Gay sex immoral says US general

Actually that is from the Old Testament and has nothing to do with Gentiles. Those were Old Testament laws for the Jewish people to follow so that is very silly to try and say that applies to the topic.
Well duh. Now where exactly are the prohibitions against homosexuality found?

BTW the Old Testament and New Testament talk about homosexuality being the same as me lusting after a woman.
Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, and it is only mentioned once in the new testament, in the homophobic diatribe of Saul of Tarsus in Romans 1
Obviously you don't have to believe the Bible but it truely is insulting for someone to belittle it.
How is it insulting to point out what it says? Really, if it is so insulting to you then maybe you should reconsider what you call the "word of god".
You clearly have read some of the Bilbe but anyone who understands it knows the things you talked about are silly assumptions to make.
I understand the bible quite well thank you very much. I just know how to read it for myself and come to my own conclusions.
 
Limiting it to the new testament? I'll play along.....

Rom 1:26-27
I Cor 6:9-10
I Tim 1:9-10
Mark 10:2-9
Matt 19:3-9
I Cor 6:12-20
I cor 11:2-16
Eph 5:21-33
 
And where do you base your moral stands, or do you, just like all of the other non-biblical moral relativists, not believe in absolutes? That's a real easy way to approach the world. I couldn't care less about homosexuality, but a lot of that morality stuff is to be found in all forms of religion.
Quite simply, if my actions can cause harm to another person then I consider them immoral. If not, then I consider it a matter of personal choice.
 
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," were his comments.

He's a maniac, someone had better put the breaks on this out of control freak.

He expressed these as a General of the United States.
 
Rom 1:26-27
noted in my previous post
I Tim 1:9-10
Mentions a multitude of sins, including sodomy as well as insubordination. Ever been insubordinate?
Mark 10:2-9
Talks about divorce. Since Gays were forbidden to marry at the time, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Matt 19:3-9
See Mark 10: 2-9
I cor 11:2-16
Tells women that they are to be servants to their men
Eph 5:21-33
Another passage telling women that they are second class citizens
I Cor 6:9-10
I Cor 6:12-20
You got me on that one. I missed it.
 
How many times is it mentioned in the entire Bible? I'm truly asking
Since I consider the bible to be nothing more than a collection of ancient writings about God as they saw him, and nothing more, I really don't care, anymore than I care how many times the bible tells me not to eat pork.
 
Since I consider the bible to be nothing more than a collection of ancient writings about God as they saw him, and nothing more, I really don't care, anymore than I care how many times the bible tells me not to eat pork.

I assumed you felt this way, but I was truly wondering how many times, because I felt you calculated wrong. And I also wanted to make sure most of the mentions were in the Old Testament.
 
He expressed these as a General of the United States.

I don't really give a damn. Evidently, military personnel are restricted in what they can discuss. I did not know this. So if this is a rule violation, then so be it. The statement in and of itself I do not have a problem with.
 
I assumed you felt this way, but I was truly wondering how many times, because I felt you calculated wrong. And I also wanted to make sure most of the mentions were in the Old Testament.
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Genesis 19:4-5, and Judges 19:22 both give accounts of the men of the city coming to a home and demanding that male guests be given over to them to be raped. In both cases, the owner of the home offers his daughter instead (what a loving father).
Romans 1:26
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Note that homosexuality was never once mentioned by Jesus. He was more concerned with how his followers treated their fellow man.
 
I wouldn't consider it the most desirable choice for a woman to persue, but I wouldn't call it immoral.
Per some of your other statements you would consider almost nothing immoral, unless it directly harmed someone else and the decision maker had full knowledge of the potential harm. Sound about right?
 
Per some of your other statements you would consider almost nothing immoral, unless it directly harmed someone else and the decision maker had full knowledge of the potential harm. Sound about right?

"Nam esse vitium et non nocere non potest."—St. Augustine
 
Good...so apparently, you have nothing to add to Saint Augustine's belief that where there is no harm inflicted there can be no wrong?
 
Good...so apparently, you have nothing to add to Saint Augustine's belief that where there is no harm inflicted there can be no wrong?
Nothing to add, simply disagree. His assertion flies in the face of the rule of law and the ability to enforce the rules. Can you imagine someday trying to teach responsibility to a child with this approach?

I believe St. Augustine's philosophy is a slippery slope by which men justify impropriety.
 

VN Store



Back
Top