Shepherd00: @Bolded. These are the kind of things you say that when pursuit after, you get tight up in robes.
What you are saying here in essence is that, Sodom and Gomorrah were not into homosexual practice until God determined to destroy them? In other words, their actions that night was their first attempt as a protest against God?
If your answer is Yes, then, they knew that God hated homosexuality hence did it to spite Him?
How did they Know about the impending destruction?
Were they like Nineveh warned but remained obstinate?
Who was sent to inform them, because the Bible didn't mention that the people of Sodom were warned.
Be-that-as-it-may, the Sodomites and Gomorrahites went after Strange flesh full force in protest against God warning, does this not tell you that they knew that homosexuality was a grave wickedness and a sin against God?
Thank you! sir
I've not been chanced to reply, but those are exactly the right questions to that inordinate stretching and warping of the biblical narrative. I shook my head so tey. I could scarce believe what I was reading
Some of MuttleyLaffs claims are a cause for real consternation. A clear sign that this is about forcing gayhomosex into the Christian culture at all costs and nothing to do with Christian truth. . Sackcloth and ashes with great lamentation sef .
wirinet: You are yet to provide a concise classification mythology for your "Kind".
Even the typically employed order-family-genus-species taxonomy is not totally concise. With lots of re-classifications and disputes about what should be placed where. But it's a good point and I'd place it somewhere around or between family and genus.
wirinet: The first problem with your examples of kind is that inter breeding is impossible between your kind, as a cheetah cannot breed with a lion.
This is not a problem that does not arise in the OFGS system. Interbreeding cannot and should not be the only or even the main criteria. But again, point taken. Cheetahs are listed as Felids in this OFGS classification. Some believe they are more like dogs? There will always be anomalies.
Tigers, Leopards, Lions and the other big cats can all interbreed, and with some of the smaller cats. Some kinds may have been more genetically rich/diverse or better able to adapt, leading to more types within it.
There could be "competition" even within the kinds over time. Lot's of factors could have led to a kind being restricted or expansive in the types within it.
There is a lot we can't say for sure and lot's of time has passed. It's possible that the 2 of each kind were not even what today would be called the same species and, there were probably fewer types within each kind but with greater genetic richness/diversity, which diminishes over time.
wirinet: Now how does your cat "kind" differ from the ape "kind"?
And you are free to stick to your fables of evolution.
Meanwhile, any takers for the bolded?
For one creature, something "less evolved" than an ape say, to "evolve" into apes and humans requires the acquisition of new genetic material. Can the mechanism behind this acquistion of new material be clearly evidenced or demonstrated by experiment?
MuttleyLaff: Now forget the attempted gang rape of those angel, tell me was Sodom and Gomorrah not already planned to be destroyed by God or not, hmm?
The attempted gang rape would have just been another instance in a long line of such sexually immoral sin/s. Evidenced by Jude;
Jude 1:7 - as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
wirinet: So what happened to plants. Plants do drown also if submerged in water for prolonged periods. If all the plants die, what did the animals and Noah's family eat when the left the ark?
I suppose not all would die. And there would be seeds. The waters receded gradually after the flood which would have given others time to sprout again. On-board food stores would have sufficed for a time.
I am being "deluged" with questions, yet to hear back on the single one I asked?
wirinet: So how many kinds of birds and how many kinds of animals are there according to your classification of kinds? Are Ostrich, dove, sparrow, chicken, Turkey the same kind or different kinds of birds? What of Dogs, are wolves, foxes and jackals the same kind or different kinds? What of hyenas?
Also tell me is Bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas are same or different kinds with humans. You guys need to publish your classification of kinds, so others can understand.
Dogs are a good example, as are cats. All dogs including wolves, jackals, coyotes etc. would have been a kind. What is commonly termed speciation today is the loss over time of information the original near-perfect pair would have had in localised populations, as certain features are de-emphasised or emphasised, various traits become more pronounced or recessive.
Humans are uniquely created in the image of God. And in some ways are a good example. Adam and Eve would have hade a perfect genome, containing traits we see in what are termed the "races" today (although through the descendants of Noah).
Over time, some traits would become more or less pronounced as populations diverge and localise. It evidences genetic information being lost or becoming recessive, as opposed to the acquisition of new information that proponents of evolution are yet to evidence.
wirinet: What of camels llamas and giraffes are they the same kind with horses? Then there are bison, African buffalo, water buffalo, antelopes, wildebeest, impala, gazelles, sheep, goats, muskoxen, and domestic cattle are they all the same kind? As I said provide a well written journal of your classification according to kinds.
I hope the above speaks to this.
wirinet: That is written above is absolutely nonsense. It looks like something a schizophrenic would write. Anyway, you guys already say, that a holy spirit is required to understand such rubbish. it marries with what we can glean from the historical record. It takes greater faith to believe evolution.
Now interprete these tautologies; God formed the world "in and out of the waters - Does this mean the earth is formed inside water and out of water?
There is still water above and below the earth - What is meant by above and below the earth? Does that include space?
windows of heaven were opened and the waters of the deep released - windows where?
Look up, why is the sky blue? - We all know why the sky is blue and sometimes orange and even red.
There is no space - not in the way it is typically presented in movies. There is water above and below the earth. Above the firmament of heaven and in the "deep".
hakeem4: really? Do you know the amount of what it would require to fill the earth to the topmost part ( Mount Everest) ? I know you know this story is a myth but you’re just trying to be dishonest here.
I have absolutely no idea how much water it would take to flood the earth such that the highest point at that time - or any time - would be covered.
The earth would have been vastly different at that time. Climate, topography the works. Don't forget according to the biblical account rain wasn't even a thing. The Earth was like a perfectly configured biosphere.
Myth? In as much as myth is often taken to read fable, no I don't. I believe that it is absolute truth. The earth was covered until all that had breath died. And it was a global flood.
I am being "deluged" with questions, any takers for the one I raised?
OkCornel: You think by mentioning alBHAGDADI countless times on this thread to derail it into another tithe debate for you to escape from my questions will help you?
wirinet: You are only talking about animals, what of plants species and even fungi. There are close to 400,000 plant species in the world. How did Noah preserve the plants?
Flesh only bro'.
Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.
hakeem4: species is a group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Asian elephant and African elephants are different species. While donkey and horse are of the same species.
Kind is an ambiguous term.
But even if he took few animals the size of his ship is too small that it would fail. While the amount of water required to fill the earth to the highest point is not possible.
Except if the flood took place in only Noah’s country
Elephants belong to the same kind. Horses, Donkeys, Zebras etc. are also a kind. The elephant kind would have given rise to African, Asian, Woolly mammoth and any other type of elephant kind that came into being. The animals needn't be mature or even post pubescent.
God formed the world "in and out of the waters. There is still water above and below the earth. The windows of heaven were opened and the waters of the deep released. Look up, why is the sky blue?
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
Shepherd00: So this thread ends here? MuttleyLaff, the only thing I saw you trying to do was to use terms like [b]porneia , arsenokoites , and malakoi/malakos to distract people from the ACT of homosexuality.
If the words were changed, did the act change?
Oh Well! I may just be talking to myself here, as you have disappeared from your own thread.
Has MuttleyLaff used the recent brouhaha to make a clean getaway? . He was after all taking the mother of all NL beatdowns. No where to run, turn or hide, no one willing to ride shotgun - even sellswords .
One of his ruses is to find an interlocuter guilty of some imagined offence and subsequently refuse to answer questions or respond to posers. Perhaps he sees this as his chance. We shall see, or maybe we won't .
kkins25: Are you saying you agree that dogs are indeed offshoot of wolves? Or are you saying that dog and wolves were created differently. If so, can you provide reputable and irrefutable evidence that a dog was with adam in that fantasy garden called eden? I doubt you can. All you would do is use this your non eductative dodge tatics to avoid my questions.
Wolves and Dogs are of the same kind. The dog/wolf "kind" of creature was created on the 6th day. Before Adam, but on the same day
kkins25: Can you also explain why we have so many races even though we arise from the same two parents. Why are they blacks, whites, brown skins?.
Because the first pair of "mankind" contained a perfect genome. With the inherent variability we see today. There are no "races", just various expressions of that original genome. Over time emphasis on certain traits becomes increasingly pronounced in localised populations and the original variety becomes increasingly recessive or is simply lost.
I can only speculate as to the colour of our first parents Adam and Eve. I'd wager they were the same colour though .
kkins25: If eve was allegedly taken off from the ribs of adam they should share the same genetic make with differences just been in chromosome 23. Which is the gene coding for sex.
The question you are better asking your own evolutionary worldview is how would blind forces perfectly construct and time sexually dimorphpous creatures? And why? Given how practically inefficient it is.
kkins25: Can you explicitly tell us how mr NOAH was able to preserve animals like penguins which live far away from the supposed land of eden believed to ne somewhere in east africa?
God sent them to him. The earth then had different climatic conditions and likely a more unified land mass. The key was in the animals survival after the flood catastrophe. Near perfect genomes would have been robust enough to adapt. Hence hairy elephants. Are you hairy .
kkins25: Can you tell us how possible it is for a woman virgin to birth a male child? Since jesus was bearing A XY gene make up, who would he look like? His mother? Or his father? Lordreed, loj i think this is where God breaks the law of the universe.
I haven't a clue, but with God all things are possible. God is the lawgiver and He is able to subdue all things according to the word of His power. Jesus looked like His dad of course. You no dey read Bible .
kkins25: We atheist-ish know better but we want to learn from you since you know better- being a child of god of cause.
No you don't. Study to show thyself approved and avoid things labelled science which in truth are not.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Seeing how readily and swiftly I have obliged you, will you be answering my question any time soon? ".....acquisition of new information"
kkins25: Tvo1, nd others, i still dey wait. How did the good old wolf transform into a dog. How does a wolf change to a BULL DOG.?
It's spelt T-V-0-1, incorrectly coded data will not produce the right outcome i.e., it is deleterious. Proper use of the code (language), ensures it is communicable, replicable - I saw your post by random chance
Now to your question. Simples, Wolves and Dogs are the same kind. No "transformation" happened, need happen, or can happen. They are merely different expressions of the same gene set. Bulldogs have an emphasis on certain features due to selective breeding by humans.
Did you really ask that question B.Sc Biology? Which of the UIs did you attend Ife? Lag? Nsukka? ABU?
Now to my question if you will. ".....acquisition of new information"
kkins25: Lol!!!! The dog kimd and cat kind.. Hahahaahaha..
That's correct. Ogbeni, what causes your laughter . Animal kinds were created with perfect genomes, able to adapt to a variety of conditions and situations.
kkins25: As to your second paragraph, my brother my brother, we've mentioned countless times that the acquisition of novel nucleotide data happened within the span of millions of years. We know this for fact :
It can't be a fact if it has not been directly observed or, it lacks the evidence to clearly demonstrate it. Your assertion here is at best speculative and not science. Perfectly coded data/information cannot happen randomly, no matter how much time elapses. Fact! There must be an author. Fact
Darwin, bless him, he's my homie, was ignorant of DNA. We now know that it is code/information. If one grasps the laws on information, it is clear that information does not occur by chance - information that is storable, transmissible, decodable (think language bro'), must have an author and never occurs randomly or by chance in nature. Further, there is no known natural process whereby DNA acquires new information. All the evidence points to a loss of information over time, not a gain. Deleteriation, not acquisition.
kkins25: For instance take lets take a look at EMBRYOLOGY.
Embryology as a proof of evolutionary linkage between organism(mammals) entails that the developing embryo of these group of organism all happen to have very synonymous looking babies. The babies of pigs, man, goat, elephant, sheep, etc at one stage in the development all look alike and almost indifferent. This is no mere coincidence.
So really you're just a regurgitator . Embryology as evidence of evolution has been shown to be fraudulent ages ago. Are you a learner?
kkins25: If A God created man then he didn't just snappped his finhgers and voila adam was born. No. It hints us that your God must have created you using these animals as model. The most important model being the chimpanzee. Its no coincidence that the chimpanzee and adam share 97% of DNA material. Somehow adam most be related to the chimpanzee.
Yes He did. And more evidence of your "L-Plates". The 97% correlation was for the 15% of the genome that codes for morphology, not the total genome. not to mention that like comparisons can be made with fruit and veg - tell me is man related to shrubs . Choose to be deceived, no wahalla.
kkins25: We have observed certain features in organisms that suggest that all animal and plant life are related.
Weak, weak, weak. Any scientist worth his salt knows that data or evidence can fit a number of thesis. One could just as readily say that commonality points to a single author/designer or base template.
kkins25: How does a pig morph into an elephant? This is a ridiculous question. It is not possible for a lion to turn to tiger. No. Thats something only people who subscribe to the creationist philosophy would do.
No one asked you that. The question was about the mechanism behind the cellular acquisition of new information. Answer now, stop throwing tantrums
kkins25: Science has never stated that a pig change to an elephant. We most times cannot establish which organism came first and which came after. What science has said is that, similar organisms most have originated from a common ancestor.
Fine. Simply show how the genetic material in the first life-form acquired "new" information that allowed it to change morphology. For fish, for cattle, for birds, for bacteria, for plants, for all living creatures. E caan done, 'cos it didn't happen. As much as you strain to believe. Force of will won't make it so bro'.
kkins25: We acknowledge that we don't know everything yet. We acknowledge that there are missing links. On the less we are not "brain lazy". We will keep breaking our backs to educate those like yourself. Who simply fill every gap of mystery with God.
. Look at his face. Mutating lifeform. Your leaps of faith are greater than anything creationists have to bridge.
kkins25: Another viable proof is our discovery of fossils. My goodness, you'd be astonished to the discoveries science has made. We have found fossils that are older than adam. So how an adam be the first man when we have other homo's like Taung 1Taung Childwhom is millions of years old.
Sweet. Put your faith in flawed, assumption-ridden dating methods. You will defend your faith at all costs. Gap ko...breach ni
kkins25: There are many more discovered fossils with anatomy that are slighty different from what we have now. All you have to do is read. Oga i beg you- read. What we have seen with our koro koro eyes does not tally with the fairytales of the bible. Like muttleylaff has said, stop taking everything in the bible as lIteral. Even the story of job is been argued to be figurative or symbolic.
All fossils determined to be missing links between the ape-like creature or apes and man have been found to be fraudulent. Please research wider.
kkins25: Aside anatomy and fossil discovery, we have OBSERVED BIOGEOGRAPHICAL influence on the category of organisms we have on the face of the planet. For example, lets take a look at Australia, we have observed that the group of mamals there are marsupial mammals rather than placental as we see in other ecosystem of the world.
Marsupial are so named because they do not hnutire their embryos via the placenta. I dont want to bore you with too much detail so you should do your own investigation when you are ready. I dont want to write lengthy detailed post like muttley and no one would read.
Yes now, as created. What's your point - oh yes, creatures can randomly become other creatures - just give them millions, and billions and trillions and quadrillions of years
kkins25: Even though, climatic conditions are thesame with other regions with similar environmental conditions. BIOGEOGRAPHICAL distribution of organisms suggests that, [b]organisms can indeed change [/b]into something not entirely but significantly different from it ancestors. We know for sure that Australia was once connected to antartica millions of years ago. We also know that the fauna of Australia most have journeyed across other lands to Australia. However, when Australia became separated and drifted through different climatic conditions these animlas and plants underwent some serious modifications.
Change in size, weight, colouring, the emphasis or de-emphasis of some features, i.e. hairiness. But they remain the same creature.
kkins25: Another even more prominent, non arguable proof is the damn genetic sequence similarity between all organisms. No need to talk much here.
I've told you before, similarity as an argument can be proof for different positions, it doesn't necessarily certify any one of them.
kkins25: Now, we have also seen organims that pose as a bridge between one organism to another. For example, salamders look like snakes and lizerds. Duck billed platypus looks like a bird but it is a mammal. It even lays eggs. We previously thouth dolphins were fishes but we were wrong. They are bloody mammals too. Bros if i keep talking, we will not live here I don dey tire self. Ohh this tablet doesnt allow me display my potentials conveniently. I should boot up my windows. But naaahh..
Bridge ke? The only bridge is new information. Back to my question neophyte. Similarity can just as well be in design. Upgrade your device and your shoddy thinking. Or perhaps evolve it
kkins25: oh shut the hell up already!! Just tell us if God created a Dog. Did God also create the domestic cat?
God created the dog "kind" and the "cat" kind.
No need to get salty . Are you able to explain or provide evidence of the mechanism whereby DNA is able to acquire and encode new information which leads to wholesale changes in morphology, such that they become completely different kinds of animals?
OkCornel: 1) Those who turned away from homosexuality and lesbianism after encountering Jesus... are they liars? Are their testimonies lies?
Excellent question. You are unlikely to get an answer though. At best an indirect response, or a reference to an earlier post .
OkCornel: 2) Also, Jesus explicitly mentioned in Matthew 19 that in the beginning God made them male and female. Where and how did God modify this to approve a male/male and female/female relationship? Where in the scriptures can we get examples of same sex marriage which was approved and blessed by God (that is if there are any examples of same sex marriage)
Another great question. However, this has been asked repeatedly - and ignored unabashedly. Good luck.
MuttleyLaff: TV01, you're smart and educated enough, live in the West, not to shamelessly descend to an all time low of being stereotypic. Are you that far removed, you have never come in contact with any SSA couples in long time standing committed, loyal, kind, loving relationship with no scandals, no drug use, no skeletons, no hanky pankies etcetera erh TV01?
I doubt you go into the world like Jesus commands us, but rather want the world to come to you, that's probably why you have a funny perspective and myopic views of SSA couples. For your information, the mention of Elton John was incidental, I could have mention a few others, like my neighbour that I l've known for over 20 years or friends and colleagues know in dedicated single SSA relationships, some even have kids, but you wouldn't know them, hence why Elton or Ricky had the mentions.
Possible? Yes, ubiquitous, hell no. Like I said, statistically insignificant at best. These people you are testifying about, you do not know what they do in secret. ss couples always make efforts to appear to be just like os couples - but they ain't. Na you mention EJ.
MuttleyLaff: 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.
The above is MuttleyLaffs constant refrain. Essentially an attempt to portray ss couples totally normal and analogous to os couples, but more insidiously, portray faithful and committed relationships as the norm for ss couples. But is this true?
I first joined NL in my research about the tithe. Having come to a different understanding to the one commonly taught in Pentecostal churches, I prayed, read and researched for greater insight.
I found the discussions on NL expansive, and much with much insight. Kudos to all those from back in the day – on either side. I see some are still fighting that battle even now .
But one thing that continually frustrated me, and was ultimately the reason I left the discussion, and even the section, was the refusal to move from the doctrinal to the practical. This post is to clearly evidence the practical outworking which falsifies MuttleyLaffs doctrinal thesis.
Gay relationships on the whole experience more domestic violence and more extreme violence. Gay relationships are often short lived, and partners over a lifetime can reach into the hundreds. Furtive public encounters are a hallmark, exacerbated by the use of the internet and hook-up apps.
Drug use is rampant in homosex encounters especially at more organised orgy type gatherings, another hallmark. Gay identified people have heightened indicators for use across the drug spectrum, from cigarettes, to alcohol to hallucogenics and the traditional hard drugs. Disease indicators are also elevated (search gay bowel syndrome), along with suicide ideation and an on average shorter life-span.
Having the perversion codified into law has hurt everyone. This endemic inability to remain faithful has led to calls for “monogamishness”, as gay mores infect traditional norms.
Even where there are what could be termed “committed” gay relationships, they are typically open to 3rd parties or extra-curricula encounters by the individual parties.
Case in point. Elton John and his partner recently mentioned, went to great lengths to keep details of Furnishes involvement in transatlantic orgies out of the UK press - using gagging orders and legal threats. Even as they continue to portray themselves as a model couple and family .
Homosex hardly comes without attendant pathologies. And these pathologies are default behaviours, not defective as they would be considered in opposite sex relationships.
Into this comes MuttleyLaff, trying to lead astray the faithful, butcher and re-write scripture and claim Gods writ for this dysfunction and depravity. Really?
The couple in MuttleyLaffs purview are statistically insignificant, if they do indeed exist. Hence purview is utterly bogus - from a spiritual, scriptural, biological, medical, legal and social perspective as demonstrated .
EmperorHarry: I can only refer you to comprehensive links and research articles that portray evolution in it's simple forms.Unlike some folks at quora and reddit who are more knowledgeable(by experience in the field and years of research) and are willing to provide a compendious answer to every question and misconceptions you have about the subject,I am only limited to my subjective research (which has changed my perspective and enlightened me remarkably on the subject) and I don't have the mental strength nor fervor to have a long ass discussion in a bid to shed more light on evolutuon.You can learn more by reading through the answers and convos that can be found on the sites including debate.com and medium etc to subjectively understand evolution so you know where the gaps and holes are and how sceptical you should be about them. The evolution theory becomes complicated when it is adapted to try to explain philosophical questions in a bid to provide a natural and materialistic explanation for everything.This leaves us with more questions than answers with a underwhelming amount of evidence to back up hypotheses postulated.Evolution independent of this as regards to the observation initially documented by Jean Baptiste Lamarck and modified by Darwin is a very plausible theory that is supported by adaptation.It has been promoted from an hypothesis to a scientific theory after billions of dollars and years of research from different scientists in various fields and there is a consensus that it's as valid as the earth is spherical(This doesn't mean it isn't liable to change and can be demoted to a hypothesis in light of new indisputable evidences). That's just the fun thing about science independent of personal interests and influence.It doesn't have all the answers and a true scientist wouldn't claim to know it all.As vaxx said,science is a work in progress with more questions than answers. At this point you must prolly be thinking,all this words and yet no answer to your simple question.I admit I'm not even attempting to provide evidences as regards your question but if you find anybody that does,try to be open-minded.I'm only writing this so as to nudge you to find out more about evolution indepthly for yourself before you disapprove of it cos I've been there before.
This is just my opinion and I would entertain any objections and corrections.
I can't honestly say I consider this any kind of answer. However, I am really impressed by the effort you have gone in your response. My regards.
kkins25: Evolution has not claimed to fully understand the whole process of evolution.
kkins25: At a microlevel, evolution has been proved beyond doubt.
If by macro-level you refer to adaptation, they yes - all within the limits of the extant genetic information
kkins25: As a matter of fact the evolution from unicellular organization to multicellular organization has been demonstrated.
Feel free to provide evidence for that. Although what we are after is the change of one creature - say megafauna - into another, and the mechanism behind the acquisition of new data to effect that process.
kkins25: Day by day evolution is making more freaking sense than the BS story of Noahs ark.
I have no problem with you asserting this, it's not the question I asked. Please answer that if you are able.
kkins25: If evolution is false then answer me this Capslocked, budaatum, seun, muttleylaff, loj, billy0naire, EmperorHarry, come and bear witness to this.
All creationist in this thread should tell us IF GOD CREATRD A DOG ALONG WITH OTHER ANIMALS ON THE 5TH DAY OF CREATION..
TVO1, SHEPHERD00, OPENMINE, ANSWER OR BE LABELED AS BLIND BRAINWASHED BUFFONS.
MuttleyLaff: Forgive me TV01, God knows my heart, that I am not intending, wasn't and didn't intend to ignore or planned not to respond to those outstanding two posts of yours. I am not like that, not especially to a worthy someone like you. I promise you, I'll restrain and discipline myself from responding to other posts except this niggling budaatum post I am dealing with.
I just got carried away, that at least that OkCornel post was right up the alley of the thread's subject title heading. Pardon my excitement.
Indeed, God only knows the heart of man. I can only see the outworking of yours based on your submissions here .
It's 4 posts actually and, I am not actually asking for responses - have I at any point requested them? This is a public forum. There is no protocol as such and, I always post with the fully understanding that those addressed may choose not to reply. There is no compulsion.
Moreover, I am seeing this as less a discussion and more a slow moving car crash as you increasingly tie yourself in knots trying to justify your position from the bible. You can't ride the beast, just swallow the frog .
MuttleyLaff: The thread was opened to deconstruct lies and myths surrounding homosexuality and SSA unions .
MuttleyLaff, e caan done! All attempts to squeeze a positive ss theology into scripture is doomed to fail. Attempting it is just foolhardy. And, you are failing woefully.
MuttleyLaff: 1/ First did you notice the OkCornel presentation of the real meanings of the words perpetrated and used to demonise SSA persons TV01, hmm? 2/ Do you agree and accept that they either have to do with homosexuality bordering with prostituting and/or paedophilia, hmm?
Don't attempt a diversionary manoeuvre Muttley. I have a number of posts which you have steadfastly ignored. I have raised a new one, feel free to ignore like the others, but don't attempt a deceitful non-response. Even so, I see OKCornel's submission re meaning and have no contention with it - it does not change the clear reading of scripture. Now to my post/s.
1. Why did God allow LGBTQ+-x/ to suffer these past 6'000 years - or even longer as you don't subscribe to a 6 thousand year old creation? 2. Why did Gods plan for creation include an interminable length of time without children for LGBTQ+-/X? 3. If, as you state marriage is not for ss couples, how are these children sanctified? 4. The bible; holy children as those born to at least one believing parent in a male-female marriage. How far for children parented by ss?
shadeyinka: That's your interpretation: and you know it doesn't make sense!
That's my interpretation of what you appear to be saying. So I could be wrong. Please help me by explaining how
Mark 10:6: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Translates to Means that God made them male and female before He even created the heavens and the earth
And not, as it plainly states, at the beginning, i.e. the 6 day creation event
First, for the 6’000 years up until literally yesterday, did “Gods plan for creation/humanity” as you have proclaimed it mean 1. that “LGBT+x/- would be persecuted? 2. That LGBTx-+/ would not be able to have children??
Further you are essentially stating the following, even though you’ve tried to make it sound like a question for deniability;
MuttleyLaff: OkCornel, being homosexual/lesbian, you see, doesnt exclude biblically or prohibit you officially from having kids, or does it? Please advise me, if it does.
One of the reasons God blesses us with children aka the fruit of the womb is as follows;
1 Corinthians 7:14 - For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
MuttleyLaff, how are such children holy or considered the result of procreation? Children that are not the result of man and woman, male and female, husband and wife in a consecrated marital union?
The children being “parented” by Elton John and David Furnish, are not as a result of natural procreation or the offspring of a scripturally based (male and female) marital union.
MuttleyLaff, pray tell are such children holy? The “biological mother” of such children is not a wife to either of the men, nor indeed in situ for the raising of the children – are such children holy MuttleyLaff?
Muttley you said this
MuttleyLaff: No, I was not and never did claim that the institution of marriage was designed for SS couples. Please dont saying scripture fails to mention, foreshadow or present a positive archetype for relationships of this kind, especially when there is evidence in scripture about it. Just say, you arent aware of it because that is what you've being made and led to believe
You also stated this;
MuttleyLaff: "Are there cases of same sex relationship that led to procreation"?, you earlier asked me, at which I replied: "Yes, there are, case in point Elton John and partner, and using methods like in vitro fertilization, gestational surrogacy or medically assisted insemination".
Is that procreation Muttleylaff. Are the most worldy figures now iconic for Christians? Are the most depraved now role models for the brethren. If SS couples cannot enter into marriage - according to your word - how are children holy? How are the children ss couples parent the result of procreation.
MuttleyLaff, this doctrine is twisting you into all kinds of shapes. You must be pretzel like by now . Further, the deeper you commit, the further from the truth you stray. You sound like an unabashed homosexualst and LGBT-+x/ advocate. Full fledged. campaigning for everything exactly as the world does .
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".
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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, sexorgyand 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
Christianity Etc › Re: Deconstructing The Lies & Myth of Consensual Adult Homosexuality/Same Sex Union by TV01(m): 9:45pm On Jun 20, 2019
.
.
.
.
. 
.
