Ok proving homosexuality is wrong or right according to the bible.

H

hobbes

Crazy about philosophizin
Registered Senior Member
A challenge to all religious christian persons.

Prove to us using bible verses (quote both the verse and where it is found please, also please tell us what bible you got it from) That say homosexuality is a deadly sin that will send us to hell.

Also it must come from the new testament Because as any priest would tell you the old testament doesnt apply. Which is why i'm no longer able to have multiple wives and concubines*looks sad*
(i'm still very upset about that one) Or have to sacrifice live animals,avoid eating pigs and what not and all the rest.

Or if you believe it does say its alright and not a sin then please quote us the verses that do say that.

Extra credit- prove to us using bible verses that contraceptives are a sin and your prize will be me falling over unconscious in shock that you actually managed to do it.
 
yew evul blasfeemur. it sez in the buy bull thet gey peepole our evul blasfeemures. migh kwot iz:

"And thou shalt shove cucumbers up each others' asses, as long as thou art not a homosexual freak." (Bullshit 1:5)

ind anunthur won:

"And then the Lord sayeth to His Father, 'Thou art making Me kinky. Wouldst Thou please shovest another carrot up My ass, in return for which I shall shove a cucumber up Thine?', which He sayeth not in vain, for He is not a homosexual freak. Obviously it wouldn't be OK if he were because it says so in Bullshit 1:5!" (Crap 7:12)

ind ovisly thes won shuld clerifigh:

"'Ohhh... ohhh... OHHHHH, OHHHH ME! OHHHHH!!! OHHHHH!', sayeth the Lord, for He was pleased with Wis not indulging in the sin of BEING A HOMOSEXUAL FREAK." (Asswipe 10:4)

ind a neckst:

"Then the Lord stuck His divine Dick up the 12-year-old's ass, letting out cries of satisfaction all the while. And He began ejaculation into the fragile body of His own Little Brother, which was OK because He is not a homosexual freak." (Barnyardanimalsfucking 17:12)

sew that prewvs it eye em write ind yew our rang.
 
Homosexuality can't be a sin according to the bible since Jesus was a big fag himself.

"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."
Matthew 4 v19

I dunno, that sounds pretty gay to me...
 
Originally posted by GB-GIL Trans-global
stuck His divine Dick up the 12-year-old's ass, letting out cries of satisfaction all the while. And He began ejaculation into the fragile body of His own Little Brother,
Click to expand...

:bugeye: egads thats .. too detailed.*cringes* Is there something you wish to tell us about what you watch on the internet gb-gil? If so i don't wish to hear it.:mad:
 
Hobbes--I'm not saying

Also it must come from the new testament Because as any priest would tell you the old testament doesnt apply.
Click to expand...
There's a specific answer here but I'm not going to put it up right now since it's too easy.

However, just as a teaser: If we apply what New Testament scriptures I know of concerning homosexuality, then we must also apply other scriptures. This seems logical, but who is going to give props to the Catholics for their prohibition against female priests?

Hint: Jesus never said word one about the gays. I've never found such a passage, and the gay-hating folks I dealt with in Oregon were completely unable to provide an example.

What's funny is that when it comes to attacking Christian homophobia, this argument is in the van.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
how's this?

All Verses quoted from New King James Version

Romans 1:24-27; Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever._ Amen._ For this reason God gave them up to vile passions._ For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature._ Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God._ And such were some of you._ But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 1:9-10; the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine...

2 Peter 2:4-6; For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed with the filthy conduct of the wicked&ldots;

Jude 7; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire


note; "sexual immorality", "filthy conduct" is code for homosexualty
 
Last edited:
Good call, Spookz

I hadn't expected the bit from Jude, but that's my fault for not thinking through.

Notice, though, how many of your examples are Pauline evangelisms. It seems that the big homophobe of the New Testament was the Apostle Paul.

Christians reach to the Old Testament and to the Pauline evangelism for prohibitions against homosexuality because Jesus didn't really say anything on the matter. Hence, we end up with doctrinal fights between the conservative Pauline/Old Testament set and the Christ's Compassion Club.

I just like to point that out. It's important to me. Christians who seek doctrinal support for homophobia will not find it coming from Christ. So despite the Old Testament, despite the Pauline evangelism, if we ask the question What would Jesus do? we see a clear answer: compassion.
"You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5.43-48)

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25.31-46)
Click to expand...
I find it sad that the question of What would Jesus do? has become a slogan for the benefit of proclaimed Christians who can't already figure this part out. Emulation is an integral part of having a role model. Sure, we pick on athletes and musicians for being "bad role models", but even those who elevate Christ as a role model have trouble observing the actions and ideas of that role model. Kind of sad.

But Biblical texts on homosexuality can be split into three essential parts:

• Old Testament (exile law)
• Pauline evangelism (in hopes of the Second coming)
• Apocrypha (not generally accepted by Christians unless it's convenient)

And these are what people use to justify ignoring Christ.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Re: how's this?

sexual immorality", "filthy conduct" is code for homosexualty
Click to expand...

There is no justification for this infuriation.
These terms just mean anything not acceptable in the eyes of god.

The following lines you quoted do not speak of homosexuality.
1 Timothy 1:9-10; the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine...


2 Peter 2:4-6; For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed with the filthy conduct of the wicked&ldots;

Jude 7; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire
Click to expand...

The other two seem to make the case well except..
Romans 1:24-27 is kind of worded funny and more open to interpretation. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 I can't argue with, least not worded that way. When i looked it up in the international version it was worded "homosexual offenders" which could be taken to mean a homosexual that does something to offend god. Or perhaps someone assumed a word meant homosexual when it just mean sexual deviant. Like the the assumption made at the end of your post.

But a man wrote that and as such was limited to the views of the time. It was his views not jesus's. Like tiassa said. Jesus never condemns it or even mentions homosexuality.

GB-GIL made a point in his own sick and twisted way.(twas a funny parody too till it got too disgusting to be funny:p)
Many studies and archeologist show that homosexual meant something very different back then. I dont recall all of it(got too much of a headache to try) But basically it said that sex between men was a social thing of a time. Mostly done between men of the same class or to servants. Also only the penetrated was considered "a homosexual act".

Notice where romans says "to leave the natural use of the women"
Which could be interpreted only to mean dont leave your wife to be with men only. Not to mention it shows the little regard people then treated women. Its said like thats the only use of a women. That doesnt mean there's justification there to use women as sex objects. I imagine as a subject rarely discussed. Also considering that there really wasn't such a thing as a person identified as "homosexual" . That many married. (multiple wives as well) as part of marriage is a commitment to support your spouse in life. So if you became "Homosexual" and abandoned such responsibilities and commitments that was the sin.


Hmm that is a mess of points. Oh well. dont have time to straighten it all out.
 
Last edited:
Natural use of women

This idea popped up recently in Afghanistan, of all places:
"We were pretty shocked," Marine Fletcher said. "We discovered from the Afghan soldiers we had with us that a lot of men in this country have the same philosophy as ancient Greeks: a woman for babies, a man for pleasure,"
Click to expand...
Such, I believe, is "the natural use of women" in a Biblical context: that is, women are for babies and silent servitude.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Depends on which days

Depends on which days, Spookz! I mean, on the one hand you get an uneducated, servile sex toy to cook and clean and go to the market for you, and on the other hand you're sitting around sucking cock for pleasure because it's better than dealing with the uneducated servile sex toy who cooks and cleans and goes to the market for you.

I mean, there are worse things than sitting around sucking cock all day, I would imagine (aren't we happy about circumcision, then?). I mean, you could be a NYPD officer and have a thing for toilet plungers.

But some guys I know wouldn't be too thrilled about giving fellatio for pleasure. And some women I know don't see the daily muff-dive as much an improvement over the present.

In the Microsoft spirit: Who do you want to do today?

(The sad thing is that my irreverence is a symptom of sobriety.)

:D,
Tiassa :cool:
 
oops

i should have mentioned i was referring to biblical times as the good old days
i'll leave it to the afganis to suck cock
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top