₦airaland Forum

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

HenryDion:
It would be nice if you argue objectively and not bring in my personality or what i lack as a person. These are just baseless assertion which doesn't make you smart, except if you can empirically prove them.

You talked about factual argument which i have thrown right at your face, but hatred as blinded your eyes to them.

My points and position are against the movement to legitimise this sinful, unnatural and abhorrent behaviour. However I can see why you would take it personally

And the arguments presented are all about feelings, hence the trumpeting about "love" - which is a warped form, to validate the lust that drives the movement.

HenryDion:
The argument isn't about morality which is very subjective, we are talking about a thing being "natural.'

It' is absolutely about morality, with considerations about nature being secondary. Nature is not an arbiter of morality. A thing being natural, if that can be shown or proven, does not make a thing right, or right for human beings.

HenryDion:
If lower animals, who know no right or wrong can unconsciously indulge in such an act, doesn't that make it natural? You talked about animals feasting on their young. That also is natural and the order of things on earth. Survival!

I believe I've answered this with my response above.

HenryDion:
Even humans aren't exempted from that primitive trait. Everyday, we are killing ourselves, much more than these so called lower animals you think know less.

If I were to question your capability to hold an informed and coherent discussion about this, you'd be upset and moan . Is primitive the same as animalistic? Human beings have always possessed higher cognitive abilities and a level of consciousness that sets them apart form animals - being in the image of God.

HenryDion:
You keep making unprovable claims which is quite sardonic. Gayism is as natural as the word. Just rare! Just as few are left handed, or few twins. Rarity doesn't always mean a disorder.

Gayism demonstrates dysfunctional, as do cleft palates, co-joined twins and type-2 diabetes. Does that make them good. And there is no moral consideration with the conditions I mentioned, there is with gayism.

HenryDion:
You talked about love, can you please define it? The least of our problem in this argument should be the 'problem of definition.

1 Corinthians 13 is the standard Christian response. Your use of the word always contains an element of physical intimacy, and is always predicated on "feelings" - that is lust by any other name.

HenryDion:
This is hilarious. Shows how limited you are. Perhaps you need to do more learning and traveling, not arguing from ignorance. Two adults of same sex can be in love, stay together for years without sex involve. Your perception of gays is twisted. You need reorientation! Using ALWAYS makes your claim so fallacious. Please be smart.

The core functional disorder of gayism is feeling sexual attraction/desire for a person of the same sex. As gayism is an act what you have described above is a form of friendship (unless the love noted alludes to eroticism)

Further, your point above is deceptive, the promiscuity and impermanence of homosexual relationship (particularly men) is backed by data from numerous studies. I'm sure there are some SSA people as you've described, but they will be a tiny minority. it's the same bogus stereotype Muttleylaff always tries to present as an exemplar of SSR. Frankly, the sexual habits of the vast majority of gay men are downright disgusting.

HenryDion:
A relationship of two males, who holds hands on the street, lean on each others shoulder, kiss each other on the lips, always professing love to each other and promising to be together forever. Is that your idea of friendship? So it automatically becomes a relationship ones they start having sex?

Once physical attraction or emotional involvement is a factor, then it becomes disordered. Acting upon those feelings is dysfunctional.

HenryDion:
You need help lol.. I hope you're seeing how lame your stance is right now

Your version of relationship or love is built all around sex. What a perverted mindset! Love is much more!

Presumably you can see your version of love - which always involves physical intimacy/emotional involvement is warped. Re-labelling your lust as love will not fool anyone with even a modicum of discernment

HenryDion:
Morality is subjective, so is sin. If slavery can become illegal today, that says a lot. They are made by men like you and I.

Morality may be subjective for you, but not for everyone. Likewise for sin. The scripture gives an objective measure and speaks in absolutes. Gayism is always a sin according to the scriptures.

HenryDion:
Anyway, judging by your response, it is glaring that your mind is made up, to continue hating that which you don't understand.

What is funny is how you intertwine logic with belief. It's well lol

Looks like a personal attack. Good thing the truth just presents itself with no recourse to whining

HenryDion:
I would have broken your write up piece by piece and make known how ridiculous your stance is. But that won't change your mind but rather, waste my time.

So, as a takeaway piece, carry on with your hate.

That is; I don't have any valid answers, so I'll breeze away like Muttleylaff did. Then more ad-hominem

HenryDion:
The fact remains that with or without your consent, the LGBTQ+ community will soon become a widely accepted norm. Just as we have twins today.

A norm does not make the immoral moral, or the sinful right. There is no such consideration with multiple births, no matter how much you try to deceive yourself with a false equivalence.

Best stick to your "animals do it defence". To indulge in gayism is to defile oneself and would rightly be considered beastly.

HenryDion:
Time is the only barrier, not what you believe to be true or not.

Enjoy life.

Not just life, but eternal and abundant life - yours for the taking if you repent of your ways. The time best considered is the time of judgement.


TV

HenryDion:
What made same sex relationship an abomination or unnatural? If we go by nature, then it is more natural than nature itself. Homosexualism has been found to exist in over 1500 species of animal. Sadly, homophobia exist only in one, humans.

People like you will always struggle to make this argument - mainly because it's a lie and has no basis in truth. And, because you simply don't have the wherewithal to create a factual and sophisticated enough argument

HenryDion:
Now you will say, "Why compare humans to lower animals?"

We are talking about 'natural', remember?

Yes now - animals also feast on their own young and their own excrement....see where this leads? Is nature an arbiter of what is moral? What of the Creator of nature who calls same-sex activity "against nature" and "contrary to proper function"

Further who tells you that "instinct driven" animals are not acting in a dysfunctional manner when/if they act in ways that may be seen as homosexual? Or that "ideologically driven" humans are simply reading homosexuality into their behaviour - which is dysfunctional if true!

HenryDion:
Love cares not about gender, race or religion. Gayism is much more than just sex. Many of you religious folks thinks someone being gay means he is out for sex and sex alone. You think he wants to sleep with every male he comes across.

What gayism is in the first instance, is dysfunction/disorder. What it produces is not love, it is a perverted lust - your insistence on warping the word love does not change that. The whole of the gayism movement is just one big re-labelling exercise - but it doesn't change the content.

HenryDion:
Two males can be in a relationship, kiss, get intimate and love, without involving penetration. Love is beyond sex. When you folks hear about gays, the first image that pops up is someone digging an ass. Why?

How confused, 2 males can be in a relationship without any form of physical intimacy and still love/deeply care about each other. Gayism always introduces a physical sexual element, hence it is always about the perverted lust. The rest is dressing, to make you feel good and legitimise it. No, we call sin by it's name!

HenryDion:
Doesn't this tell you something? That your definition of love is wrong and insane? That sex has nothing to do with love? Two young men can be in love, kiss, be there for each other, without involving penetration.

As before, it is your definition of love that is warped. I said nothing about penetration or digging. The sexual attraction and any ensuing acts are in and of themselves dysfunctional. If it's love without sexual attraction, then it is simply friend ship or companionship.

HenryDion:
Even if they do engage in penetration, should that cause an uproar? Even the female folks sometimes takes it up the ass... What's actually your basis of hate?

The basic dysfunction of gayism is the disordered sexual attraction of two people of the same sex. Anal penetration is a totally separate discussion - arses are attached to people - but also dysfunctional use of the body and hence sin.

I have no hate except of sin and ungodliness

HenryDion:
Two consented adults being in love, harming no one in particular, how does that affect you?

It harms them, it harms the decency and morals of wider society and it pollutes the land.

HenryDion:
The fact is, humans would always find a reason to hate what he doesn't understand. You are just hateful! Your Bible has nothing to do with you being hateful.

I understand it okay, and recognise it for what it is - sin!


TV

MuttleyLaff:
Look at TV01 up there, trying to do a comeback and feeling that elated177 and Agrogbeide needed him, to come join, defend their opinions and arguments. I just hope TV01 has come back to answer my original questions and answer them outright and directly without trying to change how I asked them

God is love and he who abides in love, abides in God, that is Bible, and so it is, with two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, who love each other with a love that is lasting, that's a lifetime, life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, causing no damage or harm to another person, not betraying of another person, or even, not cheating on another person, and not being harmful to an object or neighbour. The two consenting adults, are at peace with each other and God, because their intentions are good and their hearts are pure, they love each other and also love every one else, they enjoy each other’s company, they are mutually respectful to each other, mutually supportive to each other, and in some cases as we know, without having sex , necessarily being the leading in their relationship or the most important thing for them.

Comeback ...I was never part of this discussion thread and I left the other one as you were devoid of answers...and still are it seems . And, I didn't think they needed me to join forces with them - I only joined to point out your blatant hypocrisy. As previous, I will answer your bogusly couched questions with the tone they deserve, as follows;

Answer
However you dress it up, the fact remains, same-sex physical intimacy is an abomination, depraved and against nature. To be clear, whether you defecate on a palm leaf or in a cistern of gold, it remains excrement.

Bonus
per your point about "without having sex" - that is called friendship, or companionship. Did you review what you cribbed from the homosexualist websites or do you simply cut & paste wholesale?


...Even if you mention that they are also “faithfully colour-coordinated, have an extremely low carbon footprint, lasting "his & his" tattoos, carefully separate their recycling, only make life-long ethical investments, are committed vegans, consensually choose plants for their garden, enjoy shopping at wholefoods, have a lifetime subscription to the Gay Times, loyally volunteer at an animal welfare centre and faithfully complete their joint tax returns" it still remains sinful…


TV

^{...please feel free to respond to my questions as requested!}

MuttleyLaff:
I have plenty more surprising facts for you, your squirming and agonizing days have just begun. If not that you elated177, jesusjnr etctera are afraid of answering questions...

MuttleyLaff:
This is the reason, the elated177, the jesusjnr, the Agrogbeide, the etcetera of their bunch find it difficult to respond to battery of questions posed at them. All they do is putting out long winded posts to eat up the time whilst avoiding questions...

Rather funny and downright hypocritical that you should lay this charge at the door of others when you are demonstrably guilty of it yourself. I also note how you continuously allude to incorrect exegesis of scripture by others without actually proffering an interpretation of your own. Also noted is your haste to align with non-believers on their positions regards "homosexuality".

I previously asked you a few questions on this topic and you vanished like a puff of smoke . And now you are making repeated assertions of the cowardice, hypocrisy and artful dodging of others? You talk about long posts when your bloviate could by dint of the hot-air generated power a small city.

I'll repeat both sets of the - quite similar - questions I asked previously. Kindly respond to either or both sets. Let's see if what is required to deal with the likes of you is anything more than a stand-up fan on it's lowest setting .

Set 1 - https://www.nairaland.com/4935020/matter-homosexuality/5#76584975
1. The Lord Jesus referenced the creational purpose of male and female, was such a purpose creationally envisaged for SS unions? Yes or no.
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)?
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?

Set 2 https://www.nairaland.com/4935020/matter-homosexuality/6#76620145
1. Are SS attraction and SS relationships, part of Gods original creational intent?
2. If you respond yes to #1, could you advise what Gods intent for their unions would be
3. If you respond no to #1, kindly explain when such attraction and relationship appeared and, how we can confirm that God affirms them

Please respond succinctly and briefly, with no over-tossed, under-dressed word salad.


TV

^{Elated177, Agrogbeide - be encouraged and stand firm in His Might and in His Truth...}

It was this same dilemma that, as part of my search, brought me to NL over 13 years ago. In hindsight the outcome was as powerful an epiphany as my repenting of my sins and trusting in the completed work of Christ my Saviour.

This truth is demanding a decision of you. This is not ultimately a question about tithing, it’s not even a question about your rising in the church hierarchy or, your choice of church. This is about who you choose to serve, will it be man or God?

How can one remain in an organisation, especially aspiring to higher office and not sing from the same hymn sheet as the leadership? It will be a source of conflict – organisationally as you decry something that underpins its workings and its inherent defence mechanisms rise against you, and personally as you wrestle with the disquiet within.

I chose what I believed to be the right path and truth has been unceasing since then. The response may come with loss and conflict. Count the cost, but what price truth? It’s can be a hard and lonely road. But I wouldn’t change a thing and I shudder to think what would have happened if I’d chosen the acclaim of men over my desire to worship God in spirit and in truth.

Philippians 3:8 - Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ...

From the time I came upon the truth of the tithe to the time I sat down with the GO of the church I attended to discuss the issue – in the reverse of your situation, I held a position which the truth caused me to resign from and they wanted to know why – it was about 6 months.

In that time, I prayed and studied unceasingly, and can honestly say that if the meeting had been at the point of my apprehending that truth, I may not have been mature or strong enough to instinctively choose the right path. You say it’s been 5 years? God’s timing is impeccable, He guides perfectly.


Godspeed
TV

^{I know it’s been a while, but it would be interesting know how things have worked out so far.}

johnydon22:
And be fully aware that spontaneous generation is an entirely different idea from abiogenesis.

Different maybe, but equally nonsensical and similarly discredited.


TV

^{...come to think of it, by definition evolutionists still believe a ton of crazy things now}

LordReed:
What nonsense are you talking? Is your steering wheel what drives your car or the engine?

Poor analogy, but once you figure out which is steering wheel and which is engine you'll be fine .


Driver not driven
TV

LordReed:
The question was is man driven by instinct and the answer is yes. Does he moderate his actions due to HCC? Yes he does. None of which negates what I have said. Any morality any man expresses it is because he learnt it, there is no god giving anything from anywhere.

Which is why I thought your response garbled. One cannot "be driven" by something, whilst that something is subsumed to another thing. Plainly contradictory.

The baser the instinct and the less about basic biological functioning (such as blinking), the more mans HCC come into play otherwise civilisation would not have happened.

Look around you, what is holding the less developed nations back? It can be simply summed as allowing their baser instincts to overcome their HCC.

Men have a conscience. Be that part learnt or part innate - to whatever degree - it is something our HCC allows us to scrutinise and make sense of. Conscience can also be dulled or totally seared. After all, we have a name for those who are able to act in an unconscionable manner?

And whilst I believe that there is a God, and that He created man with HCC and a conscience. I did not introduce that into this conversation. Why are you always touched when considering the divine? .


Upwards
TV

LordReed:
LMFAO while SMDH. Nothing worth responding to here really except the bolded. Examples: a child knowing how to suck, never missing your mouth when you eat, yours eyes noticing movement in your peripheral vision, etc. All of them built from survival mechanics aka instincts.

And which of these has any moral implications or, benefits from applying higher cognitive capability or, poses a threat to developing civilisations? Where acting on "instinct" has potentially deleterious outcomes, mans HCC kicks in to moderate or, otherwise channel for the greater good.

The examples you provided are more innate biological functions, as opposed to considered responses to desires or urges, such as fear or flight in dangerous situations, or the urge to mate.

And where in such instances man gives leave to his baser self, or simply allows instinct to drive, the outcomes are never edifying, least of all in a "civilizational" sense.

So attempting to link mans urges - and at once subsume mans HCC to these urges - to justify behaviour that is deleterious (or perverted) will always be a fail - except of course for those who wish to be dictated to by their urges .


Higher
TV

LordReed:
When did I don't agree turn to garbled?

Ok - I don't agree and I found it garbled .

LordReed:
Humans are driven by instinct, we have only become more sophisticated because of higher capacity for cogitation. You cannot deny the nature of what you are, if you like call me heathen for telling the bare-faced facts.

As if this higher cogitative capacity cannot and does not marshal any purely instinctive behaviour – especially given some of the possible outcomes. Speaking of which, please provide examples of this instinctive drive in humans.

LordReed:
Civilisation has nothing to do with your bible, it develops inspite of.

I did not make any such claim. It is man’s God given higher cogitative ability and, the primacy of it, that allows civilisations to form. Don't let your anxiety around the scripture and your discomfort with God befuddle you.

LordReed:
Let me assume you mean it espouses an absolute morality because objective morality has a different usage where I am coming from. Even the so called absolute morality is broken over and over again in the very same bible, either by the god itself or the agents it "accredits".

Either, or - semantics unnecessary. You are free to your view on God and the scriptures.

LordReed:
Again, your view. And you are welcome to it
For which you have to interpret and declare to us the word of the god, yes we know.
More religious gibberish. Who cares what the bible says? Its dictates are worthless to those who do not follow it no matter how hard you calll us heathens.

As you are welcome to yours and to comments about mine - a right I am happy to apply in return.

LordReed:
Again who gives a flying Bleep what your bible says?

You do - clearly

LordReed:
You should. They don't have delusions of self righteousness.

At all - I just don't hide behind instinct and point to dumb beasts, whilst in possession of a higher cogitative capacity and being created in the image of God.


SuperSaintly
TV