Double Barrel BB
Senior Member
So you do have flaws?
Still didn't answer the question... Does it say in the Bible what they did was right?
DB BB
Welcome Guest!
Using Biology, Not Religion, to Argue Against Same-Sex Marriage
- Thread starter Double Barrel BB
- Start date
So you do have flaws?
Still didn't answer the question... Does it say in the Bible what they did was right?
DB BB
mtnwoman
Senior Member
That's not exactly unusual, I don't think most people would....well nobody that I know of anyway. What else can you not do, that might be more common......LOL
just kidding.
SouthOfTheMasonDixon
Senior Member
Everyone has flaws.
God was very quick to punish in the OT. Seeing as he save Lot from death in Sodom and gave no condemnation of his actions, I'd have no option but accept that as approval. After all, God struck Onan dead for spilling his seed, sent a pack of bears to rip apart children for teasing someone, etc.
Double Barrel BB
Senior Member
God even killed a man for touching the Ark by accident, can't remember his name right off hand... Do I understand why? not really, but God has a reason for everything.
You sound like you have everything figured out...
DB BB
rjcruiser
Senior Member
Now...that is debatable...but I know that there are other threads going on about this, so no need to rehash it and get everyone's panties in a wadI didn't mean singling you out... I meant as a Christian in general. Every single one of the 'messianic' prophecies Jesus is said to have fulfilled is pulled out of context. Not to mention pretty much every other 'parallel' Christianity uses to prove it's validity.
But I applaud you for wanting to keep things in context, even if you really can't do that and still be a Christian
Dixie Dawg said:
Revelation 22:18-19
18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Verse 18 doesn't sit real well with the Catholics/Mormons and other religious groups that have books that sit on the same level as the Bible and I'd imagine that verse 19 doesn't sit real well with folks that believe like you do
farmasis
Senior Member
God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy on and God will not be mocked. It may not seem fair to us, but as our creator, he reserves that right. I do not believe Lot did what the Lord would have wanted by offering his daughters. The difference in Lot and the men of Soddom was Lot may have erred, but the men of Soddom lived in err. So, if we can take a message out of the story...do not continue to live in sin, especially one God refers to as an abomination and expect anything less than destruction.
SouthOfTheMasonDixon
Senior Member
God also refers to shellfish as an abomination.
crackerdave
Senior Member
That was Old Testament,and intended for Jews - some of whom still adhere to the "kosher" rules.
S O T M D L - [your screen name is too long!
TTom
Senior Member
The use of Lott as a condemnation of homosexuality always gets mis quoted and mis used.
Question if God was destroying the city because the men wanted to rape the angel, Then why was it that the angel was sent to warn Lott of the impending destruction and get him out of the city?
God had according to scripture already passed the destruction sentence on Sodom BEFORE the angel entered the city. After all he had been patient and lowered the bar down from 50 good men to if you can find ten good men in the city I will not destroy it.
So I ask how can the reason for destruction be happening AFTER the decision has already been made?
Question if God was destroying the city because the men wanted to rape the angel, Then why was it that the angel was sent to warn Lott of the impending destruction and get him out of the city?
God had according to scripture already passed the destruction sentence on Sodom BEFORE the angel entered the city. After all he had been patient and lowered the bar down from 50 good men to if you can find ten good men in the city I will not destroy it.
So I ask how can the reason for destruction be happening AFTER the decision has already been made?
However, states are amending their constitutions in order to prevent this.
I've had some oysters that were an abomination, but it was almost always because they were overcooked.
Interesting but....
Interesting thread..
A couple things I pondered during my read. Using a scientific model to try to prove a point concerning homosexuality seems flawed. Scientific models conduct tests until something is irrefutable. This doesn't mean it's certain, it simply means you tested it until you cannot prove otherwise. Many scientific positions have changed as technology allowed more definitive testing. Using science seems counter to the arguement.
Our positions we take on the topic based on religion are from our faith. An unmeasurable thing that many build their life around. The two dont seem to relate very well.
Concerning our founding fathers...
We are not a true Democracy, this would be a majority or mob rule. That would allow law to change as rapidly as our culture has, this is not the case. Medical manuals deleted homosexuality as a mental disorder many years back but same sex marraige laws currently stand. If we want to look for intent of our founding father here's a historical perspective.
"Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws…,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans are even aware that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated emasculation as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1903, 1:226-227)."
Trying to use science as a weapon to battle those that favor more liberal laws seems counter as opens the door to uncertainty. The intent of the founding fathers seems clear and follows Christain principles. I think it is a sounder arguement IMHO.
Interesting thread..
A couple things I pondered during my read. Using a scientific model to try to prove a point concerning homosexuality seems flawed. Scientific models conduct tests until something is irrefutable. This doesn't mean it's certain, it simply means you tested it until you cannot prove otherwise. Many scientific positions have changed as technology allowed more definitive testing. Using science seems counter to the arguement.
Our positions we take on the topic based on religion are from our faith. An unmeasurable thing that many build their life around. The two dont seem to relate very well.
Concerning our founding fathers...
We are not a true Democracy, this would be a majority or mob rule. That would allow law to change as rapidly as our culture has, this is not the case. Medical manuals deleted homosexuality as a mental disorder many years back but same sex marraige laws currently stand. If we want to look for intent of our founding father here's a historical perspective.
"Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws…,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans are even aware that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated emasculation as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1903, 1:226-227)."
Trying to use science as a weapon to battle those that favor more liberal laws seems counter as opens the door to uncertainty. The intent of the founding fathers seems clear and follows Christain principles. I think it is a sounder arguement IMHO.
dawg2
AWOL ADMINISTRATOR
Quick question:
Are all sins equal?
Are all sins equal?
dawg2
AWOL ADMINISTRATOR
You mean we have never discussed that before? You have never asked that before?
Play along...
FishingAddict
Senior Member
Double Barrell: I don't get your avatar saying...
Male Lions have the long hair-
In most species, the male is the more colorful one.
Samson had long hair...
Male Lions have the long hair-
In most species, the male is the more colorful one.
Samson had long hair...
FishingAddict
Senior Member
Can someone edit the Amen!!!!!?...it makes this thread such a pain to read.
FishingAddict
Senior Member
Outlawing homosexuality would be like banning drinking.
Both sins, but the law would not change the way people feel about it.
I hear gays say "equal rights" for gays when it comes to marrige.
It seems to me they do have equal rights: They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, like everyone else.
I don't give a darn if someone like the same sex. It's less harm to society than a drug dealer, prositute, corrupt CEO, ect.
There are two different types ofsins: Ones that take away from the blessings God wants you to have (drinking to excess, sloth, envy, self pity,etc)
And the type of sin that harms others intentinally...(murder, lying, drinking and driving, cheating, ect)
Both sins, but the law would not change the way people feel about it.
I hear gays say "equal rights" for gays when it comes to marrige.
It seems to me they do have equal rights: They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, like everyone else.
I don't give a darn if someone like the same sex. It's less harm to society than a drug dealer, prositute, corrupt CEO, ect.
There are two different types ofsins: Ones that take away from the blessings God wants you to have (drinking to excess, sloth, envy, self pity,etc)
And the type of sin that harms others intentinally...(murder, lying, drinking and driving, cheating, ect)
gtparts
Senior Member
dawg2
AWOL ADMINISTRATOR
OK. I'll bite.
Equal to what?
It's a simple question.
Either all sins are equal with each other (Except blasphemy of course) OR they are not equal.
Which is it?
