Are sins like homosexuality still condemned in the New Covenant of Christ?

[floo]

I think it is highly possible that the writer of Leviticus had felt an attraction to another guy who was hetero and rejected him, so he decided to veto anybody else's chances of homosexual happiness.

I wonder if that miserable little git Paul was a gay in denial?

[floo]

I was answering your claim that 'if it feels natural, it must be ok'. Which clearly is incorrect.

On your above point- why should you be married, to someone of age of the opposite sex, before having sex?

Because that is the wisest way to use the sexual function which, like it or not, is procreation.

GARBAGE! Not every couple wants kids, and why should they? My sister, who is an Anglican Priest, never wanted kids and ensured she never had any, fortunately her husband was  of the same mind. Consensual adult sex is something to be enjoyed, or did the nasty sky fairy make it enjoyable, but then made it a 'sin' to take pleasure in it unless you were procreating? Thank goodness for gays and heteros who don't want kids, the world is over populated as it is.

[Shaker]

I was answering your claim that 'if it feels natural, it must be ok'. Which clearly is incorrect.

On your above point- why should you be married, to someone of age of the opposite sex, before having sex?

Because that is the wisest way to use the sexual function which, like it or not, is procreation.

Why is that the wisest way?

Sex hasn't been inescapably tied to reproduction in a very long time indeed, by the way.

[Brownie]

Someone said:   On your above point- why should you be married, to someone of age of the opposite sex, before having sex?

I doubt if anyone is very often, even of the Christian persuasion.  According to statistics, in the 1950s one in three brides was pregnant.  That accounts for a third of the married population at least.  There were no doubt plenty of girls over twenty who were pregnant too.  So those couples had sexual intercourse before marriage and no doubt many were Christian.   Today those of non-Christian religions are more likely to eschew sex before marriage.

Someone else said the word ''Gay'' was perjorative;  I did not know that.  I first heard it used in 1965, when I was fifteen, and was told that it was a word homosexuals used to describe themselves but nothing about it being an offensive term.

[floo]

Why is that the wisest way?

Sex hasn't been inescapably tied to reproduction in a very long time indeed, by the way.

Thank goodness for contraception. Producing more kids than you want, or can afford to look after, was awful in the bad old days! Thank goodness many Catholics in the West seem to have put two fingers up to their Church's crazy doctrine banning contraception.

However, there are some extreme fundamentalist Christians, mainly in the US, who think that god sends babies so they must do nothing to prevent conception. If that were really the case, why doesn't the daft sky fairy be a bit more discriminating as to where it sends them? Sending them to families who will abuse them is lunacy.

[Rhiannon]

I was answering your claim that 'if it feels natural, it must be ok'. Which clearly is incorrect.

On your above point- why should you be married, to someone of age of the opposite sex, before having sex?

Because that is the wisest way to use the sexual function which, like it or not, is procreation.

You are correct that something feeling 'natural' doesn't make it ok. However, gay relationships come in as many varieties as straight ones do; there's nothing intrinsically harmful in them, and so to prohibit them is both pointless and cruel.

As for your point on sex being just for procreation - no. That isn't the case. To illustrate, I once knew a family from the Hare Krishna sect - couples who adhere to that religion have to refrain from all sexual contact unless they are specificly intending to conceive a child. The wife had all manner of sex toys and not because she thought they were going to get her pregnant. Humans don't only have fertile periods when they desire sex, but want it whether they want to have children, intend to have them or even can't have them or don't want them at all.

As an aside, the Hare Krishna top guru chap resigned from his position because he's fallen in love with a woman other than his wife. Even though he and the other woman had never had any physical contact at all - not even brushing fingers accidentally. This idea that human emotion and pain can be even partly controlled and avoided according to ensuring particular body parts go in particular places is risible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What truly amazes my in the screed above is your trying to classify your opinions as "humble" - a monumental misnomer if ever there was one! Almost, in fact, as monumental a misnomer as calling the god of the Christians "loving"!

Not at all. As far as atheists and pagans are concerned the world is your Oyster since you both 'worthship' the things of it . Christians on the other hand are but pilgrims through the world.

I don't take anything you say about love since in my humble opinion there is not one scintilla of it in any of your posts other than to your own and then only I suspect for utilitarian purpose.

[floo]

Not at all. As far as atheists and pagans are concerned the world is your Oyster since you both 'worthship' the things of it . Christians on the other hand are but pilgrims through the world.

I don't take anything you say about love since in my humble opinion there is not one scintilla of it in any of your posts other than to your own and then only I suspect for utilitarian purpose.

Your posts and 'love' are at odds with each other, that is for sure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your posts and 'love' are at odds with each other, that is for sure.

Shouldn't you be attending to your hobby....rewriting Christianity to make it fit your little spiteful view of it?

[Shaker]

Shouldn't you be attending to your hobby....rewriting Christianity to make it fit your little spiteful view of it?

Plenty of others are already busily at work on that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Plenty of others are already busily at work on that.

Yes but we know better than that don't we Shakes ......How's the pantheism coming on?

[Shaker]

Yes but we know better than that don't we Shakes

Do we? Explain.

How's the pantheism coming on?

That's the second time you've mentioned it today. You seem to be rather hung up on an old thread, Vlad. Why is that?

[jeremyp]

Aren't you a whole continent off topic... just as floos post was....

I'd have thought that, rather than derailing your own thread, the best way to deal with off topic posts is to raise a complaint with the moderators using the Report to Moderator button.

[Rhiannon]

That's the second time you've mentioned it today. You seem to be rather hung up on an old thread, Vlad. Why is that?

I'm not entirely sure he knows what pantheism means. He seems to think it's something that people do.

[Shaker]

I'm not entirely sure he knows what pantheism means.

Well, there's history there ..

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not entirely sure he knows what pantheism means. He seems to think it's something that people do.

Pantheism is not atheism in most circles. The fact that you just care what your wee little atheistic sect think is neither here nor there.

[Rhiannon]

Pantheism is not atheism in most circles. The fact that you just care what your we little atheistic sect think is neither here nor there.

You didn't have to demonstrate my point quite so neatly, but thanks anyway.

[Shaker]

Heh 

[Owlswing]

Someone else said the word ''Gay'' was perjorative;  I did not know that.  I first heard it used in 1965, when I was fifteen, and was told that it was a word homosexuals used to describe themselves but nothing about it being an offensive term.

Let's face it, in Victorian times a 'gay' woman was a prostitute whether lesbian or straight.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think it is highly possible that the writer of Leviticus had felt an attraction to another guy who was hetero and rejected him, so he decided to veto anybody else's chances of homosexual happiness.

I can't wait for the miniseries on the True Entertainment channel as part of the series ''Love burns.............. but you can get antibiotics for it.''

[Brownie]

Let's face it, in Victorian times a 'gay' woman was a prostitute whether lesbian or straight.

I didn't know that Owlswing!  I bow to your superior knowledge.  However I was not speaking of Victorian Times but the 1960s.  Names change their meanings, or at least emphasis, over time.  I never thought ''Gay'' (with a capital G), was a perjorative term for people with same sex attraction.  It may well become so, in time, which is what happens with names that label people.  It wasn't then.

[Rhiannon]

'Gay' is now in common usage as a put-down meaning a bit rubbish - 'those shoes are a bit gay'; 'it's a bit gay to do that' etc.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/24/using-gay-mean-crap-bullying-gap-people

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Gay' is now in common usage as a put-down meaning a bit rubbish - 'those shoes are a bit gay'; 'it's a bit gay to do that' etc.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/24/using-gay-mean-crap-bullying-gap-people

Yes used by wily if homophobic secularists to avoid any anti harrassment edicts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wonder if that miserable little git Paul was a gay in denial?

Whether gay or not De Nile is a river in Egypt which was hundred of miles to the southwest of where Paul was active.

[Spud]

Why is that the wisest way?

Sex hasn't been inescapably tied to reproduction in a very long time indeed, by the way.

True - seems they got divorced when the humble microscope revealed that they were inescapably meant for each other!