New Testament on homosexuality

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it is completely and utterly unnatural, look at the plumbing for heavens sake!

What's with all those so called gay animals then? There have been many examples, though before you ask I'm personally too lazy to look them up.
Sounds pretty natural to me if you take that into consideration.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
What's with all those so called gay animals then? There have been many examples, though before you ask I'm personally too lazy to look them up.
Sounds pretty natural to me if you take that into consideration.

as has already been pointed out zillions of times, there are many aspects of animal behaviour than when you equate them with human behaviour have disastrous consequences. i do not accept the premise, we are not animals we are humans.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as has already been pointed out zillions of times, there are many aspects of animal behaviour than when you equate them with human behaviour have disastrous consequences. i do not accept the premise, we are not animals we are humans.

Then how do you judge what is natural and what isn't?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am saying that Christs answer clearly demonstrated that it had a much wider inference than merely a question relating to divorce, as has already been pointed out by Conrad.

it was a direct quotation from the book of genesis that embraced not only the creation of Adam and Eve, but Gods purpose for them as well, as has already been pointed out. ...[text shortened]... ion of the earth and the procreative processes to become many, is all but impossible, is it not.

Your bigoted and lame "Adam and Steve" references aside, how do those born infertile fulfill "Gods purpose for the subjugation of the earth and the procreative processes to become many"? Fertile heterosexuals may fulfill that purpose, but evidently there are many others who were not created to fulfill that purpose.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
What's with all those so called gay animals then? There have been many examples, though before you ask I'm personally too lazy to look them up.
Sounds pretty natural to me if you take that into consideration.

Well .. you have a point ... if this were Discovery Channel.

But we are talking about what the Bible says about homosexuality, so the Bible is the authority on what is natural and what is not. Homosexuality is said to be against nature. I would think thats unnatural.

RO 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the NATURAL use into that which is against nature:
RO 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Your bigoted and lame "Adam and Steve" references aside, how do those born infertile fulfill "Gods purpose for the subjugation of the earth and the procreative processes to become many"? Fertile heterosexuals may fulfill that purpose, but evidently there are many others who were not created to fulfill that purpose.

nope, Adam and Eve were created with the purpose and intent of procreating and stretching their dominion over the earth, they were created perfect, the result of such aberration as you have mentioned was not gods original purpose and came as a direct consequence of imperfection, inherited through Adam, who now found himself alienated from God and in a sinful (imperfect state).

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Then how do you judge what is natural and what isn't?

its a simple matter of design.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its a simple matter of design.

The interpretation of which is not that simple, hence this very discussion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope, Adam and Eve were created with the purpose and intent of procreating and stretching their dominion over the earth, they were created perfect, the result of such aberration as you have mentioned was not gods original purpose and came as a direct consequence of imperfection, inherited through Adam, who now found himself alienated from God and in a sinful (imperfect state).

Nope? lol.

It seemed your assertion was that the verse from Genesis showed that all humans, including homosexuals, were created to fulfill "Gods purpose for the subjugation of the earth and the procreative processes to become many". For infertile heterosexuals to have been created for that purpose, they would have to be fertile. But they aren't fertile. So clearly, not all humans were created to fulfill that purpose. So clearly your inference from the verse from Genesis is wrong.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
The interpretation of which is not that simple, hence this very discussion.

it mat be in the mind of others, but in my mind, the matter is crystal clear.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it mat be in the mind of others, but in my mind, the matter is crystal clear.

You do not with crystal clarity know the mind of God.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Nope? lol.

It seemed your assertion was that the verse from Genesis showed that all humans, including homosexuals, were created to fulfill "Gods purpose for the subjugation of the earth and the procreative processes to become many". For infertile heterosexuals to have been created for that purpose, they would have to be fertile. But they aren't fertile ...[text shortened]... ated to fulfill that purpose. So clearly your inference from the verse from Genesis is wrong.

no, that is not what i said, i do not accept the premise that homosexuals were created to to fulfil Gods purpose for the earth, the quotation from genesis, directly quoted by Christ, completely refutes that assertion, by inference, which is now stated for the fourth or fifth time, helloooo, is there anybody in there?. what is it about genetic aberration being a direct consequence of inherited imperfection that you do not understand? and are you willing to pour scorn on the account, since Christ, the practically only personage from the bible you are willing to accept, quoted directly from it. I think not.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Yes, we agree that Jesus was mute on homosexuality.

My view is that there are some diametrically opposed interpretations of what this silence on the matter means. Those who seek to reconcile homosexual behaviour with biblical teaching will want to make a case that Jesus' silence meant he was fine with it. Those who are prohibitionists with regard to h ...[text shortened]... patible with homosexual activity.

Sorry that was a bit long but I hope it made sense.

It was clear enough.

Hopefully you now understand my position as well.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
You do not with crystal clarity know the mind of God.

why are you here interpreting my thoughts on his behalf? and ummm, actually the bible admonishes us to put on the mind of Christ.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, that is not what i said, i do not accept the premise that homosexuals were created to to fulfil Gods purpose for the earth, the quotation from genesis, directly quoted by Christ, completely refutes that assertion, by inference, which is now stated for the fourth or fifth time, helloooo, is there anybody in there?. what is it about genetic aberra ...[text shortened]... y only personage from the bible you are willing to accept, quoted directly from it. I think not.

Yes, somebody's "in there".

What's difficult is parsing your rambling run-on sentences that seem to point to an incoherent position.

Seriously, it might help if you learned how to write well formed sentences. But then, maybe that's the point. Perhaps the incoherence of your writing only reflects the incoherence of your position.