/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>583045

>You could also argue that we are not held to the standards in leviticus because of Jesus.

Except that the condemnations of homosexuality are also in the New Testament.

rationalism was a mistake

>>583047

I believe you but the only stuff that I personally have come across are a bit ambiguous. Do you have any specific passages that you suggest I read?

>>583054

Romans 1:26-32

>>583054

For this reason [viz. idolatry], God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

Romans 1:261-27

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"

1 Timothy 1:9-10

>>583059

First one should be 1:26-27

>>583045

It's teleologically disordered.

>>583045

This is true OP, I debated Christians and there aren't good non-religious arguments against homosexuality and BDSM.

>>583059

>>583056

I think romans alone works really well. I think the earlier lines give it a much better context too. especially the point driven by Romans 1:20-22. I know i don't fully understand what it is saying but after reading it a few more times and digesting it i think this would be a really good religious foundation for it.

You could argue that if the gay couple waited to get married before having sex that they would neither be fornicators nor adulterers. You could also argue that the greek translations for effeminate (malakoi) better translate into spiritual weakness and abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai) better translates into something closer to shrine prostitution. Assuming they put god before themselves or each other i think you could refute that passage. (kinda an oxymoron but it seems plausible that a theoretical case might exist)

This last one you might be able to argue that those that defile themselves with mankind refers more to the thing above or idolatry. the rest of the points minus the last one don't directly seem to address homosexuality and the last point would work by addressing romans but it all hinges on that one.

>>583084

Except that Jesus defines marriage as between opposite sexes so they can't get married.

>>583078

can you explain what you mean by this. I don't understand what you mean by this. The dictionary isn't helping me out on this one.

>>583085

hmm. fair point. I think there might be an argument with trans people. I think if you do an autopsy on a trans person their brain looks more similar to the sex that they identify with. so if you argue that one party is a woman (since you can argue they have the brain of opposite sex) you might be able to get past that one. Do you have the exact passage for this one? I am pretty sure I have read this before so I could probably find it myself if you don't know it off the top of your head.

>>583084

>abusers of themselves with mankind

>arsenokoitai

That's a piss poor translation of arsenokoitai. The word means homosexual – it is literally "man-beder"

>>583088

>I think there might be an argument with trans people.

There is no argument, it is condemned. I don't feel like you are an honest debater, you are just desperately trying to justify perversion.

>>583082

yeah this is the hard part. The best one I can think of atm is how it goes against the nature of life since the "point of life" is to live and to do that you either have to live forever or have offspring. but if they say they don't want that then what now. (Granted if they admit that they dont want that it opens up a big can of worms that im willing to just give them benefit of the doubt over atm.) or what if they were already infertile.

you could also do a ton of stuff with statistics and how like most child molesters are gay and whatever but that doesn't inherently prove anything. It just means there is a higher chance of them being bad. It doesn't say that they ARE bad though.

Then there's leviticus 18:22

>Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

>>583091

I know it is wrong but i'm not asking for my sake. I have yet to meet a single gay person who is not a degenerate. I am asking so that I have more arguments to help others realize it too. I want to give them every chance possible because they might bring up one of those and i want to know how to shut that down too. I know that since it is an absolute wrong there must be ways to absolutely condemn it. it just makes it easier when i can prove it wrong with their own premises too.

>>583093

I had mentioned that in my op. That is a really direct and easy one but you can argue that jesus negates all the rules in the old testament and that only the new one matters.

>>583088

>(since you can argue they have the brain of opposite sex)

That's not how this works. Sex is encoded into the DNA of every cell in the body, and in any exceptional case where the phenotype is somehow unclear, all you need is to look for the presence or lack of the Y chromosome to find your answer. That covers every possible case. It's an objective measure and it has nothing to do with brain development or "appearance." What you're proposing is just a vague method of arbitrary classification that could be changed tomorrow if whoever in charge decided to change it, cause it's not based on anything objective. Since the brain isn't even static but always changing, someone could possibly change from one to the other at any time according to your arbitrary definition without them even realizing it. Because it's not really based on anything but something you probably just jimmy rigged to give the results you wanted to get in the first place. That's how all social sciences are going right now, just impress people with a lot of scientific sounding words and act like you know exactly what you're talking about, receive a paycheck from schlomo shekelstein for achieving desired results.

>>583090

oh cool I didn't know. I don't know greek and like 2 minutes of googled yielded that argument.

>>583082

>there aren't good non-religious arguments against homosexuality and BDSM.

This is true, because in the atheistic worldview there is no basis for morality, law, or objectivity. Really, the only consistent atheist is an edgy Stirnerite anarchist with a mixture of postmodern subjectivism.

>>583084

>You could argue that if the gay couple waited to get married before having sex that they would neither be fornicators nor adulterers.

No you couldn't, because marriage is a meaningless word if it can be between two men. It stops being a sacred covenant created by God and starts being an overglorified mutual masturbation session. The only difference between non-married gay sex and "married" gay sex is the use of the term married.

>You could also argue that the greek translations for effeminate (malakoi) better translate into spiritual weakness

No, you couldn't, because the term literally means soft. In this context it is clearly indicating an improper femininity.

>and abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai) better translates into something closer to shrine prostitution

Completely impossible. The word is of the words for man and bed. As if that wasn't enough, the Greek translation of the OT uses both of the root words in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. There is no confusion at all as to the proper meaning. These two words are often translated as one thing because malakoi is describing the bugchaser while arsenokoitai is the giftgiver

>>583102

>but you can argue that jesus negates all the rules in the old testament

Well, at that point you should ask them why they want you to believe that Jesus Christ did not die for your sins. Because if the law of God is some irrelevant thing we can toss aside, then God doesn't care about it being broken enough to suffer a cross for it.

>>583045

Ok so first of all, homosexuality is not the the sin or sinful behavior. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, leads you to do sinful things.

The problem is that when you give in to the homosexual tendencies, you do not "only" fornicate (not to downplay that) but you committ sodomy, which is more grave of a matter than the "simple" benis in bagina, because benis in bagina is something God planned in order for us to reproduce. Homosexual fornication does not "offer" this option. You committ not only an act of fornication, you twist nature in that you use your genitals for something that is against natural order. That is why this is considered especially bad.

Back to your question: No, nothing speaks against homosexuals as people. If they committ themselves fully to chastity and seek God we do not, and we can not, reject them. But sodomy and fornication is shiet. And it becomes worse if lgtb-ideology is being propagated. This is a reason for excommunication even.

To conclude: Homos = ok, "practising" homos and rampant faggots = bad

>>583103

This is solid. tho what if for some reason somebody has both (like a chimera or whatever) and they look and act like a woman and is like 99.5% x chromosome. but they still have the presence of y. even with functioning female anatomy.

>>583102

>but you can argue that jesus negates all the rules in the old testament and that only the new one matters.

No you can't. Jesus came to abolish the leviticul priesthood and the customs thereof and establish the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek psalms 110:4. So all those sacrifices in the old testament don't need to be done nor the customs accompanying them. Then there is a supersedence of the statements in the old testament such as eating any type of meat or vegetable 1 corinthians 6:12-13 and 1 corinthians 8:8-9. Or marriage amongst many others matthew 5:31-32. But everything else in the old testament can be used to see how to better please God in line with what mark 12:29-34 says. Such as how God is consistent in his stance against faggotry in both leviticus 18:22 and

romans 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 recompence of their error which was meet.

Wow "men with men" I wonder what that could mean? It is in reference to fags of course.

>>583119

both as in xx and xy

>>583112

Oh you must be talking about James 1:14-15

>But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

>Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

So don't let "lust hath conceived" nor the "burned in their lust" of romans 1:27. Because that is covetousness see romans 7:7

>What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Because lust in itself is not evil, but don't let "lust hath conceived" happen for it is said in james 4:5

>Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy

Do you?

>>583112

>homosexuality is not the the sin or sinful behavior. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, leads you to do sinful things.

Capitulation. There is no such thing as homosexuality, what you mean is sinful and perverted desire.

>No, nothing speaks against homosexuals as people

There are no homosexual people, there are sodomites. Sodomites are to repent and to repudiate their sodomitic passions and seek the sanctification of their wills.

>>583045

AIDS. If you really want to know why faggotry is bad head over to your favorite search engine and type in 'bug chasing.' If that doesn't convince you faggots should be euthanized, nothing will.

>>583129

Oh and I'm sure lust is a problem that homos have exclusively, right ? And I'm sure Jesus would've kicked the shit out of homos that followed Him in chastitiy, because that's what homos deserve, right ? Gtfo with your uncharitable sola scriptura delusion.

Here in Australia we recently had a national vote on gay marriage. It forced me to develop a thorough argument for why sodomy and sodomite marriage is inherently wrong. (Terms like 'gay' and 'homosexuality' are total misnomers for the Christian)

I'll post below two of my condensed arguements.

1)

Anthropological Reason for Hetero-monogamous marriage

Facitious

So what is lost to society if marriage is redefined to include homosexuality?

The strict hetero-monogamous cohabitation of 'one man and one woman' must be the only legitimate standard for what constitutes as 'marriage'. Why?

Forget religion, just focus on a basic anthropological truth:

All world cultures have adhered to this strict standard for the simple reason that it is the only form of family cohabitation which provides for highly stable societies.

Societies never widely adopt arbitrary, aberrant and anarchic sexual practices like homosexuality (or polygamy, bigamy, pedogamy, consaguinamory etc…..) because these only serve to utterly destroy the fragile social bonds that are necessary for holding together our highly complex human sociological groups.

Human impulses are such a tricky thing to deal with.

They are so extremely powerful, so if there isnt an equally powerful ethical construct like hetero-monogamous marriage to regulate these impulses, then societies quickly break down as everyone starts to focus on their own personal gratification rather than what is best for society at large.

Thats why religions, specifically Christianity, are so important. Christianity was so amazingly successful in harmoniously regulating human's bestial instincts that the Christian West was able to develop into such an high degree of social complexity that all sorts of complex specialised endeavours were able to flourish, like at no other time in history or in any other culture.

But if we allow our bestial instincts to rule us, legitimising all sorts of sexual anarchy, then we will quickly see all these highly complex societal achievement rapidly fall apart.

2)

Although dating way back to Plato, Marx and Engels were the first intellectuals of the modern era who saw the destruction of marriage as a revolutionary goal through the promulgation of unrestrained sexual practices like homosexuality and general libertine sexual habits in heterosexuals.

They saw the family unit as the protector and promulgator of Patriarchal religion which they saw as the instrument of class oppression.

Cultural Marxists have furthered this aim since the 60s. Marriage is a hollow shell now which is why this SSM debate is so anachronistic and represents a cognitive dissonance within a movement (particularly the lesbian facttions wuthin the radical Feminist movement) that has sought the abolition of marriage for decades.

The role of Protector and provider has shifted from the husband to the state. which in turn creates a welfare state reliant on mostly male debt slaves and tax generators, all in the name of gender 'liberte' and 'egalite'.

>>583132

>Capitulation. There is no such thing as homosexuality, what you mean is sinful and perverted desire.

Correct.

>and seek the sanctification of their wills.

What does this even mean? Did you not read james 1:14-15? Sinful desire does not equal sin. Unless it has "concieved". If you are going to argue that all those with a spirit after Jesus had died once on the cross are sinners because of romans 7:7. Wouldn't that mean that none can be saved since Jesus will never die again because of revelation 1:17?

>>583134

This falls under inductive logic. Tons of stuff like this makes it very clear very fast that when you are homosexual there is often a wealth of other issues wrong with you. It doesn't mean prove that all or even most are bad though.

>>583135

Did you read nothing? Lust is not the problem, fulfilling or deciding to fullfill the desires of the flesh, covetousness, is the problem. See ephesians 2:3

>Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

>>583145

Which I was saying in my first post. Nice ciclejerk.

>>583140

>What does this even mean?

That they are to seek to reform their desires to purity

>Sinful desire does not equal sin

Yes it does, see Matthew 5:28 and 1 John 3:15.

>Unless it has "concieved"

Of course, there is a difference between the desire for sin and the sin itself, but is the lust to rebel not itself repugnant to God, just like rebellion itself?

>Wouldn't that mean that none can be saved since Jesus will never die again because of revelation 1:17?

They're still sinners, but not in God's eyes. See 1 John 1:8 and Romans 8:33-34.

>this thread, the "Neo-Reactionary" thread, and a pile of spam, slide, and shitposts on /pol/ all go up within an hour of eachother

Uh huh.

>>583136

the first one is very inductive and doesn't even have any specific examples or any sort of evidence really to back it up. I know this is just the condensed version so i'm not sure if this is a valid criticism. I do think that the history of rome would serve really well to back it up though. I just don't know enough about the history of it to specifically address how.

The second one faces pretty much the same issue but again i'm not sure if that is a valid criticism. luckily there should be a ton of info to work with if you look into some of those societies that embraced it to back this up.

>>583192

>There isn't anything wrong with homosexuality, and no valid arguments against it.

Literally every statistic in the world disagrees with you.

>>583192

>There isn't anything wrong with homosexuality, and no valid arguments against it.

Cheap bait.

>>583192

>People who reproduce and support their offspring themselves are a bigger burden than the extreme social disruptions caused by acceptance of sexual perversion (that's leaving aside the economic consequences of said disruption, as well as the direct strain on the medical system and public funds wasted on providing them treatment for AIDS)

also

>Mouths aren't made for kissing

The AIDS medication has destroyed your mind homo

>>583161

Matthew 5:28

>But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So you can look on a women with lust, but do not "lust after her". This is just repeating the definition of covetousness in romans 7:7.

1 john 3:15

>Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

What does this have to do with lust?

>but is the lust to rebel not itself repugnant to God, just like rebellion itself?

Of course it is, but that is the lust of the flesh and not of the spirit see ephesians 2:3 again. Don't impute sin where there is none lest you break romans 5:13 and do mattthew 7:5-13.

1 john 1:8

>He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil

How does this justify the spirit being sinful? The whole point of the spirit was to bypass the fact romans 8:7-8 is said

>Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

>So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

They that are in the flesh can not please God, but ye are not in the flesh, but in romans 8:9 I would hope. Jesus came by both water and blood in john 19:34 and 1 john 5.

>>583147

You weren't backing anything you said with scripture. Your words were meaningless, serve God and use what is said in the word of God to better serve the Lord.

>>583165

Im sorry you think this is a shitpost. I am very genuine about wanting an answer to this. Regardless if you are for or against it please let me know your stance and why. Any valid statement should be able to stand up to scrutiny.

>>583194

>muh statistics

A is bad, B practice A more than the general population, therefore being B is intrinsically bad.

Can you see why your argument is dumb, or you really can't grasp it?

>>583198

I'm not an atheist. I worship Moloch ;)

>>583202

>>583212

Feel free to explain it then, because it's always directly quoting scripture, natural law, or le statistics, none of them are good arguments really.

>>583213

>People who reproduce and support their offspring themselves

Except they don't? Conservative, religious Trump voters use a shitload of welfare. Gays are higher income.

>The AIDS medication has destroyed your mind homo

"i-i can't answer, so i'll just bring up aids yet again, that will show him!"

This is just sad, I feel bad for you.

>>583227

>Directly quoting scripture is not an argument

>Statistics are not an argument

Explain why.

>>583216

>So you can look on a women with lust, but do not "lust after her"

How did you get that from this? Jesus plainly states it's a sin to desire sin, specifically adultery in this case.

>What does this have to do with lust?

Nothing, it has to do with sin and sinful desire.

>that is the lust of the flesh and not of the spirit

There is no such thing as "lust of the spirit". Do not impute sinful passions to the Spirit of God.

>How does this justify the spirit being sinful?

Well, for starters, what you just quoted is not 1 John 1:8. 1 John 1:8 says "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us". This means that if we claim to be intrinsically sinless we are not truly Christians. Even a Christian sins constantly, even when doing good.

>>583227

>I worship Moloch

You worship Priapus

>>583192

>There isn't anything wrong with homosexuality, and no valid arguments against it. It's just bigotry.

You need to define your terminology. Some take homosexuality as actively having sex with other men which is most certainly against leviticus 18:22. I think you meant to say are attracted sexual to other men there.

>Except the bible is full of polygamy and incest. Not even one condemnation of it throughout the whole book.

Oh you brought this up. Yea, you are correct as the only list of things you are not allowed to have sex with in the Bible is in leviticus 18 the tldr being no near of kin, no having sex with the same gender, and no fucking beasts. With the "woman" of isreal being commanded not to be whores in deutoronomy 23:17

>¶ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Otherwise nothing else is said in the Bible of what you are allowed or not allowed to have sex with.

>For adopting the Roman pagan observance of monogamy?

Again you are correct. Not once in the Bible is having multiple wives as a man disallowed except for those desiring the office of a bishop in 1 timothy 3:1-13. But christians who are currently unmarried are adviced, but not forced, to stay unmarried as to better serve the Lord in 1 corinthians 7:7-9.

>Religious couples with 12 children are much more of a burden to the state than homosexuals, you can be sure of that.

Aids medication over the lifetime of a active sodomite will cost much more then those kids if they are healthy. Especially considering those kids might contribute more tax to the state and be useful as bodies for manual labor. You almost sound like you are trying to justify faggotry. Stop that.

>>583237

Homosexual thought is sin as well, same way as Jesus says that lusting after women is a sin.

>>583233

In their defense, this is part of what I mentioned in op. Using statistics to support something is just inductive logic.

quoting scripture only the basis of a valid argument if the both parties believe in god. I didn't mention this till later in the tread but the main reason i made this thread is to know what to say to people who don't agree with my stance to to make my own more rigorous. most people who disagree with me tend to be atheist so arguments that don't rely on the bible are highly encouraged.

>>583235

>There is no such thing as "lust of the spirit"

james 4:5

>Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy

>How did you get that from this? Jesus plainly states it's a sin to desire sin, specifically adultery in this case.

No, Jesus states Matthew 5:28

>But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

It is said "to lust after her" is to "hath committed adultery with her". There is nothing said about having lust for her. As long you you don't "lust after her" which is to say romans 7:7.

>Well, for starters, what you just quoted is not 1 John 1:8.

Woops, huge mistake there, my bad. The actual 1 john 1:8

>If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

>This means that if we claim to be intrinsically sinless we are not truly Christians. Even a Christian sins constantly, even when doing good.

Well of course we have sin, in our carnal bodies of course. Because 1 corinthians 5:5 says

>To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

And elsewhere in romans 3:23

>For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

while also in romans 5:13

>(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Romans 6:2

>God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

>>583249

>james 4:5

The KJV mistranslates this verse

>There is nothing said about having lust for her

That is what lusting after her means.

>>583241

Stop making up sins, Yes indeed Jesus saith "to lust after her" is sin. But no where is thinking about her, to not go after her, stated as a sin. Only the decision to act on said lust is a sin or rather "to lust after her".

>>583045

It's against natural law, it's against what God made men and women for, it's perverting your sexuality, you frustrate the purpose give to your sexual organs.

Just to give you an example, food is for survival. Using food for anything else is wrong, we can all agree on that. The same criteria applies to sexual organs. That's why, for example, hetero anal sex and mastrubation is wrong too.

>>583257

Oh, here we go again with this arguement. No, the version you are quoting makes God a liar if it is true, which it is not. The KJV, however unaccurate to the peices of trash known as the (((textus receptucus))) and the (((dead sea peices of garbage paper))), does not make God a liar if it is true, which it is true.

So use the KJV in this case as those (((versions))) change doctrine entirely, unless you have a version you can show me that does not make God a liar if it were true i.e titus 1:2 and 2 peter 1:20-21.

>>583261

You are inventing sins without using what God says in the Bible to back your statements. You are falling for the trap of matthew 15:3-6

>But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

>For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

>But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

>And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

>>583261

>It's against natural law

Posts like these are exactly why I usually ignore these threads. "natural law" is just a way of saying what you feel goes as you have no provable backing or authority. Instead of doing what God says. But yes, God in leviticus 18:22 forbids lieing with mankind as with womenkind.

>Using food for anything else is wrong

There are legitiment other uses for food. Some foods have a dual purpose in string making such as herbs. Or as creating perfume with certain fruits.

>>583259

I'm not making up a sin.

>>583281

Are you seriously making a case that mastrubation isn't a perversion of human sexuality? You're saying Christ condoned this perversion?

>>583294

Look, OP created this thread asking for arguments that don't come down to quoting the Bible.

>Or as creating perfume with certain fruits.

Still, you're not frustrating it's purpose in the sense of wasting it. Gay sex is a waste of human sexuality.

>>583310

Then where in the KJV Bible is it said to think about a women without action, or to not lust after her but yet have lust, a sin?

>>583082

>>583045

The problem is simple once you call these people what they really are.

Sex Addicts.

>>583316

>Then where in the KJV Bible is it said to think about a women without action

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Matthew 5:28

>>583314

>Are you seriously making a case that mastrubation isn't a perversion of human sexuality? You're saying Christ condoned this perversion?

I am simply quoting the Bible. If touching yourself is sin, it really makes you think about how marriage is possible when 1 corinthians 7:1 can be true

>NOW concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

1 corinthians 6:16.

>What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

So thusly touching your married wife is like touching yourself. As for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. Which is never a sin in the Bible. Unless you want to argue that hebrews 13:4 is false.

>Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

>Look, OP created this thread asking for arguments that don't come down to quoting the Bible.

No, he created it asking about why men being attraced to men like fags is bad. The answer is because men cannot complete men as it is a perversion of matthew 19:4-6

>And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

>And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

>Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

If you had actual gone back to the begining in Genesis 2:23-24

>And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

>Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

To justify such is because Adam was one flesh in genesis 5:2

>Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

In men, it spreads disease, lowers the birthrate and creates effeminate men who are unable to withstand the rigors of a working life and defend their people.

>>583323

That states "to lust after her". Do you even have basic reading comprehension? You can lust without lusting after her. Then you convienently forget to explain how james 4:5 is true if what you say is true.

>Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy

>>583340

To lust after her just means to have lust for her. Lust in itself is a sin because it leads to greater sin, we are all sinners.

You are going to have to explain to me how James 4:5 contradicts what I have said.

>>583045

homosexuality is not forbidden. What is forbidden is:

impure acts (homosex included)

being effeminate

>>583344

If lust is a sin, which it is not because it is the lusting after her that is a sin, then how can any be saved? If both the flesh and the spirit are under romans 6:23

>For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Then with what body will they come? Well 1 corinthians 15:35-36 adresses this.

>But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

>Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

It is the 1 corinthians 15:44 spirit. But if both are under sin, and the wages of sin are death, then how shall it come? Of course you are wrong as the way it is worded "to lust after her" is not the same as "having lust for her". As if God meant to say "having lust for her" instead of "to lust after her" then it would be there in the Bible, but it is not.

>>583353

>then how can any be saved?

Because we are saved through the grace of Christ, not through any of our acts.

>>583356

Let me reprase that in a way you might understand since you very obviously can't comprehend basic english and need to study first grade english again.

If both the flesh and the spirit are under romans 6:23

>For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Then with what body will they come? Well 1 corinthians 15:35-36 adresses this.

>But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

>Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

It is the 1 corinthians 15:44 spirit. But if both are under sin, and the wages of sin are death, then how can both be true? If the spirit is under sin and the flesh is under sin, then how is it the body of sin, the spirit, is the one that is raised? That's impossible as if it is raised in sin then 1 corinthians 15:50 can't be true

>Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

If the spirit is corrupt and yet it inherits the kingdom of God, then God would be a liar in 1 corinthians 15:50. But that's not true as God can not lie in titus 1:2.

That and you seem to fail to read basic english when it comes "to lust after her" in Matthew 5:28.

>>583362

>Let me reprase that in a way you might understand since you very obviously can't comprehend basic english and need to study first grade english again.

I don't know why I should continue this conversation if you are just going to insult with every single post.

>>583362

basic english aka your unscriptural opinions that you read into the bible

The increase in spreading disease

the increase in child rape

the exception of leads to a push of worse shit

no babies

>>583363

>ad hominims, the post

<I don't know why I should continue this conversation

I'm offended by your very existence and ignorance of the word of God. Why aren't you doing this to edify the brethern in line with what 1 corinthians 14:26 says? It states

>How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

So refute me then for the sake of edification, how can lust be a sin and 1 corinthians 15:50 be true at the same time?

>>583365

Do you have another interpretation? Would you share it with all of us and account for all the verses quoted thus far? You never did adress this post >>583269 .

>>583373

I don't see any contradiction between what I said and 1 Corinthians 15:50. You need to explain your view, not just post a verse saying that it contradicts and expect me to play a game of "guess what is in my head".

>I'm offended by your very existence and ignorance of the word of God.

Consider this conversation over, this will be my last reply to you.

>>583379

You said lust is a sin. Our spirit in james 4:5 has lust. God says in 1 corinthians 15:35-36,44 that the spirit is the one that is raised from the dead. If what you say is true about lust being a sin, and the wages of sin being death in romans 6:23, then how is the spirit the one that is raised? It is corrupt going by your definition of having had lust, which you claim is a sin. But God states 1 corinthians 15:50 which states neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. God can not lie because of titus 1:2. So which is true, is lust not a sin or is the spirit corrupt and God a liar in 1 corinthians 15:50?

>>583408

>toxoplasma is literally a gayness disease that is covered up by (((all of the institutes of the world)))

That's very revelating, stil doesn't change that leviticus 18:22 is a TLDR for that whole essay. Thanks for posting it though.

>>583045

Homosexuality is a cross, it's a burden we need to bear in silence and with the help of God.

Nowadays too many people try to make it sound and look "cool", acceptable, heck, even the new normal behavior. They pride themselves with that abnormality, they parade and boast about its degenerate acts and they try to shut down everyone who speaks against it: a real Gaystapo, ideological warfare.

I was homosexual, I had homosexual intercourse and I still regret it today, after many years trying to stop lusting after men, after I was raped by a gay room mate; homosexuality itself is not a sin, but acting onto it is, and among the worst out there. Like many pointed out here.

>>583045

The anus is not a sexual organ.

>>583408

wow. nice. seriously thank you man. looking into this and the references is going to keep me busy for a while. This has a lot of stuff that seems like it will be great for the atheists I know.

It defies natural law. It is degenerate, as it degenerates culture, as well as people. It is strictly lust, not love, as a man can not have sex with another man under God for the purpose of procreation and giving them self to the other, it is instead lust, it's nothing more than a fetish.

In a relationship with kids, it is also harmful to the child. A child is meant to have role models, as models for those roles (Like the words suggest). A man can never be a woman, a child who grows up with out a mother will be confused as to what to look for in a partner, and will never fully understand the feminine side of things, while also having a faggot for a father, causing him to not understand masculinity either. It really fucks a kid to have faggot parents.

>>583427

true, too true

>>583045

Homosexuality is not natural. Sexual perversions are not natural and are not intended to be the way we live our lives. Don't try to be against it using the world's logic. Use the wisdom of God. If people won't accept that, then so be it.