Born that way.

This always makes me laugh too. It's pick 'n mix. That's for them, but this is for us - except that bit which is still ok and maybe that is too now you mention it. (And of course He never meant the slave stuff anyway so we can forget that now.)I don't really have a problem with all this, it's just that they then try to rationalise it and try to make it make sense. God knows why, just believe and forget that it's all made up anyway.

What makes you think it's obvious?

That's what Jesus himself claimed: its about the spirit of the law, not the letter. Love god and love your neighbor as yourself. Simple.Its not really pick-n-mix... well for some it is. Christians are supposed to follow Christ... we're not Biblicans... well some are. It makes sense that people want things to make sense and you can do that by rationalizing it. That's just not good theology. Christianity shouldn't really have a problem with homosexuals, and you'll find that many don't. Now, sex is a whole different thing, but they don't want anybody having fun with it So for the specific topic here: Don't you think that Jesus would preach to love the gays? Don't you think that the passage about eunichs brought up in the OP could be interpreted to be referring to the gays as being born that way?

Well it is is obvious to me, so from my POV, it is obvious.Because I think that people ARE BORN GAY. they are not made that way or created that way, or trained to be that way, nor do I think that they choose to be that way.If you have anyone in your life that is gay, that you care about, then you know the answer.

Aside from the OT scriptures cited etc there's Romans 1:27 in which the Apostle Paul says in the NIV, Romans 1:26, 27:

quote:

---

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

---

This thread is about the Biblical position on this. The fact is that when you corroborate all scripture, both OT and NT, the consensus is that homosexuality is a grievous sin, relative to Jehovah, the Biblical god's perspective.The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by Jehovah, god, because of the city tolerated the practice of homosexuality. Wiki
acknowledges this.

quote:

---

Genesis 19:4-5 describes what followed, which confirms its end (RSV):

​

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them (KJV: know them, RSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them, NJB: can have intercourse with them)."

​

In response, Lot refuses to give his guests to the inhabitants of Sodom and, instead, offers them his two virgin daughters to "do to them whatever you like." [Gen 19:8]NASB However, they refuse this offer and threaten to do worse to Lot than they would have done to his guests, and then lunged toward Lot to break down the door. Lot's angelic guests rescue him and strike the men with blindness.

---

Having said the above, I do not discriminate against gays, as to how I treat them, in or out of business. Though I view the practice as a deviation of what is natural and what is moral, over the years they have been fairly treated just as straits are. If one or a couple were my neighbors, they would be treated equally as anyone else. I've always had good relations with neighbors over the years. The same would be with a gay neighbor. Thus, I don't regard myself as homophobic.As all are well aware, I consider the Bible as truth and as relevant in all matters. This is no exception.

just as i suspected you have no evidence, typical posturing, typical taz, typical trollish behavior.

Yes, of course. it's just a shame that 'real christians' often disagree. I neither know nor care. I long ago realised that once you've got the 'do as you would be done by' message, the rest is just literary cricicism.

First of all if you are to lazy (or don't have the time) to type out Artemis Entreri, AE is a better abbreviation that AT, I wasn’t sure whom you were quoting for a minute. Though it is also odd to me that someone would abbreviate a screen name and then go on to type out a long post (what are you saving like a half a second?). Says who? That is one line about what the Godless Romans are like. This passage (and much of the entire book) is about Paul’s evangelical journey to Rome to speak to the Romans. This passage is about Godless people. To take one sentence out of context and twist it around to mean that the NT is anti-homosexual is quite a leap of faith indeed. After reading the whole passage you may argue that the bible is Anti-Pagan-Roman, but to say it is against homosexuals is inaccurate IMHO. Interesting that Rome and Corinth were spared, isn’t it? Especially interesting that instead of destroying Rome or Corinth for the practice of allowing homosexuality, that God instead sent Christian Missionaries there to spread the good word. So why the mixed method? Why destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but spare and evangelize to Rome and
Corinth? I find the bible to be too contradictory to be taken as a literal truth in almost any manner (as this example clearly illustrates).

That's, frankly, not much of an answer. It isn't an argument, it can't convince anyone. It gives no reason to anyone else to agree with you. That means you can't argue from it to any other position. That's a pretty selective (and confused, tbh) list, and again not an argument. Why did you leave off the most obvious of answers: "people acquire the personality trait of being gay through a complex interaction of genes and the environment just as they acquire other personality traits"? Caring about people is not a well recognised method of determining the truth of statements about reality. At best, your claim is naive, at worst it's cheap blackmail.

like yeah whatever bullshit you say d00d.are you a droid?i guess that is what i get for answering your question. ridicule and you telling me that my opinions are bad and wrong.have a nice day, please go troll someone else's thread.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : mr jack can fuck off, what an asshole.

I don't think your opinions are bad and wrong. What I want you to do is present some sensible arguments in favour of your position.See, what you've stumbled into is a forum for debate. Simply putting forth your opinions is not enough here. We expect you to actually support your opinions with the reasons why you hold those opinions, and you can expect those reasons to be challenged by other posters.If you have a problem with doing that I suggest you go somewhere else, because you will not find your time here enjoyable.

nope just not debating with you.you can respond and have the last word as i can see you are that type of "try hard" but this is my last response to you in this thread. I realize this will make you stay around, trolling and talking trash (like you just have your last two posts) trying to elicit a response, but this is a semi public forum and the admin allows that sort of behavior so there is nothing I can do to stop it.have a dice day.PS you need to work on your trolling because you are not very good at it.

Asking you to actually make an argument in defence of your position is not trolling.

Remember that I'm not a christian. My evidence is the christian majority. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.Do you or do you not agree that the christian right put into place anti-sodomy laws in many states and that those laws were finally declared unconstitutional in 2003? Do you or do you not agree that GWB is a christian?Seems kinda counterproductive for you to argue with me, considering I'm not a christian. Why don't you argue with the christian majority who don't agree with your interpretation?I'm just a messenger of the christian moral superior majority. They say gays should be thrown into jail. Who are you to say the majority of christians out there are not true christians?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I don't use Christianity to argue in a science thread, so why come here and do the opposite? If you are ignorant to this topic or have nothing to add, then why say anything at all unless your goal is to troll (which I believe is the true reason you are here). Are you telling me to use Argumentum ad populum as logical evidence? Is that even possible? Hmm I am not sure. Probably by Christians, but I cannot assume that they came from the right or the left. So to answer your question I have to say: No.For example here in Virginia in 1777 A committee works on a revised set of criminal law for Virginia. Thomas Jefferson and other liberals attempt to have the death penalty for sodomy replaced by castration for men and boring a hole through the nose of a woman. The committee rejects their suggestion and retains the death penalty.Source: VirginiaDo you consider Thomas Jefferson to be a Christian Right Winger? I think he was a right winger, though I am unsure as to his religion, I always considered him a Deist at best. Many on the left have told me that our 3rd President was on their side. I think you are referring to the 43rd president of the USA. If that is whom you were asking about, then to answer that question: Yes. All I asked was for the evidence of your assertions. You stated I was wrong because the Majority disagreed with me, and I said show me, and you have been unable or unwilling to do so. Thread-jacking (as you seem to always do) in the process. Evidence please? I never said that and for you to insinuate that I did is nothing more than a very weakly constructed STRAWMAN.