Why is homosexuality considered wrong according to Christianity? This isn't to say that I'm advocating to change that teaching, I'm just genuinely curious. From my perspective it seems like there's a tendency among a lot of Christians to merely label all homosexuals as degenerates who only seek lustful sexual relationships.. but I don't think this is a fair take, is it? You see a lot of homosexuals who do genuinely love eachother for reasons more than just vain sex reasons. I won't deny that those who are only in it for the sex exist, though, and I imagine there was a lot of that during the biblical times when things weren't as well defined. I generally believe God has an explanation or a good reason for anything, so what about this? Is it because men cannot reproduce with other men, as in, does the Bible only allow relationships that can lead to reproduction? I've heard mixed opinions on that issue.I'm well aware that sodomy can cause physical health problems such as STDs, but if a man and a man love eachother and aren't y'know doing it in the butt, then what's the problem? As far as I know the Bible only forbids sodomy, not male relationships
Homosexuality is a sin because it is lust. Those "two men who are just in love" will inevitably feel lustful towards one another and sin. If they know this and continue anyway, it is because they have put romance, love, and sex as an idol. They will not be obedient to God.
>>16516422Proof of this is that homosexuals are never monogamous, although they can pretend to be for the sake of social acceptance
>>16516422also because gay sex isn't fruitful at all and doesn't produce life. The only purpose is to endlessly feed passions of the flesh, because fufilment comes from fruitful love with a spouse or with god.
>>16516405>Why is homosexuality considered wrongHomosexuality doesn't exist. That's why it's not mentioned in the Bible. However, any sexual conduct outside the bounds of marriage is sinful. And since two people of the same gender cannot physically be married, any sexual conduct between them is sinful.
>>16516405Why DO YOU HOMOSEXUALS feel so entitled to contaminate every aspect of human life with your views?? You contaminate religion, society, culture, countries with your "homosexual perspective" of everything.We (normal people that fuck women) DON´T GIVE A FUCK about you fucking other men´s asses BUT DON´T try to contaminate everything like if we cared about you (3% of the population) doing what you do.Religion, culture, society, values.... In everything you put your nose and we lived in those areas without thinking about sex until you spread your degenerate views.What the hell has religion or culture with where you put your dick? Why do you have a need to sexualize EVERYTHING? Maybe those that bullied gays in the past had a reason to do it: to avoid you spreading your degeneration views (and 100% sexual minds) into everything. You have contributed to the destruction of the traditional family institution because politicians have promoted that a man-man marriage is the same as a natural man-woman marriage. Even politicians have allowed you to adopt kids or even to hire wombs and with this the traditional families images have been lowered "because even gays can marry and have children" (so the traditional family is not as important despite being the core element in human species evolution: man-woman-children is the core evolution institution).You should go and fuck off and stop contaminating all things with your sexuality fucking degenerates. And no I literally had nothing until gays until seeing what you are doing to society as colective. Even allowing lgtb lobbies to teach children about sexuality at schools!! (go and fuck yourself!). No one is going to consider you as normal until you stop to consider you special just for inserting your dick into another male asshole and selling it as "normal"). People don´t get that you are a puppet tool for politicians into degrading society, values, traditional culture, etc.
>>16516474Bro I'm not even gay you can save your sperg out for someone else. All I'm asking is a question. Yeah the LGBT movement has degraded a lot of values and has harmed children don't get me wrong and it's sad that we as a society have let it get so far. I'm merely asking why two males being in a relationship is inherently immoral, nothing else
>>16516405Unnatural and unproductive activity. You don't even need religion to tell you it's genetic suicide.
>>16516422Ah yes, because heterosexual relationships are totally always based on mutual respect and deep spiritual love instead of skin-deep lust and other vain materialistic qualities, right? Lmao.>>16516452>if you don’t produce a child with someone you don’t REALLY love themLol. Lmao, even.>>16516474The absolute irony of this post. The only reason you think heterosexual people don’t “sexualize everything” is because you’ve been immersed in it so long you can’t see it for what it is. It’s like entering a room that smells like bleach, stay there long enough and you won’t even recognize it anymore, it will just smell normal. Your kind don’t even think men and women can be friends, and why? Because EVERY interaction between the sexes is inherently sexual to you debased subhumans. Moids in particular are only a step above animals.>>16516526So not reproducing is immoral? At most you can say not reproducing is amoral, but to say it’s immoral to not have kids is actual insanity. We are not a population of 3000 or some shit, there are almost 8 billion people on the planet, society will not collapse just because 5% of the population can’t reproduce lmfao
>>16516405Homosexuality isn’t forbidden in traditional Christianity; like you say, only sodomy is. And the fundamental reason for this is sodomy violates natural law theory. Homosexuality is considered disordered either way, but it’s not inherently sinful to have homosexual desires.
>>16516550Don't act as if you're above your nature
>>16516550>the namefag who posts like an obnoxious redditor is also a partisan gay supporter.
>>16516405You are a man and you lust after men rather than women, you are an excessive people
>>16516405>but I don't think this is a fair take, is it?Yes, it is.>You see a lot of homosexuals who do genuinely love eachother for reasons more than just vain sex reasonsNo you don't. The few homosexuals that aren't unrestrained buttpirates are playing house, a parody of love rather than an instance of it.>I'm well aware that sodomy can cause physical health problems such as STDsWhy do you think that is?>As far as I know the Bible only forbids sodomy, not male relationshipsYou don't know very farThe abomination of sodomy is an inversion of human nature. The sodomite through his actions declares himself to be God, and a better designer than God. God designed man in a particular way way and homosexual relationships inherently reject that design, turning against nature. Their immoral desire is not innocently born, but they turned against God and denied Him in their hearts, and suffered a curse going from bad to worse and being twisted from nature into a perversion, because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness and make war on the creator.
>>16516405FBI Thread.
>>16516405>Why is homosexuality considered wrong according to Christianity?Because faggotry is objectively bad, and Christianity is objectively good.Although your own instincts should be enough to tell you that faggotry is bad, God was nice enough to write the Bible to let you know that faggotry is bad just in case you have weak and unhealthy instincts.
>>16516563Read the bible
>>16516773everything i dont like is le glowies
>>16516782>Christianity is objectively good.Lol
>>16516782my instinct to stick my dick in boy poo poo and mouth holes is pretty strong thoughbeit
>>16516405Even being a fag myself, it's pretty easy to see why being gay was frowned upon beyond the basic "ewww gay sex is icky" excuse. It's because it doesn't produce life. Add to that how many gays of the past have been total perverts and you get a social stigma that's not totally undeserved and stereotypes that aren't entirely inaccurate.
>>16516782>Christianity is objectively good.
>>16518122The bible was written to help people like you thoughever
>>16516405God doesn’t really explain why, but suffice to say most scholars lean towards some version of, sex has an ordered purpose, and any sex act outside that is disordered and will cause practitioners to become more debased and less human.
>>16518203Even pagans recognized (and of course still do in pagan countries like India and Japan) this along with promiscuity to some degree - they didn't condemn it but at the same time they recognized that it wasn't equal to intercourse within marriage.
>>16516422>Homosexuality is a sin because it is lust.Not the way I do it :3
>>16516452So infertile people are barred from marrying or having sex?
>>16516461What do you mean "physically be married"? Marriage is a legal and cultural status, not a physical one.
>>16518423Christianity teaches that ideally no one should be having sex. It's a grievous and sinful polytheistic act, and a direct attach on Yahweh himself. It gets between you and Jesus, so it's bad, ergo don't do it. You can have sex to reproduce for the purpose of making more Christians, but only by confessing that you're going to sin in advance. So, yes, people who are infertile or barren shouldn't be having sex and they can't marry. Up until relatively recently however you could only find out if someone was infertile or barren after marriage.
>>16516405Some have argued that it isn't, because the prohibition belongs to the ritual law, which Christians are no longer bound by, rather than the moral law, which they are.
>>16518448Do you have an official doctrinal statement from any major church that says that all sex including within marriage is sinful?
>>16518461I know that this is the case in Catholicism. >>16518452Yeah but then you're just classifying "homosexual" as a form of barrenness or infertility and you run into what >>16518448 said.
>>16518480Can you point to where in the Catechism it says that, and to where it says infertile people are barred from marrying, or that contraction of infertility means nullification of a marriage? (Which would imply that all marriages should be immediately annulled upon the wife reaching menopause, since it's impossible for her to get pregnant past that point.)
>>16518480>I know that this is the case in Catholicism.Not any more, Vatican II undid that.
>>16518487No, the doctrine has changed since Vatican II and the Vatican no longer affirms this. If you want to go read Aquinas's stance on the matter, or that of prior Popes, which is currently heresy and against Catholic doctrine, then that's a different matter.
>>16518518So the eternal unchangeable doctrine of the Catholic Church has changed?
>>16518548The Catholic Church recognizes that doctrine can develop over time. This isn't something like changing the doctrine on salvation
>>16519122If you had asked Catholics 100 years ago would they have said that doctrine would ever change?
Homosexuals only become a problem if you don't have enough children. Think about it, the biggest concern people have with gays is that they cannot carry on their families legacy, since they cannot have children, but if they have enough siblings to pick up the slack it becomes a non-issue. Thus the failure is in the father to not have raised a large enough family to make up for it. It was also way more likely back then to die before coming of age, which is partially why people had much larger families back then
>>16519152Development of Doctrine theory dates to 1845.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_doctrine
>>16518366>Even pagans recognized thisWell of course, everyone with a brain recognizes it. I've never been in favor of outlawing homosexuality for obvious reasons, but it's obvious that it's not something to be encouraged for this exact reason.>Verification not required.
>>16519416That's pretty recent for a church that's about sixteen or seventeen centuries old.
>>16519416https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOoHo8FUwewHe's a real priest and says you're wrong.
People who talk about "God" have no agency to talk argue shit about anything.If you wanna understand argue about Christianity beliefs you gotta see it exclusively from the philosophical side pov whatever
>>16516405per the expanded rules, 1 Cor 6:9 and Rev 22:15 specifically excludes homos.It is not "Christians" who are against homos, but "Christianity" per text.now sage
>>16516405duality, as God made day to go with night, He made woman to complete man. read the Bible, anon. it's not hard. also, there are plenty of anti homosexuality and pro life scriptures.
>>16519529>1 Cor 6:9The word ἀρσενοκοῖται is a hapax legomenon, and not everyone agrees on its interpretation; for instance, Luther has "Knabenschänder", which would be more like someone who molests boys than someone who engages in consensual homosexual relations with other adults, Louis Segonde has infâmes, the Londona Biblio has viruzaĉantoj which could just as well mean people who rape men or hire male prostitutes, Det Norsk Bibelselskap has "de som synder mot naturen", literally "those who sin against nature", the 1917 Swedish translation has a very similar "de som låta bruka sig till synd mot naturen eller de som själva öva sådan synd", and many Slavic translations just give up and calque ἀρσενοκοῖται literally.>Rev 22:15What word here are you interpreting as referring to homosexuality? πόρνοι? It just means "male prostitutes" or "manwhores".
>>16519568Why are you bringing up non-Greek words? There is nothing obscure here, we know what porneia and other terms of the time meant to Hellenic Jews and they included sodomy as a sin. It is not some great mystery what Paul was thinking here, arsenokoitai just means those who lay with men, that's it. Sodomy is seen as sinful for the same reason all other sexual sins (porneia) are: they abuse the body by diverting it away from its telos towards an iniquitous end. If you're a nihilist with no regards for teleology then this doesn't matter to you, but nihilism is self-defeating nonsense anyway.
>>16519592>Why are you bringing up non-Greek words?Because it shows that even before the modern tide of acceptance for homosexuality (which Luther, for instance, was well before) many people did not interpret the word as meaning "homosexuals" in general.>we know what porneia and other terms of the time meant to Hellenic Jews and they included sodomy as a sin.Ah, but that's the Jewish law, which in other places it's explicitly said Christians are not under.>It is not some great mystery what Paul was thinking here, arsenokoitai just means those who lay with men, that's itSo why did he not choose any of the many, many pre-existing Greek words for that?>they abuse the body by diverting it away from its telosAnd where in the NT does the word "telos" in its Aristotelian sense show up?
>>16519601>many people did not interpret the word as meaning "homosexuals" in generalOr it's just evidence of something being lost in translation. Though I don't know Luther's intention, if anything this could be evidence that the concepts of faggot and pederast were basically synonymous in his view.>Ah, but that's the Jewish lawI'm not talking about Mosaic Law, I'm talking about etymology. Porneia included sodomy, bestiality, extramarital coition, and all things viewed as sexually illicit in Judea.>And where in the NT does the word "telos" in its Aristotelian sense show up?This line of argument appears almost desperate. The idea that God creates things with a specific end in mind is apparent right from Genesis: that's telos, yet you're telling me I can't say that unless the Scriptures directly mention Aristotle.
>>16516405Leviticus 18:22 Leviticus 20:13Romans CorinthiansIn the early church, no sign of a doctrinal development of Leviticus 18:22. The only time where homosexuality was thought to possibly be acceptable was now.Why:According to Catholics, natural law theoryWatch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mGsr0leHrU
>>16518423The Catholic church says yes, https://www.catholic.com/qa/if-a-person-is-infertile-through-no-fault-of-his-own-can-he-get-married-in-the-catholic-church
>>16519612>Though I don't know Luther's intention, if anything this could be evidence that the concepts of faggot and pederast were basically synonymous in his view.Still, having sex with an adult man and molesting a boy are in fact different acts.
>>16518372To not be lustful, it should come out of a place of both love and reason. Christians are called to remove desires and passions from their hearts. If you are committing an act which has no other purpose than to feed your desires, it is lust.Homosexual activity bears nothing apart from emotions. We get no children from it, and the act is simply unfruitful. With straight relationships, even they shouldnt lust. Hence, oral sex is barred in the church, or not ideal. That is lustful. Lust is an unnatural irrational act.The sexual act in a straight marriage would and should bear children. It is rational and functional and needed for the human population. What rational things you can do apart from being a fag:read a bookwrite a bookdo mathmeditatework outLearn philsophy Do researchWork
>>16519654>If you are committing an act which has no other purpose than to feed your desires, it is lust.So eating cookies is lust?>We get no children from itSo if one partner becomes infertile or passes menopause, a marriage is instantly nullified?>Hence, oral sex is barred in the church, or not ideal. That is lustful.What if you're only doing it to prepare for PIV, get both partners appropriately aroused and so on?
>>16519661>So eating cookies is lust?Lust also includes the qualification that it is sexual in nature, i forgot to add.But yes, it is a passion.This is why monks in Mt. Athos and the Saints are vegetarian. This is also why Christians fast.>So if one partner becomes infertile or passes menopause, a marriage is instantly nullified?No, because you cannot get remarried. Also in the Old testament we see scripture outlining that infertile women may produce. Infertility is providential>What if you're only doing it to prepare for PIV, get both partners appropriately aroused and so on?I dont know the Canon law on that. But Ive asked and I feel that may be possible. Like viagra. But ejaculation must be done inside the women. In Genesis it shows an instance of where a man "spills his seed" intentionally. When I said this, I had in mind the person got a blowjob and came in the woman's mouth
>>165195291 Cor6:11 is the verse right after and it says...>And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.Suggesting all isn't lost
>>16519669>But yes, it is a passion.>>16519661I will further clarify this. Because I am missing on my own argument. The good things of the earth were God given. So we should and God wanted us to enjoy some things.But gay sex is not like eating cookies, actually, it is like eating shit for pleasure.The monks and monastaries, although on fasting they eat vegan, make their food intentionally good. It is good food. We should enjoy food. But enjoy food that serves a rational function.Loving the world isnt bad. But you love which brings life and God intended you to love.
>>16519669>This is why monks in Mt. Athos and the Saints are vegetarian.Not, say, because animals are alive and don't want to die?>No, because you cannot get remarried.Even if your spouse dies?>Also in the Old testament we see scripture outlining that infertile women may produce.Evidence from mythology is inadmissible in drawing conclusions about reality.>In Genesis it shows an instance of where a man "spills his seed" intentionally. Isn't the simpler interpretation that his sin was refusing to impregnate the woman that the obligations of Levirate marriage required him to impregnate, rather than spelling of seed itself, of which there is no unambiguous mention?>But gay sex is not like eating cookiesWhy not? Both are unfruitful from an evolutionary perspective.>The monks and monastaries, although on fasting they eat veganVeganism refers to an ethnical philosophy which tries to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, the exploitation of non-human animals. The word you're looking for is "plant-based".>make their food intentionally good.So what's the point of the asceticism?>But enjoy food that serves a rational function.So the least sinful possible food is Onions?
>>16519694>Not, say, because animals are alive and don't want to die?The purpose of fasting is to remove your passions. Veganism isnt a moral rule. I have heard people say that before the fall humans were vegan and saints were able to cuddle with lions and predators. That is, the fall made animals scared of us.>Even if your spouse dies?Idk the canon, maybe that includes it.>Evidence from mythology is inadmissible in drawing conclusions about reality.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kBConPpAishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDeWfGJpCwY>Isn't the simpler interpretation that his sin was refusing to impregnate the woman that the obligations of Levirate marriage required him to impregnate, rather than spelling of seed itself, of which there is no unambiguous mention?I was just using this as evidence. The argument still stands and the law of the canons still apply. But the church uses this as evidence.>Why not? Both are unfruitful from an evolutionary perspective.If they are both unfruitful then it is the same. But cookies dont seem unfruitful to me. I eat cookies and am skinny. It seems possible to have them and be healthy.>Veganism refers to an ethnical philosophy which tries to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, the exploitation of non-human animals. No. they dont eat dairy nor eggs.>So what's the point of the asceticism?Its not as good as meat>So the least sinful possible food is Onions?You need vitamins B12 and some other things I am pretty sure. I believe I saw a talk with Pinker saying pescatarian mediteranian diets are the most healthy.
>>16519708>The purpose of fasting is to remove your passions.So why draw it on the line of "animal-based foods" rather than "delicious foods" when there are plenty of delicious plant-based foods (especially nowadays when we have fake meat that's getting better all the time) and plenty of bland ways to prepare meat and dairy?>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kBConPpAis>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDeWfGJpCwYtl;dw?>But cookies dont seem unfruitful to me. I eat cookies and am skinny. It seems possible to have them and be healthy.It's possible, yes, but they're about as far from optimized for health as a food can be. They're basically a side effect of the fact that fat and sugar were reliably scarce in the ancestral environment.>No. they dont eat dairy nor eggs.Yes, that's a plant-based diet.>Its not as good as meatIs that still true nowadays? I've brought friends to a local vegan cafe and had them express surprise that what they were eating wasn't actually meat.>You need vitamins B12 and some other things I am pretty sure. I didn't say just onions, I said Onions. It's a meal replacer that's specifically formulated to have all the nutrients a human body needs.
>>16519672I'm just doing basic English. If things are dubious in the greek, alright, news to me.>cor 6:15>that's what some of you were>so there's hopenot saying there isn't any hope and homos are doomed, no negotiations no exceptions. but op's question was, why Christians think homo bad, as if it were inexplicable or unexpected.Per text, there's a case for (unrepentant) homo bad.
>>16519568wait up.even if the new rules allow for a bit of bendy reading, the Deut original explicitly says "men who lie with men as with a woman are abominations to YHVH".I can't see that as anything as peen in butt or peen in peen sex.
>>16516422Do you watch porn Anon? Remember, lying is a sin.
>>1651843523 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.24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
>>16519716I dont feel like doing the "<"At the monasteries, they don't seem to eat fake meat. Its beans sweet potatoes, bread. And it is delicious.Most people can't eat a vegan diet in either case. Also, yes, when I went they had oils. Most of Lent you aren't supposed to have oil. So most days it would be dry. Oil is allowed Sunday and Saturday. For the cookies, I am unsure about your claims and in either case I only said eating shit because cookies didnt seem unhealthy to me in small doses. It might as well also be that we use virtue ethics and that there is a vice (eating shit for pleasure) and virtue, tasty vegan food and tasty fish food. >Is that still true nowadays?Most Orthodox cannot handle fasting, and some people have even tried to leave to Catholcism because of the strict fasting. So, I would say, yes. Few people can do vegan diets for a long time. And we have Vitamin B12 problems. I dont know Onions.For supplements, I think monks wouldn't use chemicals and the most holy people can live on bread alone. Like St. Mary of Egypt who lived on a few loaves of bread for many years.Many monks and saints in the 20th century have been documented to live on little and live.If a person's faith is strong enough, they don't need vitamin supplements nor medication, it would seem.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.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: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.28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
>>16519739Okay, but what does "as with a woman" mean? "Men who lie with men" would be plenty unambiguous in context, which suggests "as with a woman" is doing some added work. Actually, the Hebrew text doesn't even say that, it says משכבי אשה, literally the lying/bed/couch of a woman. Not only that, but the two words translated as "man" are two different words in Hebrew, איש and זכר. So the interpretation is anything but straightforward.>peen in peenI... don't think you know how male anatomy works.>>16519769Okay, is there any way to test by observation whether two people are actually married?>>16519770>Most people can't eat a vegan diet in either case.Yes they can, provided it's done properly.>because cookies didnt seem unhealthy to me in small doses. And gay sex is? Provided you get tested and/or use a condom, what's the problem?>And we have Vitamin B12 problems. There are vegan sources of B12. Supplements, fortified plant milks and cereals, tempeh...>I think monks wouldn't use chemicalsWhat do you mean by chemical? Water is a chemical, dihydrogen monoxide.
>>16519791>Yes they can, provided it's done properlyYou got evidence for that, bud? Or you just gonna keep yapping. I gave mine. Send a peer reviewed study.>And gay sex is? Provided you get tested and/or use a condom, what's the problem?One is functional and the other isn't. One provides calories, the other provides only emotion. And, again, if cookies were as bad as you said, then they wouldn't be ideal.>What do you mean by chemical? Man made in a lab. Not of the land.
>>16519791>autistic faggot jew vegan can't make this shit up
>>16519798>You got evidence for that, bud? Or you just gonna keep yapping. I gave mine. Send a peer reviewed study.Ask literally any major nutritional association.>One is functional and the other isn't. One provides calories, the other provides only emotion.Okay, how about chewing gum then? That doesn't provide nutrition.>Man made in a lab. Not of the land.So aspirin isn't okay, but willow bark tea, which has the same active ingredient, is?
>>16519749>Do you watch porn Anon? Remember, lying is a sin.
>>16519791>Okay, but what does "as with a woman" mean? "You can use this same word sophistry with any biblical commandment and interpret the Bible however you want. The early Christians and the Jewish community has no evidence of accepting homosexuality, ever. Revisionist history.
>>16519807Also, I'm not a faggot, I'm a dyke, and I'm not Jewish either since I wasn't born to a Jewish mother and have not converted. If you're going to insult me, please do it correctly.
>>16519813That's a yes then. Cool. Enjoy the lake of fire.
>>16519816You will never be a woman.
>>16519815So what added work is משכבי אשה doing that isn't already clarified by ואיש אשר ישכב את־זכר? (And why does it use two different words, איש and זכר?)
>>16519810>Ask literally any major nutritional association.Send a study or it didnt happen.>Okay, how about chewing gum then? Not ideal if it doesnt serve a function. Like solving bad breath (cleans your mouth), or whatever else.>So aspirin isn't okay, but willow bark tea, which has the same active ingredient, is?Unsure, and I wouldnt say medication isn't OK. As I said there are saints that lived on bread. So, honestly a person can just eat bare minimum calories if theyre holy enough. I would say, though, things you need like medications you could no longer need if you have enough faith and are holy enough. So things like aderall or schizophrenia medicine or bipolar medicine.
>>16519823Yeah, yeah, you people think the transgender bogeyman is lurking behind every rock and tree. I almost wish I were just so I could honestly freak you out by saying "yes, I am".
>>16519828>Not ideal if it doesnt serve a function.How is it any less sinful than homosexuality, provided it doesn't?>I would say, though, things you need like medications you could no longer need if you have enough faith and are holy enough. So things like aderall or schizophrenia medicine or bipolar medicine.That is horrible medical advice and you're liable to get sued if you continue propagating it.
>>16519818
>>16519833>any less sinful than homosexuality,Because eating shit is worse than chewing gum. Homosexuality is like eating shit. Infact, many people do that. They stick their dick in a shithole. Sometimes they lick the shithole too.In particular, though, homosexuality subverts marriage which God holds to be a sacrament. Sexual sin and sin involving someone else are the worst kinds, as sex is only allowed through sacraments. Gum is added to the enviornment. The genitals were added by God created for a specific purpose. This objects to his creation.Gum is the composition of prexisting objects which God said we could do anything to "the land and beasts are yours".One is Composition, the other is breaking the function.>That is horrible medical advice and you're liable to get sued if you continue propagating it.Cope.Prove the worldview is wrong and we can talk.
>>16519859>>16519833Also, "horrible" is a subjective moral claim. See this thread: >>16518421
>>16519859>Homosexuality is like eating shit. Infact, many people do that.If you're applying proper hygiene procedures, there really shouldn't be shit involved generally.>The genitals were added by God created for a specific purpose. This objects to his creation.So was the mouth and jaw. Gum is a fruitless use of it.>Prove the worldview is wrong and we can talk.Do you have any peer-reviewed medical studies for your claim?
>>16516405>Why is homosexuality considered wrong according to Christianity?Because god just said so.That's it. The bible doesn't actually give a reason.However non-Christians have reasons.Such as homosexuality not producing children.Spreading disease.The anus not being made for sex.HIV.And the propensity for mental illness, pedophilia, shit eating, zoophilia and psychopathy in the homosexual population.
>>16519874>Do you have any peer-reviewed medical studies for your claim?See the videos I sent earlier.>So was the mouth and jaw. Gum is a fruitless use of it.The mouth and the jaw were made for absorbing nutrients and sustienance. Gum has stuff which the mouth absorbs.>If you're applying proper hygiene procedures, there really shouldn't be shit involved generally.You cannot clean the asshole completely. And this is also why I dont like eating pork belly or pig intestines. that food usually makes me sick and people want to vomit.
>>16519881>The anus not being made for sex.You know not all gays have anal sex, right?>>16519884>See the videos I sent earlier.Those are not peer-reviewed medical studies, they are anecdotes.
>>16519874>If you're applying proper hygiene procedures, there really shouldn't be shit involved generally.If you clean a sewer enough it is safe to lick and kiss.>So was the mouth and jaw. Gum is a fruitless use of it.Chewing gum doesn't stop you from reproducing anon.>Do you have any peer-reviewed medical studies for your claim?You can't just say that the sky is blue. You need to prove it to me by fetching peer-reviewed studies that say the sky is blue.
>>16519889>You know not all gays have anal sex, right?You do realize that it is the only hole around the genitals available for gays to have sex with right?You do realize that almost the whole homosexual population was wiped out by HIV because 95% had frequent anal sex right?Did you know that?Did you?
>>16519891>If you clean a sewer enough it is safe to lick and kiss.I mean kinda, are you saying that one contact with feces ever renders something forever impossible to ever clean to a hygienic standard again?>Chewing gum doesn't stop you from reproducing anon.Neither does gay sex, you can have sex with both men and women.>You can't just say that the sky is blue. You need to prove it to me by fetching peer-reviewed studies that say the sky is blue.Are you implying that "the power of God can suspend the normal laws of biology" is a commonsensical statement on par with "the sky is blue"?>>16519899>You do realize that it is the only hole around the genitals available for gays to have sex with right?Have you ever heard of frotting? Fellatio? Mutual masturbation?
>>16519889>not peer-reviewed medical studies,You didn't watch the video.Also the Shroud of Turin is another video you can watch,Oh but yes, wait, there is a study for the first video.I cant find it, a friend sent it to me. Anyways you should be able to find it. Might post tommorow. Anyways, it analyzes the composition of the myrr and studies the icon itself. Showing no natural explanation.Another study revelant:https://www.okhjournal.org/okhj/index.php/okhj/article/view/170/169
>>16519913>I mean kinda, are you saying that one contact with feces ever renders something forever impossible to ever clean to a hygienic standard again?Are you saying we should walk on dog shit with our shoes. Clean the shoes and then lick them all over? Then repeat? Is that a good idea? really? That's your view anon?>>16519913>Neither does gay sexGay sex doesn't create babies anon.>you can have sex with both men and womenThat isn't what homosexual means anon.>Are you implying that "the power of God can suspend the normal laws of biology" is a commonsensical statement on par with "the sky is blue"?Different anon.>>16519913>Have you ever heard of frotting? Fellatio? Mutual masturbation?Wow, Holy shit HIV is contagious!!!That's amazing anon!!!
>>16519927>Also the Shroud of Turin is another video you can watchThat's a well known forgery Christ-tard anon.
>>16519931Proof to your claim?This video details the evidence. You can find the papers from the video, I am sure.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyyFnEekiE4(Ignore the sensationalist title)The only part which would indicate a forgery is the radio carbon dating. In the video this is adressed. They only radio carbon dated a patch.You can find this in the section "the THIRD REASON..."The other parts which were studied are unexplainable by natural causes.
>>16519935You're too stupid to converse with anon.Please go away.
>>16519927Can't you just cite the studies themselves rather than linking pop videos?>>16519929>Are you saying we should walk on dog shit with our shoes. Clean the shoes and then lick them all over? Then repeat? Is that a good idea? really? That's your view anon?It's not something I personally would like to do, but if you actually clean them properly I don't see why not.>Gay sex doesn't create babies anon.Doesn't prevent you from doing other things that do.>That isn't what homosexual means anon.Is your concern exclusive homosexuality, or any homosexual behavior whether exclusive or not?>Wow, Holy shit HIV is contagious!!!A lot of those methods don't have higher risk of it than heterosexual PIV, or lower.
>>16519939>16519939>Although the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself is not questioned by experts, criticisms have been raised regarding the choice of the sample taken for testing, with suggestions that the sample may represent a medieval repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_TurinSee the criticism section.What you said isnt an argument and an admission of defeat.It is like the demons when you do the sign of the cross "AGHHH", then they flee because they hate truth.
>>16519944>Can't you just cite the studies themselves rather than linking pop videos?https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/arcm.12467Probably the study referred to in the video.Videos help explain. You dont need a peer reviewed study to show "they dated a patch". You observe they dated a patch
>>16519944>It's not something I personally would like to doWhat's wrong with it? You clean them before licking remember?Lick this random persons ass, he said he cleaned it! all good! hepatitis, parasites etc are just a myth anon!! Shit is the best smell in the universe!oh the farts come out that hole too!!Wow, the hole your shit comes out of is the sexiest part of the body!!!I agree with you anon! you're right!!!>Doesn't prevent you from doing other things that do.Wow dude! Homosexual men have more sex with women than straight men do!!!>Is your concern exclusive homosexuality, or any homosexual behavior whether exclusive or not?You're not very smart are you?>A lot of those methods don't have higher risk of it than heterosexual PIV, or lower.Wow, all the gays died from HIV they caught from frotting!!!All it requires is skin contact!!!That is mega contagious!!!Amazing!!!In just a few years 100% of the population will have HIV!!!
>>16519945Holy shit you're an idiot."Although the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself is not questioned by experts"There you go. It's nothing more than endless whining by stupid fucking Christians.What's even more stupid is the fact that when the shroud was first found Christians themselves recognized that it was a forgery."In 1390, the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis, who had jurisdiction over the church in Lirey, wrote a lengthy memorandum to Antipope Clement VII (recognized as Pope by the Church in France during the Western Schism), declaring that the shroud was a forgery and that a previous Bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, had identified the artist who had made it."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#HistoryWe've all been over this bullshit a million times before. Shut the fuck up. It's over. It's an obvious fake. It was originally recognized as a fake. It's been dated as a fake. It's fake. Shut the fuck up.
>>16519956>Wow dude! Homosexual men have more sex with women than straight men do!!!I didn't say that. (Though if you account for bisexual men, a significant number of men who have sex with men also have sex with women.)>Wow, all the gays died from HIV they caught from frotting!!!Yes, anal sex without testing or protection is a bad idea. It's not as if straight people don't do stupid risky things all the time too, you know.
>>16519963https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/arcm.12467See this study. Says in the preface, the data of the original carbon dating study wasnt fully given until 2017.>What's even more stupid is the fact that when the shroud was first found Christians themselves recognized that it was a forgery.The Catholic stance now is that it is possible that the shroud is authentic. The Catholics allow for development of doctrine. The Catholic position now is agnostic.In either case, I am not Catholic, so what a catholic priest says doesnt matter. Men are falliable and can make mistakes.
>>16519965>bad ideaNot the same anon, but that is a moral claim, see >>16518373
>>16519971I mean 'bad idea' as in 'inadvisable for one's own self-preservation'.
>>16516405If you want an honest answer that isn't someone sperging out... People found it icky. the Bible is a book written by human beings and they had opinions and cultural biases just like everyone else does. Generally people instinctually and unconsciously think sex that isn't of their preferred kind is disgusting (not a moral judgement) and the vast majority of people are heterosexual. So when you write a book telling people how to behave you tell them not to do what you personally find gross. Then theres the fact the Bible was written by an extremely conservative and clan based culture that used marriages and the ability of a marriage to produce legal heirs as an important form of alliance making and wealth distribution, and homosexuality interferes with that and so they attempted to prohibit it.
>>16519965>I didn't say that.That's exactly what you said.>(Though if you account for bisexual menAlmost non-existent.It's basically just what closeted gay guys call themselves.>a significant number of men who have sex with men also have sex with womenWhich is why HIV almost exclusively affected homosexual men and was called GRIDs (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency)...Which is why most straight people get HIV from needle sharing instead.Holy shit are you an annoying moron anon.I don't know who's more unbearably stupid.You, the faggot or the Christ-tard.
>>16519977>If you want an honest answer that isn't someone sperging out...There are plenty.The easy answer is that Homosexuality violates Natural law theory of morality.It violates evolutionary ethics.It isnt ideal in an aristotelian sense. It is dysgenic.
>>16519969You're too stupid to converse with anon.Feed yourself to a shark or something.
>>16519985Youre the one sperging out"AHH ITS BEEN DEBOONKED"Sounds like>ITS BEEN DEBUNKED CHRIST TARD, JESUS NEVER EXISTS, SCHOLARS SAY SO^This argument would be the exact same if it were the 1940s when the idea Jesus didnt exist became somewhat popular.
>>16519965>Yes, anal sex without testing or protection is a bad idea.You fuckers literally gave HIV to the world. Arguably the most dangerous venereal disease in human history. >>16519965>It's not as if straight people don't do stupid risky things all the time too, you know.A far larger proportion of homosexuals have HIV and other venereal diseases than Straights.Remember the monkey pox that spread amongst the gay population recently? From fecal ass to mouth contact?>>16519989You're too stupid to converse with.You're just ignoring evidence and pretending it's a mystery.Just feed yourself to a shark already.You're a waste of life seriously.The real mystery is how you even remember to breath.
>>16519989>1940s when the idea Jesus didnt exist became somewhat popular.There way more evidence that other contemporary historical figures existing than Jesus...That isn't a controversial claim.We don't have his skeleton, we don't have a contemporary portrait, we don't have a contemporary description of him. All the information on Jesus came many decades after his supposed death.You're just a religious moron. That's all you are.
>>16520013>You're just a religious moronYeah, I guess all modern historians are too by these standards.Also this is clear bait. And I am engaging like the fish I am
>>16520019>Yeah, I guess all modern historians are too by these standards.Oh right the 1% of scholars.... right....Legit who are you even talking about?No anon. The consensus has never been that the shroud was real. Not even in Christian circles.You're a moron ok. You're just a fucking moron and you always will be till the day you finally die.>Also this is clear bait. And I am engaging like the fish I amNo you astonishingly stupid autistic genetic reject. Everyone that upsets you isn't a "troll" .All the opinions you dislike aren't "bait".Holy shit you stupid child.would you unironically consider Newton a "troll" for being interested on Alchemy?Wow are you a stupid child.When were you first diagnosed with autism?Do you have any friends at all?Wtf anon.
>>16516405homosexuality does not produce more humans. religion wants more humans practicing the religion so homosexuality is bad.Also homosexuality is unnatural and disgusting to heterosexuals.
>>16520029>Also homosexuality is unnatural and disgusting to heterosexuals To help you, before anyone makes the stupid argument:homosexuality is about as natural as:down syndrome, masochism, schizophrenia, DID, the elephant man, circus freaks, and any dysgenic trait
>>16520038And one might ask, how can homosexuality be passed on in homosexuals do not reproduce?Homosexuality is passed on by the molestation of children by homosexuals. A truly vile and sinful act.
>>16520041>And one might ask, how can homosexuality be passed on in homosexuals do not reproduce?Shut the fuck up you stupid idiot...Random genetic mutations you fucking moron.Down syndrome has never been selected for yet it exists.>Homosexuality is passed on by the molestation of children by homosexuals. A truly vile and sinful act.Only problem with that theory is that most homosexuals weren't abused as children...The only major trends you see are homosexuality being more common in children born to older parents. Populations with significant inbreeding also produce more homosexuals.You even see that with some domestic animals.disabilities are also more likely to occur in the same people.Homosexuals are more likely to be autistic, suffer from depression etc.Because it's a GENETIC DEFECT.
>>16520047found a homo
>>16519444Didn't say the Catholic Church does endorse that. I'm merely saying that teachings on certain things can evolve over time, not that the Catholic Church supports gay relationships
>>16520051>found a homoWhy would a homo call homosexuality a "genetic defect"?Let me guess, You're an autistic homosexual that justifies his homosexuality by making up a story about being abused as a child? something that nobody saw and wasn't reported because it didn't happen?That's how you justify being a homosexual Christian?Literally the only people who say that bullshit are closeted homosexual Christians who don't want to be shunned by their communities.You're an autistic faggot aren't you Christ-tard anon?
>>16520054>Didn't say the Catholic Church does endorse that. I'm merely saying that teachings on certain things can evolve over time, not that the Catholic Church supports gay relationshipsLol, your statements magically evolve over time too by the sound of it.Wow are you a useless waste of space.You're disgustingly stupid anon.
I like the feeling when you have a fart bubble inside you. And you know it would look like a bubble, because it feels concave. Ready to pop.
>>16520061The person I was replying to tried to claim that the catholic church bars infertile marriages. I was merely pointing out that doctrine can change over time so that's not necessarily true today even if it was in the past, ya dummy
>>16516405God is the God of life, everything related to God has an end goal of continuing life in some capacity, there is meaning in it all.The homosexual relationship is a dead in terms of continuing life, it's a self gratifying thing to sate the senses.God has a very specific purposes when it comes to sex and it has always involved a man and a woman, it goes against his design.there's more to it but that's the general idea.
>>16516405When you put a dick in the ass you’re trying to create life by uniting the beginning and the end; mixing life (the sperm) and death (excrement). That’s why it’s a sin.
>>16516405From a less religiously motivated perspective. My guess would be that it interfered with the Jews sense of family legacy and inheritance, as well as believing it would reduce their birthrates and thus make expanding their nation more difficult. From the former I can imagine it'd be pretty inconvenient for a Jewish family who only had one son suddenly finding out that he's gay, and thus won't pass on their family line which was a big deal back then since inheritance was passed down the male line back then, one gay son could literally spell disaster for the entire family who could potentially see all of their land being given away(this all eventually changed once they became nomads since it was almost impossible to track jewishness through the male line at that point).For the latter this was likely seen as a matter of national security, that if people weren't producing families, that meant less expansion and more importantly less soldiers to do so with. This was of course not good for a state who's people believe it was their birthright to dominate the area, so dissuading something they saw as possibly preventing the national duty of producing children makes sense from that perspective.This then just carried on through into Christianity as it became very much ingrained in their religious culture, as well as I imagine Christians wanting to see it spread through children as well.
>>16521200Truly the plato of our time
>>16520006>You fuckers literally gave HIV to the world.Pretty sure that first reached humans from African hunters eating monkeys.
>>16521585I wish. HIV was one of the first gain of function virus tests
>>16521653Do you have any evidence for this claim?
>>16519654This comment looks more like a spell than an arrangement of letters in order to communicate meaning.
>>16520189>tried to claim that the catholic church bars infertile marriageNo, that's not what he said. We can see exactly what he said in>>16518448>Christianity teaches...>So, yes, people who are infertile or barren shouldn't be having sex and they can't marry. Up until relatively recently however you could only find out if someone was infertile or barren after marriage.>shouldn't be having sex and they can't marryBy which he obviously means the Sacrament of Marriage as he mentioned the pre-emptive confession, and the Vatican did actually bar people who were known to be infertile from participating in this ritual and instead strongly advocated for taking Holy Orders as a monk or nun. So, what the Vatican does or doesn't do is irrelevant, because we're talking about theology, not the actual institutional actions of people of people who died millennia before the ovum was discovered, but even if we were you're still wrong.
>>16519969>The Catholic stance now is that it is possible that the shroud is authentic.How do you explain the first reference to the text being a Bishop catching the forger who made it and detailing the methods that he used to make it?
>>16522536They were wrong
>>16518122>thoughbeitSHUT THE FUCK UP
>>16522536>>16523319The bishop's writings:"Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed"If you see the video and know the studies, theres no naturalistic explanation for some of the details of the linen.I read it so far and no detail of how it was made. Just him saying it was made. How exactly can you explain the phenomenon behind it? Where does the bishop describe how the linen cloth had energy the size of lightning hit it?
>>16519889>>16519927I found the article. It was in Russian, hence why it was hard.https://elementy.ru/nauchno-populyarnaya_biblioteka/435363/Mirotochashchie_ikony_chto_govorit_naukaThe above study outlines the results from studying the myrrh from the streaming icon.
I’m gay and proud
>>16523393FUCK YOU SODOMITE! As soon as the far centre political parties reach into power we are going to remove the rights that we gave to you and you don´t deserve. 99% of you are woko, globohomo, anti-decency supporters. You defend degeneracy, men adopting children, gays giving sexual education to children, and are mostly proinmigration. You literally are the antichrist.
>>16516405the main reason, which is objective and has nothing to do with religion, is that homosexual relations do not produce offspring
The idea that more children are needed to be born, hence why it's okay to go after gays and lesbians, comes off outdated because we're beyong 6 billion at this point. And before anyone says it, I doubt even 15% of every man, woman, and child in this world is within the LGBT spectrum so it comes off disheartening we still humor bigotry against LGBT, especially for religious reasons.
>>16524233>we still humor bigotry against LGBTThe only time in history bigotry of some degree against homosexuals didnt exist was only in the past 70 years of human history.Romans dont count, they ridiculed feminine men
>>16524136Sodomite = straight men raping women
>>16524249Sodomite=Deviate from Nature. Male anal destroyers. Low testosterone victims of microplastics in the womb.There are more sodomites raping men and boys than men raping women.Most people are tired of the woke/liberal bullshit in which most sodomites work.
>>16519669Are you one of those American protestants who forbid dancing?
>>16516405AIDS, and having sex for any other reason than having a child (which is lust).
>>16516405As succinctly as possible: It is considered wrong in the sacred texts of Judaism, Islam, many variants of Buddhism, and some variants of Hinduism as well (despite there being edge cases in all of these). During early and mid antiquity - outside of the Mediterranean proper - many societies associated it with excess and cruelty, or simply viewed homosexual acts as not in accord with what they perceived to be the natural order. That's pretty much it.
>>16516405It's destructive to society religion aside.It opposed propagation of the human species.
>>16523336>theres no naturalistic explanation for some of the details of the linen.Sure there is, you yourself quoted the literal first source on the matter.>How exactly can you explain the phenomenon behind it? Well, the guy was a painter, and it's really easy to make duplicates using the manners of painting of the day, so I'm gonna have to side with the Bishop who says that the painter made it via painting and say that it was made via painting.>Where does the bishop describe how the linen cloth had energy the size of lightning hit it?Nowhere, because that obviously didn't happen.
>>16524388Not Protestant.>Sure there is,No. THe methods which people were able to duplicate it uses technology not available to people at the time.>because that obviously didn't happen.The team that studied it had an engineer or physicist, forgot which, that studied it and infered that such a thing had happened from studying the linen.
>>16526053>>16526183I meant to reply to you also
>>16526183>THe methods which people were able to duplicate it uses technology not available to people at the time.Why would 13th-century painting techniques and materials not be available to a 13th-century painter?>The team that studied it had an engineer or physicist, forgot which, that studied it and infered that such a thing had happened from studying the linen.Let's ignore the fact that the Shroud directly contradicts the Gospel of John for a minute here. If the shroud was struck by lightning then it would obviously be scorched, and it's not. If the Shroud was hit by a burst of gamma rays or whatever dumb shit fundies are saying about it now, then not only would the Shroud itself be completely obliterated by the heat but it would also have collapsed into dust due to the radioactive decay on top of flashfrying the women who were tending to Jesus's body and several of the Apostles.
>>16526191>Why would 13th-century painting techniques and materials not be available to a 13th-century painter?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k5kOYqZyK0This documentary goes into the 3 or so methods which have been theorized to be able to replicate it and show it is unrealistic that a medieval forger had such a technology or concept. It has skeptics and members from the team that investigated it.> If the shroud was struck by lightning then it would obviously be scorchedI said energy like lightning. Not lightning. The irony of your statement is that how people infered there was a mark of energy the size of lightning, probably greater I think they said, was evident by the shroud's composition.https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-23-14-2244ttp://opac.bologna.enea.it:8991/RT/2011/2011_14_ENEA.pdfI found the exact number, says However, Enea scientists warn, "it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2011/12/14/news/the-shroud-is-not-a-fake-1.36913560/Then there is also the weird thing that happens where when you get close to the shroud, you cant see the shadow, and only when you step back a few meters can you see it again. All of this makes no sense, as to how a forger could do all this.
>>16526226>This documentaryIs irrelevant in light of actual research on the topic.>The irony of your statement is that how people infered there was a mark of energy the size of lightning,The Shroud was burnt by careless nuns, it's not lightning, it's not caused by UV or gamma rays. It's a piece of cloth with paint on it.
>>16526238>Is irrelevant in light of actual research on the topic.You got any papers, or are you going to just yap? There are many papers on the topic, so I just source videos and papers when I can. The documentary has people from the research team who produced peer review research, and skeptics who also published their own papers. The documentary is just a audiovisual mapping from the results.>The Shroud was burnt by careless nuns, it's not lightning, it's not caused by UV or gamma rays. It's a piece of cloth with paint on it.The paper doesn't use that fact. You see the burn marks on the cloth and of course they know that. You didn't address the results of the paper. Also, 34 thousand billion watts is WAAYYYYYYYYY larger than any energy a lightning bolt can produce, or even a fire.
>>16524136>SODOMITEEzekiel 16:49
>>16524243They considered it shameful and effeminate to get fucked by another man, but they considered fucking another man manly.
>>16526920Yeah, LGBT includes all men and all sexual preferences. Argument still works.
>>16526924My point is it wasn't just straightforwardly homophobia in the modern sense of the word.
>>16526916"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)
>>16526928"Sexual immorality" is a whole lot more general than homosexuality, though it may be interpreted to include it. Notably, the crowd did not just want to have sex with the angels, but to rape them.
>>16526927The point stills stands that homophobia, in some way, was always present. The modern LGBT movement is unnatural and unique. not humoring the idea of burning their property and detesting them in some way is, in fact, the weird thing to do; in context of history.
>>16526930Your verse doesn't work. Where is rape explicitly condemned in the Bible, apart from the early church tradition? How may you infer that?Indeed the only verses which seem to apply, internally, are Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Church tradition say that was the problem of Sodom.
>>16526934>Where is rape explicitly condemned in the Bible, apart from the early church tradition?I wasn't aware you needed a holy book to know rape was wrong.
>>16526937Can you prove rape is wrong to me? What is a logical proof you have? Or is your reasoning illogical?
>>16526957The fact that the conscience God has placed in us says it's wrong isn't enough?
>>16526957>>16526960So then you mean to say,if a person has a conscience which aligns with y, then everything y dictates is moral?Do you have evidence that every society throughout all of time condemned rape? Do you think the Roman empire had the conscience we have today? What are some sources of people condemning wartime rape in the same way we do today?I, on the other hand, can give you books showing that many civilizations were OK with war time rape. So, then, by your standards, rape is moral, since they thought it was OK?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Natural_History_of_RapeOh yes, also, in the Aztecs, they all watched as people got brutally murdered as a sacrifice. Most barbarians, prior to being civilized, practiced human sacrifice. So, tell me, what went wrong? Is it now that something is moral if and only if a human's conscience aligns with the current year?
Most Christians I've met seem to see homosexuality as a state you fall into when you commit homosexual actsI've noticed that a lot of Christian homosexuals will never call themselves homosexuals but rather 'Christians struggling with same sex attraction' or often simply 'demons'Personally I've never seen the problem with homosexuality, I think Christians should be accepting and loving towards homosexuals and go out of their way to offer them a space in which they can inhabit as celibate homosexual Christians
>>16526985So are you saying you don't think rape is wrong?
>>16526987Also think Muslims are kind of similar to Christians except they are far less willing to concede that some men are sexually attracted to other men and are not attracted to women I think Jews are the most willing to accept that homosexuals exist but it's difficult because for Jews, reproduction is seen as a commandment from God, whereas for Christians there is no such belief
>>16526991Youre avoiding the question.Give me a logical, formal proof that rape is wrong. Show this is logically a correct statement. Do you think morals are illogical?
>>16527018Do you think rape is wrong or don't you? If you continue refusing to answer I will asume you think it isn't wrong and just don't want to answer because it would make you look bad.
>>16527020>Do you think rape is wrong or don't you?Search up what the Eastern Orthodox position is and you will have an answer.>because it would make you look bad.My character is irrelavent to what the answer may be. Ad hominem related.Are you a woman, or a tranny? You seem to have arguments like one.
>>16527029I googled "does the eastern orthodox church believe that rape is wrong" but all the results seem to be about their views on abortion in the case of rape or incest, the issue of rape within the church organization, etc but nothing about their specific position.
>>16526987Like this Ugandan pastor debating Stephen Fry, he says "Homosexuality is not a person, it is the act."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa5STn_9aWo&t=1s(0:45)
>>16527033Use your brain
>>16527047Why can't you just answer my fucking question?
>>16527053Because you arent answering mine. And my character or stances have no actual bearing to the truth of the matter.It seem you think that something is true if the person advocating for it is of some specific character. Or you seem to think an argument is correct or valid if the person is within some range of characteristics. And if that person is out of range, it makes said argument invalid in itself, rather than being separate to the matter.
>>16527057The whole argument began with whether the version of God you believe in considers rape wrong.
>>16527065The argument began with whether or not sodom and gomorah was condemned for their homosexuality or not. Which you indicated no, it was them not helping the poor and needy. Then I cited my own verse. It seems that you think sodom and gomorrah being condemned had nothing to do with homosexuality. My point was that scripture, itself, did not indicate that.If you look outside scripture, what contemporary people thought, you'll find homosexuality was also included in the list of reasons.
>>16527070I didn't say that, but it's certainly not the only reason, and I would argue it's not the primary reason.
>>16527073Happy 4/20
>>16527086I would get high in celebration of 4/20 but I have to work later.
