, Paul invented and coined a new Greek word, "arsenokoites", it is the word I have been mentioning up above. Now for the attention of my lovely two brothers TV01 and Shepherd00, Paul in Romans 1:18-32, especially verses 24 & 27 is echoing what happened around when the pronouncement Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 were made and/or given

And the words Paul coined in Greek reflect the Hebrew words used to utterly condemn it in Leviticus..

MuttleyLaff:
13/ Bearing in mind, that, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 are the only two times, in the Bible's entire history, that the word "arsenokoites" is used and seen. Now TV01, Shepherd00, openmine and others, dont you think, it would be exciting to know, why Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11, when inventing this word "arsenokoites", that, in his construct, he used, man (i.e. arseno- or arsen-) as in, singular and then used beds, (i.e. koites), as in plural, hmm? Has the penny dropped yet, erh?
cc Goshen360, elated177, Image123, jesusjnr, luvmijeje, budaatum, Ranchhoddas, ThothHermes, VBCampaign, Michellekabod2, Baddiezz, Agrogbeide, TV01, Shepherd00, kkins25, fykes, EmperorHarry, Heathen777, Ubenedictus, FOLYKAZE, Paraltero, alBHAGDADI, Maestro21, shadeyinka, HappyPagan, ujnwachukwu, openmine, solite3

The term is clearly capturing men in the bed, something of a relflection of the Hebrew verse which states that "the marriage bed is undefiled". Here any bed shared by ss couples is abominable. It was a blanket condemnation and universal prohibition of what is an abominable, depraved, detestable and defiling act. Period.


TV

I will respond in “themes” to what is a mish-mash of assertions, half-truths and outright lies sauced with lashing of emotional appeal. It really is a steaming hot mess and almost sullies one to give it attention, but having started, I will - by His grace – see it through.

First the anecdotal cum appeal to emotion ploy;

MuttleyLaff:
I am now re-sharing the true life story incident

MuttleyLaffs emotional appeal via this scripted homily about a 3 year old identifying as “gay”, is TBH quite pathetic – and unlikely to be true. But whether it is or not, is it scripture? Do we re-base our whole scriptural understanding or moral framework, due to a sob-story?

How does a 3 year old grasp matters of sexual function/expression? The developmental pathway for sexuality has not fully kicked in, the hormones are not yet circulating, yet his family agreed with a self-diagnosed “gayness” at 3 years old. Where were social services?

Second, the “follow-on” assertion, typically following a reading of scripture

MuttleyLaff:
Like I've said in my earlier post above, i mean the one with the true life story incident of the then three year old, I repeat, that Jesus, in Matthew 19:12a, stated emphatically and/or publicly, saying some are born that way from their mother's womb, as in from birth, same way, some are born from the womb, that way with same sex attraction. Of course, because of the imperfect world we live in, eunuch(s), just as same as with same sex attraction persons (i.e. SSA person), people that are infertiles, people born with one physical defect or the other etcetera, all are as a result of the fall from grace.

Here MuttlryLaff, presents scripture relating to The Lords mentioning of Eunuchs. All well and good. Then, without breaking stride, asserts that what applies to eunuchs also applies to “gayness”. Without any evidence or an explanatory prologue .

Not only is this not attested to by scripture, as I’ve previously stated, science does not affirm this assertion. And even if science did, it would not mean it was any less a sin.

Even if SSA is natal, it does not mean it is a good thing. Most men are born with the desire to sow their seed as widely as possible, does that make the urge holy?

MuttlleyLaff is attempting to employ scripture about men not having sex to prove that scripture affirms same-sex activity. Laughable but criminally so !

Third, claim to knowing the mind of God in a way that not only blasphemes God, but upends 2 thousand years of Christian orthodoxy (and implicates The Most High for allowing SSA people to suffer all this time)

MuttleyLaff:
Like I have said in previous post(s), God, who sees and knows the end from the beginning, an Omnicompetent, all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing God, knew about SS attraction and SS relationships, so by extension, SS attraction and SS relationships are not just part of God's creational intent but are inclusive. Consensual adult SS attraction and SS relationships, by a God design are included, in the creational order.

Here ML makes an assertion not following a reference to scripture, but one to God Himself (a kind of variation of #2). Asserting - “by extension” with no evidence or scriptura back-up - that because of God’s foreknowledge, therefore it was part of God’s plan and an actual element of God’s design?

A behaviour the scripture shows as one that true believers will be delivered/washed from (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10). A behaviour the scripture describes as against nature and contrary to function (Romans 1).

In that case MuttleyLaff, you are “by extension” claiming that the institution of marriage was designed for SS couples are you not. Although scripture fails to mention, foreshadow or present a positive archetype for relationships of this kind.

If the above is true, then your notions of hetero and homo as distinct types given by God is true. Therefore, when the bible calls out sexual sins, it needn't make specific reference to homosexuality. Simply mentioning fornication and adultery would suffice.

Your logic is incohenrent, our doctrine is not joined up and your reasoning is not end-to-end. You are a campaigner, an advocate, specifically a homosexualist. Which is why your arguments parallel those used by the world - homoweb miner .

Still on Romans 1. Firstly, it is only from verse 18 that the tone turns to one of the unrighteousness and ungodliness of men. Then, the trajectory is clear.

1. God and His attributes can be clearly seen and understood – no excuses
2. Not only did men deny and rebel, they exchange His glory and truth
3. Therefore God gave them up -to uncleanness and lusts – leading to a dishonouring of their bodies
4. Leading inexorably to a exchange of the natural use of their sexual function for one that is against nature and dysfunctional (gayhomosex)!
5. That then moving to utterly erase God ffrom their consciousness leads to them being given over and filled with all unrighteousness
6. And the resulting judgement – if they don’t repent - will be on them and those who support them.

There is no mention, alignment or reference too, or with, ritual sex rites or temple prostitution. Unless of course one is given to baseless assertions. This is about the very thing verse 18 opens with – the wrath of God against “all” Ungodliness and unrighteousness – not just specific (and nowhere defined in this portion of scripture) temple or ritual sex sins.

Bonus
An abomination is something that makes a believer (ritually) unclean or defiled. Homosex or endorsing homosex will do that everytime. Either way, don't be fooled - be delivered, be washed.


TV

One of the many ideological tropes bandied around these days is “sexuality”. The most frequent pronunciations are “heterosexuality”, homosexuality and “bisexuality”.

As “rights” & “freedoms” progress and expand, we are hearing of pansexuals, asexuals, and the like. This is the worlds narrative, and it’s a huge error for believers to adopt it. Please speak as the bible speaks!

The term “homosexual” is a neologism – coined barely 2 centuries ago. And, coined specifically to give a form of legitimacy and normalcy to same-sex behaviour.

This along with the word heterosexual serve to present a false dialectic, to suggest that naturally, a person is typically one or the other. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It gets worse. As the “progressive trend arcs towards individualism and people are allowed to label themselves as they choose, to “identify” as it were, homosexual is now seen as a category of person.

Not scientifically mind, nor legally. As homosexuality cannot be proven to be biologically determined and no legal code categorises persons as “homosexual”. The word is always – where cited – qualified by the word act, or described using the term sodomy.

But let’s not stray to far from the scriptures, which after all form the basis of our understanding;

Romans 1:26 (NASB)For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

I particularly like this NASB’s rendering of these verses. Specifically it’s use of the word “function”. A number use the term “natural use”, which is fine, but I feel the word function is more apt in this case.

You see, sex is a function. Human beings – male and female – were created sexually dimorphous (and that is science). An asymmetric complimentarity that "functionally" recombines in a whole, with an outcome.

The God-given natural sexual function of males and females is rightly expressed together - with each other. Ergo, I am not a heterosexual, no one is. Just as there are no homosexuals. To call someone a homosexual or, to identify as one is basically a category error.

What I am, is a normally functioning (in sexual terms) human male. Rightfully expressing this function within the confines of marriage with a complimentary human female - just as God intended. And to His glory, there has been an outcome. Hallelujah!

Hence my use of the word “dysfunctional” to describe ss acts, which the bible also terms degrading and unnatural. So, don’t adopt the worlds narrative, don’t be seduced by what is sold by the ruler of this world.

We have the word of its Creator, why would we not hold fast? Why would we pay heed to one who would attempt to marry the 2 diametrically opposed narratives in order to sell us the wrong one?


TV

I think it’s good we do justice to this discussion and it would really enrich the conversation if others made submissions or participated by asking meaningful questions.

I also think it will help to revisit points and delve a little further. With that in mind, I’d like to revisit Matthew 19:12, which MuttleyLaff cited in an attempt to make a case for his position. Lets read it in full;

Matthew 19:12 (NKJV) - For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

Now it’s quite obvious – especially to a literalist like me – that this verse is referring to eunuchs or in a sense, men that had congenital sexual dysfunction that makes them incapable, men who had been castrated, or men who were committed to living a chaste lifestyle.

That is celibacy, be that congenital, forced or chosen. Men not having any kind of sex, let alone consensual “homosex” . This is buttressed by reference to verses 10 & 11, which are about marriage and the consequences of not marrying – celibacy!

Reading from verse 3 see’s that the whole discussion is about marriage and its indissolubility. In short it’s about marriage - between a man and a woman, or not marrying.

Sex is sanctified when it's between a man and woman in a marriage union. It is not sanctified by consent! And sex outside of these confines is illicit. Fornication and adultery first, then, other forms, homsex, paedophillia, bestiality etc. which are illicit, but even more, abominable.

It is often claimed by the homosexualist advocate that this verse is in reference to “homosexuals” or men that are not attracted to women, that is SSA men, ergo gay.

However, according to the ideology typically trotted out, one cannot be forced or choose to be gay. So MuttleyLaff (and those championing the same cause), pray tell, what reading of this verse makes it relevant to this discussion – other than if it is perverted to make the case?

You see not only is there no scriptural backing for intimate ss relationships, scripture expressly prohibits such. Further, the whole of the scriptural writ normalises the union of male and female. From beginning to end. Starting with the first marriage in Genesis, to the wedding supper of the Lamb in Revelation.



TV

Muttleylaff, you are a confirmed scoundrel and, at this point, I am finding it quite difficult to append the term “Christian” to your moniker. Your irreverent handling of the scriptures, chicanery and clunky, repetitive tone are immensely irritating to say the least.

Nevertheless, let me persist here. Firstly, your title; “Deconstructing The Lies & Myth of Consensual Adult Homosexuality/Same Sex Union” – this is in itself an absolute non-starter.

“Consensual sin” remains sin. Dressing an unbeliever in priestly garb does not make them disciple - at best a costumed actor. Like many of the so-called ministers/ministries I suspect you follow.

SS behaviour or acts are fundamentally dysfunctional. SS attraction is intrinsically disordered. That is a ruined foundation. Nothing can be built atop, despite your best efforts repeated ad nauseum.

Now, to your questions - even as you failed to give a considered refutation to the scriptures I posted, merely “flipping” them back to me as evidenced by another observer/participant;

openmine:
And with all honesty,i believe some scriptures that where presented by TV01 should have been refuted by you instantly using the same scriptures!

And also noting that you referenced only one scripture – Matthew 19:12 - woefully taken out of context and further mis-applied like deodorant instead of air-freshener

Question
1/ What's in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10?
Answer
These verses clearly outline the grievously sinful nature of homosexual acts. Romans 1 specifically referring to the acts as against nature and a hallmark of judgement against a people, as they utterly rebel against the will of God and are subsequently “given-over”. 1 Corinthians 6:9 however, shows there is true hope in the gospel and with the Love of God, the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, those caught up in this sin can be freed and washed – as for any other sinful behaviour or inclination

Question
2/ What has Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 got to do with the homosexuality in my purview, huh?
Answer
Your purview as I have noted above is an utterly bogus premise. I have stated why

Question
3/ Where is in the Bible or where does God say SS unions are condemned, hmm?
Answer
God would not have to specifically condemn SS unions anymore than he would have had to (under the law) specifically condemn a bacon sandwich shop – i.e. if pork is forbidden, an enterprise based on pork products does not need to be expressly mentioned. Duh?

Question
4/ Why specifically, are you on about, saying: "clear condemnation of the act and the pathway for repentance, forgiveness and washing from the same act that is clearly outlined in the scripture. Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10"
Answer
Beautifully responded to in question 1 above.

Bonus responses
1/ Do you agree and accept that though content is king, context is the king-maker? Dude, you are running a campaign – and most insidiously at that. Quit with the fake piety and scholarly apprehensions.

2/ Please what is your understanding of how and why homosexuality, same sex attraction and same sex union is sin? Disordered, dysfunctional, depraved’ Expressely condemned by scripture. If you haven’t got that by now, I can’t really help. Especially in the absence of a well exegeted rebuttal – see what I did there

3/ What specifically is the evil with consensual adults same sex couples, that are in a kind, trusting, caring, loving, faithful, no harm done to each other or any other person and committed life long, until death do them apart relationships? As above. Also it pollutes the land. The acts are forms or worship and a gateway for demonic activity Consent does not sanctify sin. Nor does word salad

4/ Do you have biblical verses to shore up your response to #2 above? If you do, please share, so we both can self examine them together. Done repeatedly. It's now down to you to offer a reasoned response to the scriptures provided and explicated.

5/ Do you have biblical verses to shore up your response to #3 above? If you do, please share, so we both can self examine them together. Done repeatedly. It's now down to you to offer a reasoned response to the scriptures provided and explicated.


TV

openmine:

You can as well tag the thread a MuttleyLaff VS TV01 Vocabo/lingual e-war!

I am not the most erudite, clearly lyrically deficient and the poetic stick missed me completely, but please, MuttleyLaff ke? Levels .

Shepherd00:
You are completely devoid of shame.

Abi? Utterly lacking and willing to be as underhand as it takes to sell this deceit. Disgusting . And that habit of repitition ad finitum is headache inducing. Like wading through excreta with a large splinter in your foot.

MuttleyLaff:
I think TV01 is buying time or has decided to jack it in and call it a day, knowing fully well he would be exposed and left hung to dry if he should have the courage to answer my four questions. I'll give you a notification mention, if he mans up and replies to them.

TV

MuttleyLaff:
Why are you having this false air about yourself, as well has displaying unbearable arrogance, conceit and deceit, erh? You, by each and every post are increasingly becoming an insufferable bully. If you're becoming more conceited and arrogant like this, it makes one wonder what next to expect.

You ain't seen nothing yet

MuttleyLaff:
You need to take in short deep slow breathes in, then out and calm down because I can cause you maximum damage that will deflate you overbloated ego. I easily can cause you pains, give you severe pains that you would make you grimace and you wouldnt know you winced. Please, by all means do comment, but try jumping down off your high horse and stop all this your proof-texting shenanigans, you've started all again in here, like you've been dotting all over the place elsewhere. SMH.

Fear cash you abi

MuttleyLaff:
1/ What's in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10?
2/ What has Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 got to do with the homosexuality in my purview, huh?
3/ Where is in the Bible or where does God say SS unions are condemned, hmm?
4/ Why specifically, are you on about, saying: "clear condemnation of the act and the pathway for repentance, forgiveness and washing from the same act that is clearly outlined in the scripture. Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10"

The scriptures are clear and have been universally accepted by Christian orthodoxy for 2'000+ years. Your "Just Yesterday" re-interpretation of scripture means it is incumbent upon you to clearly refute - with sound reasoning mind, not strident assertion - the former understanding and exegete a new one.

MuttleyLaff:
So that I am not falsely accused of dodging your question, I'll indulge you and provide you with some sort of scriptural reference or backing for saying: "A categorically big fat YES "

TV01, the purpose creationally envisaged for SS unions, just as it is, for infertile couples, simply, is to love and be loved back in return

This is another example of you daring to sit as if you are God, which is rich given the way you let fly with invective against me to open your post.

Muttleylaff, please show from scripture where God had infertility as part of His original creational design . As early as the OT, the promise to the Lords people of "none shall be barren" was clear. Further, all those with "closed wombs" would conceive after entreaty to The Most High.

God's created them male and female, instituted marriage and commanded them to "go forth and multiply". How did God (or your royal homosexualist who deigns to...I can't even say it ) expect the SS unions to multiply, or, have infertility as part of that design/plan.

Muttleylaff, why is there no archetype, pattern or shadow of ss unions - because it ain't there that's why? And only one blindly driven by lust or homo-mis-contextualist ideology would even dare suggest it is. Hian .

MuttleyLaff:
The scriptural reference or backing for this, in Jesus' words, please, is or can be found in Matthew 19:12a, where Jesus stated emphatically and/or publicly said some are born that way from their mother's womb, as in from birth.

Such blatant deceit - Eunuchs were as a result of the fall, not the original creation plan. And that is not a reference to SSA persons, it is physical defects in male sexual function or castration. You can lie . (ref - https://www.nairaland.com/5221576/deconstructing-lies-myth-consensual-adult/1#78979660).

MuttleyLaff:
I repeat, this is not germane because my response was a big fat YES above and not No, so what are you going on about with here now, hmm?

I envisaged some sort of monkey business will unfold and so why I suggested that the thread have an objective and open-minded poster refereeing activities on it

Knowing fully well, my purview, you still, would type and talk like that, wouldnt you, as you usually do? Look at you, doing your, again, usual strawman mining stunts, like trying to embroil me into trans doctrine,. What has trans doctrine have to do with me, when my purview, clearly is about consensual adults in SS relationships, hmm?. If you want to introduce it, then fine, but I wont go into it with you yet until I've hand the chance to get my questions in, edgeways uninterrupted by your red herring practices.

And a whinger to boot - homosexualist, homosexually

MuttleyLaff:
Listen TV01, when one thing is said, the clever person understands three but, hang on, I think, I have warned you before, to try learn to ride before jumping again, on your high horse, havent I?

Pearls don't lie on the seashore TV01. The desire for pearls, attracts and draws divers to plunge deep into the sea, and so, if one wants pearl(s), one must dive for it

Thank you for kindly giving me the green light and floor. Time is a snitch, because it soon will tell, whether or not, I truly woefully failed to articulate anything meaningful to your alleged quite basic questions you asked me.

I think you're beginning to realise what you've let yourself into, you've bitten more than you can chew, you should have stayed away, like them shepherd00 and jesusjnr. This thread is not going to be a wham bam thank you ma'am 40 seconds man sprint, but is going to be a marathon. Nobody gets off this bumpy ride car before its wheels comes off.

Ogbeni, you offer nothing. Nothing that merits time or attention. It's all bunkum. Ideologically driven balderdash.

MuttleyLaff:
1/ Do you agree and accept that though content is king, context is the king-maker?
2/ Please what is your understanding of how and why homosexuality, same sex attraction and same sex union is sin?
3/ What specifically is the evil with consensual adults same sex couples, that are in a kind, trusting, caring, loving, faithful, no harm done to each other or any other person and committed life long, until death do them apart relationships?
4/ Do you have biblical verses to shore up your response to #2 above? If you do, please share, so we both can self examine them together
5/ Do you have biblical verses to shore up your response to #3 above? If you do, please share, so we both can self examine them together.

Sebi, you desire a scriptural discussion, hmm, let's see how much, you can face up to, stomach and hold down before you start retching them up, give up, call it a day and say you've had enough hmm.

Again - The scriptures are clear and have been universally accepted by Christian orthodoxy for 2'000+ years. Your "Just Yesterday" re-interpretation of scripture means it is incumbent upon you to clearly refute - with sound reasoning mind, not strident assertion - the former understanding and exegete a new one.

Why don't you attempt a social argument for sodomy? Not that you can do so successfully, but you'd have much more traction than trying to make the case scripturally. You trip up with every statement. Every utterance leads to blasphemy, illogicality, or a hot mess - you must get your orifices confused .


TV

I asked you this;
1. The Lord Jesus referenced the creational purpose of male and female, was such a purpose creationally envisaged for SS unions? Yes or no.

And you responded as follows;

MuttleyLaff:
A categorically big fat YES

Could you provide some sort of scriptural reference or backing for this please. Especially in light of the clear condemnation of the act and the pathway for repentance, forgiveness and washing from the same act that is clearly outlined in the scripture. Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10

I again asked this
2. If no, without clear biblical writ, and with clear biblical proscription, in a Christian sense, can such relationships be considered moral or sanctified (by the qualifiers you endlessly repeat or any other way)?

And you responded as follows;

MuttleyLaff:
Not germane because my response was a big fat YES above.

Could you outline how the scripture speaks to this please

I also asked this
3. If yes, why was it nowhere modelled in scripture? What would be Gods blessing/outcome for them. Especially given how offspring & generational continuity are viewed biblically?

In the first set of questions, you responded "yes””to the first 2 questions without any reference to scripture whatsoever. The 3rd question you answered by quoting Proverbs 25.2 , but without outlining how you had “searched out” Gods “concealed” plan for LGBTQ+, which presumably is what you were referring to? Yet failing to outline this revelation/enlightened exegesis, that everyone else has missed

In the 2nd set, you merely took the “forcibly read homosex into Gods intent” script, to new heights by saying asserting this;

MuttleyLaff:
It is an incontrovertible truth that God, who sees and knows the end from the beginning, an Omnicompetent, all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing God, knew about SS attraction and SS relationships, so by extension, SS attraction and SS relationships are not just part of God's creational intent but are inclusive. Through the wisdom and design of God, the idea provides consensual SS attraction and SS relationships adults with a sense of belonging. We all agree and accept that the feeling that one belongs, is among the most important, in seeing the value in life.

Basically saying that as God knew, therefore God intended. As God knows everything, does that mean that everything is good? Marrying this with your answer to 1 above, you are implying that not only did God know, He purposely created SSA people?

The incoherence of your logic and assertions is quite painful to work through, but outdone by the totally thoughtless way you blaspheme. MuttleyLaff, before revelation came to homosexualists in the 21st century, did God create, know and intend homosexuals to suffer for 2'000 years because of the "blind orthodoxy" of the church. Is trans doctrine also Gods intent as we both agree He “knew” abut it, way before it became a thing?

MutlteyLaff, these are not considered responses and only serve to drag the discussion backwards. Feel free to ask any questions you may have, but since you have woefully failed to articulate anything meaningful to the quite basic ones I have asked, I am seeing this less as a scriptural discussion and more of an outright campaign by you in consonance with your unabashed LGBTQ+ advocacy.


TV

MuttleyLaff:
A categorically big fat YES

Not germane because my response was a big fat YES above.

I was literally just laughing my head off, when you made the comment about creational order and now you're asking a question about why same sex union was not nowhere modelled in scripture. Well TV01, the reason why same sex union isnt modelled in scripture is because the word of God is living and active. Of course TV01, you know Proverbs 25:2, that testifies to my sentence leading up to here, and it states that: "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings."

Absolutely Yes, as in, Yes, without a shadow of doubt.

It is an incontrovertible truth that God, who sees and knows the end from the beginning, an Omnicompetent, all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing God, knew about SS attraction and SS relationships, so by extension, SS attraction and SS relationships are not just part of God's creational intent but are inclusive. Through the wisdom and design of God, the idea provides consensual SS attraction and SS relationships adults with a sense of belonging. We all agree and accept that the feeling that one belongs, is among the most important, in seeing the value in life. Nobody should

Simples. God's intent for unions TV01, would be to love and be loved back. That is what God is, is what God is about, love and we that are made in the image of God, need to display strongly and openly that side of/about God TV01

TV01, it is not about who you love, but how you love. Remember that there is no male and female.

What does Romans 8:1 say TV01?
It states that:
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

TV01, how can you try to curse those whom God has not cursed, hmm?

I could be lazy, and simply dismiss this as scholarship of the most wretched kind - which in a sense it is. Or, given the level of your submissions on this forum, point out what is really going on here.

It's quite clear that you are unwaveringly committed to propagating the whole of the LGBTQ+ agenda. Why? That's not for me to speculate. But what, is quite clear.

Your niche is to force a LGBTQ+ friendly and affirming reading into the scriptures whatever it takes. Which - to close this circle - can only be attempted with the kind of warped interpretations you have attempted above.

Ordinarily I'd walk on by, but if only for the sake of those questioning, already confused by, or toeing the same line. I'll respond more fully. Later though as I have a family fun day to get back to.

In response to my questions you made only assertions, no scriptural backing, no chapter and verse evidence, nothing. Then one scripture summarily press-ganged into insinuating something that is only known - or revealed - to homosexualists.

Really? Muttleylaff, that kind of nonsense is bought only by those who hate, don't believe or don't know the scriptures.



TV

MuttleyLaff:
Somebody has to stand up for them, somebody has to be the voice for the LGBT

So Muttley, while we wait for you to drop this epistle which will upend 2'000 years of Christian orthodoxy regards homosexual acts and, by implication Gods creational plan, love and even salvation , I'd like to touch on something else.

I was intending to run the gamut from (spiritual), scriptural, scientific, legal and social arguments against homosex behaviour. However, at this point, I doubt you'll be able to come up with anything worth taking seriously by way of rejoinder on any of the headings .

I have however, noticed your fully grasping the LGBTQ+ push. Does this include full blown "trangenderism"? Do you believe a man can become a woman and vice versa? That every individual has the right to determine their own sex .

Is identity is a personal thing. Can a person be "born into or, with the wrong body". More practically - since you like dropping names - is Bruce Jenner properly addressed as Caitlyn? Is the man FKA Bruce now a woman

It will be interesting to see how fully you will own this, how deep your commitment and full your passion for the LGBTQ+ cause actually is. Is your position full blown or limited to homosex?

A debate is a debate, but at some point one has to think about wiping the dust off one's feet and washing ones hands off a matter. Somethings are better given to prayer and fasting .


TV

MuttleyLaff:
This chap, Shepherd00, could have knocked me over with a feather that he doesnt fart. OK, given that he does fart, then his fart doesnt smell at all then, it never smells, as it has a deodorized good smell to it, abi, isnt it?

Hmmm....maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Could be it does, then again it may not. Either or, I wouldn't want to speculate and, I am sure the man can speak for himself. But you sir are orally flatulent. Nay, you literally defecate from the mouth, going about crapping from thread to thread.

Unable to articulate anything meaningful, but managing to - in the most artless fashion - slap gayhomo notions on any scripture that comes to mind. Abeg, it's painful to behold - and malodourous . Please cease and desist until such time as you are able to make a submission that is revelational, edifying, a decent read, or at worst, coherent in the most basic sense. Ah, ah .

MuttleyLaff:
I can go on, but will leave the rest for my much waited response to TV01

Eeerrrrrr.... please don't think anyone is seriously expecting - and definitely not waiting around for - a response from you. More excrement yes, a response no! I am personally off to co-join my wife's natural function with mine . Holy matrimony - blessed sexual congress of the right order and in the right setting - rightfully sanctified .


TV

ThothHermes:
We expect a full rebuttal to everything he has written and not these things that can only be described as hot air

This is what they call "chest beating" in the politics section

TV01:
The usual chest-beating trumpet blowing & sabre-rattling approach. Baba oni hot air . We know your MO. Bro', bluster can only get you so far - especially in the face of facts and considered responses

Don't tell me - MuttleyLaff is active in the politics section as well

TV
^{...is now amongst the prophets}

ThothHermes:
What does the highlighted part of your post mean?

In a sense the word polluted can be used interchangeably with defiled, and may perhaps have been a better choice of word here. And, as word precision is something dear to me, I do apologise for that. However, the point is not negated, or even changed in any real sense;

Leviticus18: 24-25 Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.

Verses 24-25 above are a summary of the whole of chapter 18, which deals with various forms of sexual immorality, verse 22 being the specific about and against “homosexuality”.

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Mirrored in Leviticus 20.13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

One parameter I did not mention was “spiritually”. The scriptures, biology (science) and the law are all documented and freely available for anyone to scrutinise. How one regards or grasps notions of the spiritual can be considered personal to a large degree.

Although not as readily available, much has been written about the spiritual consequences of sodomy. How it is seen as a gateway to demonic possession and a widely practiced ritual by devil worshippers. Especially aimed at children – even babies.

Pertinent to note how many “turn gay” after being abused as children. Note the Catholic problem, or perhaps the Catholic priesthoods problem with sexual abuse. This is really – although it has never been termed as such – a “homosexual” problem.

That is what male temple prostitution was all about, along with other forms or ritual sexual perversion - it’s also a form of worship, and why it is so heinous in a spiritual sense.

Historically, homosex, was all about older men “breaking in” younger ones. Pederasty I believe is the correct term. The homo thing is primarily about sex. Look at the data for the hyper rate and brief duration of much of the homosex that goes on.

This is one of the reasons MuttleyLaff goes to great lengths to present it as about committed love between 2 consenting adults, when it is almost never about that, regardless of the “poster boy” like imagery the lobby tries to present, making SS couplings appear the same as opposite couples.

So, codifying SSM into law, as some countries have done, is to defile the land and there will be consequences. Vomiting it’s inhabitants is the usual requite for a defiled/polluted land.

Leviticus 18:25 - For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.
Leviticus 18:28 - lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Leviticus 20:22 - ‘You shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My judgments, and perform them, that the land where I am bringing you to dwell may not vomit you out.

Now, where is this killer of a response from MuttleyLaff?


TV

MuttleyLaff:
Very funny guy. Please dont let my seemingly absence lead you into a false sense of security. As I've earlier said, I've had to redo my deleted original writeup to yours, so will soon dish up and serve the new one once completely done and ready. The king's palace that got burnt, added beauty to it.

Yawn!!!

The usual chest-beating trumpet blowing & sabre-rattling approach. Baba oni hot air . We know your MO. Bro', bluster can only get you so far - especially in the face of facts and considered responses

You have nothing, nada, zilch, ó dó . There is no scriptural, biological or legal writ for homosexual practice. At best, you can attempt to make a social case for it - but even that has to done without regard to morality or social decency.

Hence the interminable repeating that sorry refrain about "mutuality and not harming". A right crock and a load of effete mewling. Shadow boxer . Gym champion. Has the trash talking nailed, but can't walk the walk. it's the walk of shame, straight to the hall of shame for you on this one.

...Male & Female created He them...go forth an multiply was the command...marriage - the cleaving of a man to a woman - was the God-given institution. Emphasised by the Lord in the NT reference to "from the beginning..." Mark 10:6

Male and female he created them. Biology shows that humans are sexually dimorphous - procreation in view. The sex act that brings together male and female in the procreative act is not an orientation or an identity - it is a function, with a natural use Romans 1:26-27

Physical intimacy is creationally ordered between male and female. Sexual congress is sanctified within marriage. SS physical attraction is dis-ordered. Pursuing physical intimacy as a result (or for any other reason) is dysfunctional. That's depravity right there.

Hence SS physical intimacy is abominable, worse than fornication or adultery. To attempt to call it good takes it to the 3rd level and to try and claim The Lords imprimateur - don't even - the 4th. Typical sexual immorality is against the body, the depravity of same-sex additionally pollutes the earth.

'Dis wan no be no be king house burn, na water tear boysquatta.

Oya, we await this work of great import


TV

VBCampaign:
MuttleyLaff it seem you found your match ^^^

My hand no dey o... Make I face my Prosperity Preachers o jare

ThothHermes:
Yes yes!!!

This is going to be fun. Muttleylaff wants to ride a dragon.
Targaryen style.

ThothHermes:
Bros I don laugh tire here. If Muttleylaff escape this one eh...

Homosexualist.

Casually blaspheming

I never hear this kind thing before

Agrogbeide:
Asin ehn...... I love their use of English especially in defending their Faith and their vast knowledge about it. This was what drew me to muttleylaff until I discovered that he was a supporter of LGBT. However I still learn from some of his posts but this time I'm very careful about it.
TV01 on the other hand is something else, a perfect match for muttleylaff. We have elaborated more on this issue of homosexuality in another thread and muttleylaff keep mentioning those against it as if they will have a rethink in a hurry.
Let's watch how this episode play on this thread.

It appears, even if only in regards to this specific subject, that MuttleyLaffs modus operandi has not been fully grasped. You see MuttleyLaff is a campaigner, an activist, it is not about the debate or the search for truth.

It's about normalising his position regards this behaviour/lifestyle. Which in Christian faith terms means seeking ways to reclassify an abominable act as sanctified/sanctifiable, otherwise acceptable to God.

Hence the "dressing-up" of the behaviour using words/terms like "life-long, committed, not-harming etc." Designed to make the secular see it as harmless and the Christian as holy, or at least not profane.

Homosexualists engage to browbeat, to smear to castigate and to vilify. Not to discuss or unpick. Hence the repeated ad-hominem, the casting of people as being "homophobic" or the attempts to transfer the asserted harm of "gay people" on to those who disagree with the lifestyle.

Note how the interpretation of the scripture by others is never right. Their understanding to basic/literal/backward/non-progressive/shallow. But there is never a stand taken to clearly exegete his own position.

Yes, the back and forth can be fun, but my purpose here is not needless repartee, but to stand by truth as I grasp it - or of course, to be otherwise enlightened!

Appreciate that you appreciate, but for me it's about Christ, about truth, about proper handling of the holy writ and perhaps pause for thought for those that may be otherwise swayed by sophistry, harassment and guilting.


Best
TV

^{...also note how MuttleyLaff tends to cut loose when he runs out of scripted rebuttals, only to re-appear at a later time, or on a differnet thread with the same greasy baloney...}

MuttleyLaff:
"1,500 animal species practice homosexuality.
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist,
with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis.
Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue"
- Medical Science News Published: Monday, 23-Oct-2006

The claim here is "practice homosexuality" - as I stated, it is a behaviour, not an ontologically different species of a non-practicing homosexual animal. And as repeatedly stressed, it is behaviour contrary to Gods creational order and design.

MuttleyLaff:
Aside the above from Medical Science News, firstly, what same sex couples engage in is not against nature, it is something that is done a lot in nature and so is considered normal. It might not be natural to us, being a heterosexual, but it is natural to them, those who are bisexual, homosexual, lesbian etcetera

Again, as I have repeatedly stated, nature is not an arbiter of what is moral - nature itself is fallen Romans 8:19-21. Further, Normal herd/dominance type behaviour in animals is not indication of a homosexual orientation Even human men rape other men as a form of dominance - it is an act, not a type of person or a creational orientation.

MuttleyLaff:
Secondly, bisexual, homosexual, lesbian etcetera, contribute in their little way their quota in Gods creational design and order

1. Please tell the board what it is that LGBTQ+ contribute. Especially in light of Gods command to "go forth and multiply"
2. Please tell us where God assigns or references them as a vital/blessed part of His creational order
3. Please show where God or The Lord Jesus Christ reference ss relationships as normal, good or acceptable .

MuttleyLaff:
The bible has never said that there is anything abnormal with same sex couples nor in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour, mutually caring for each other, mutually respecting each other, mutually contributing to the well being of society and most importantly loving each other with a love that's until death do apart.

Does anything you written here even make sense? Especially on light of the bibles clear and unambiguous damning of this kind of behaviour as sin? A pile of faeces, does not become a plate of fish and chips because you season with salt and vinegar and sauce with ketchup .

MuttleyLaff:
You have no scriptural verse, nada, that says, same sex couples, as in, two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour, mutually caring for each other, mutually respecting each other, mutually contributing to the well being of society and most importantly loving each other with a love that's until death do apart are committing sin

Keep deceiving yourself that the scriptural writ is not clear about the abominable, detestable and defiling nature of homosexual practice. Please explain how wrapping up a sin so described is changed, why the act is sanctified just because of the weasel words you wrap it in?

"Till death do part" is a particular of marriage, which God has clearly described and ascribed as a male cleaving to a female, man to woman. Yet you casually blaspheme by claiming, contrary to the holy scripture, that it is something a same sex couple can also satisfy. Man you get mind 0!

MuttleyLaff:
I dare you, pretend poke you in the eyes, to produce robust and compelling evidence of scriptural verse that says, same sex couples, as in, two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour, mutually caring for each other, mutually respecting each other, mutually contributing to the well being of society and most importantly loving each other with a love that's until death do apart are committing sin. Good luck with that request.

There can be no ss couple, when ss physical intimacy is in itself treif, verboten. And please don't go down the no physical intimacy route, as that just plays out as companionship. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6.. Various accounts - including Sodom & Gommorah in the bible. The whole bias of scripture is against this detestable act and the damnable heresy you peddle

MuttleyLaff:
Please stop all this proof-texting shenanigan

As opposed to your wholesale butchering or outright revision of scripture .

MuttleyLaff:
Why are you calling or referring to me as a "homosexualist", huh?

'Cos that's what you are. I use the word homosexual/ist, to be polite. You take pleasure (NKJV) or approve (KJV) of those who practice such acts, therefore you are named along with them.

MuttleyLaff:
You guys need to try learning to ride before jumping on your high horses sha. People like you, who is careless with the truth in small matters , like this, cannot be trusted with important matters. Look at how your writings are full of making the Bible say things it never said, didnt say and doesnt say and/or mean. You refuse to acknowledge and admit the historical context of the Bible verses you use to weaponise same sex couples with.

Where does the bible say this ==>>

two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour, mutually caring for each other, mutually respecting each other, mutually contributing to the well being of society and most importantly loving each other with a love that's until death do apart

MuttleyLaff:
You lot are defeated warriors who go to war first and then seek to win. If you, personally, properly and literately read the bible, you would see the lies perpetrated about what really was and is abominable.

Same sex physical activity is abominable, detestable, defiling and dysfunctional. It is evidence of divine judgement, of God giving men over to their reprobate ways, to their utter rejection and rebellion against him - and in to this strolls Muttleylaff, attempting to sanctify the offscouring and make holy the profane. Carry go, on your head be it.

MuttleyLaff:
The difference between you, others, the likes of jesusjnr, elated177, Agrogbeide, Alexandro15, etcetera and me, is that I not only mounted the beast, rode and tamed it, but I slayed it too, then after that, dissected it, to find what it's been feeding on.

The beast is your fixation with calling good what God calls abominable. Better dismount.


TV

MuttleyLaff:
Meanwhile LGBTQ people, as we speak, are still being discriminated against, bullied, beaten up, shamed, abandoned, imprisoned, rejected and fear for their lives.

cc jesusjnr, elated177, Agrogbeide, Alexandro15, Baddiezz, TV01

Ogbeni, there is no such thing as a "homosexual" person (LGBTQ+ people). There are people who due to dysfunction or moral reprobation suffer dysphoria or engage in sexual acts that are against nature or, more properly, against Gods creational design and order.

These people, and those who "have pleasure in them" (i.e. support, encourage or enforce) are actively engaging in what biblically is a sin. Unmistakable, unambiguous and unmitigated sin.

But, thank God, not irredeemable. People can be redeemed from this behaviour in Christ - as like for any other sin or outworking of man's sinful nature. 1 Corinthians 6:11.

Nobody is saying that those who engage in "homosexual" acts should be treated as you've described above. I don't even care or, care to reproach you for being a champion, or what I'd call a "homosexualist".

My writing it to totally refute any attempt to normalise or sanctify this sinful behaviour by butchering, revising or simply ignoring the scriptural writ. You may well think you can, but you can't ride this beast you have mounted.


TV

MuttleyLaff:
TV01 what happened immediately above me? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

"Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" happened...

1. Homosexual/Gay – there is no such thing as a homosexual as a distinct type of human being. There are no “gay people”. Homosexuality can only ever reference a type of behaviour. Categorising people on this basis is ontological nonsense. People who identify as “homosexual” are functionally – or if you prefer, anatomically – no different from those who do not. To wit, there are no homosexual people, only homosexual acts.

2. In like vein, there is no such thing as a heterosexual. What we have, in a “sexual“ sense, are normally functioning (opposite sex attracted) human beings and sexually dysfunctional (SSA) human beings. It is worth noting here that any extra-marital sex is dysfunctional – as in immoral and, improper, that is, sinful, However, SS intimacy is a fundamental structural disorder, as is sexual interaction between human and non-human creatures. Reason why the two are cited as abominations and detestable acts and bracketed together in the scriptures.

3. To claim that God created homosexuals is a multi-layered deceit, or at best impassioned ignorance, not to mention blasphemous! There is dysfunction and decay in all of creation since the fall – dysfunctional sexual behaviour, which is what homosexuality is, is but one example and outworking of that.

4. There is no scientist or scientific study ever carried out using the term or descriptor “homosexual” as a category of person – the terms are always “same sex attracted” (SSA) or males who have sex with males (MSM). To be clear, homosexual as a type of person has no basis in science.

5. No legal code defines or otherwise recognises “homosexual” as type of human being. Homosexual is always qualified by “acts” To be clear, homosexual as a type of person has no basis in law – anywhere!

6. Homosexual behaviour and the culture around it are social affectations – nothing more. Different countries, nations, societies, communities or peoples may have a view about it, but either way, it cannot be forced on those whose societal norms, cultural traditions or religious beliefs abhor the behaviour.

7. And no matter how activists and campaigners strive to the contrary, a normal functioning male will always feel a sense of revulsion at being physically intimate with another male, or at the thought of 2 males together. Further the health implications, non-generative nature and fractious and lop-sided unions are a physical testament against the acts – aside scriptural condemnation and divine judgement!

8. For the “do not judge crew” - no one is judging, as in condemning. What is being done is a warning and a call to repentance. The saints will judge angels, and are able and expected to discern, understand and proclaim scriptural truths.

9. For the “love is all posse” – love is kind and suffers long, as aptly demonstrated by those who are willing to proclaim the undiluted word, despite the condemnation, barbed remarks and snide attacks of those who claim they would happily let a soul perish out of love. Love does not rejoice in iniquity but rejoices in the truth. The truth may be hard to bear, painful even, but it is always loving.

10. For the “everyone who is anti-gay is a closeted gay” crowd - Christianity is not “anti-any person”, it simply abhors sinful acts or behaviour as outlined on the scriptures.

11. For the “they are all hypocrites” gang – no they are not. And if some are, it does not negate the need to call sin for what it is. Especially for an evil, which unlike others, some are attempting to label as good, moral, wholesome and sanctified.


TV