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

[Spud]

Shaker and Stranger, the reason homosexuality is a disorder is that the sufferer cannot participate in the transfer of genetic material because they are not sexually aroused by the opposite sex.

[Nearly Sane]

Shaker and Stranger, the reason homosexuality is a disorder is that the sufferer cannot participate in the transfer of genetic material because they are not sexually aroused by the opposite sex.

Pish, drivel and balderdash

[Shaker]

Shaker and Stranger, the reason homosexuality is a disorder is that the sufferer cannot participate in the transfer of genetic material because they are not sexually aroused by the opposite sex.

The "transfer of genetic material" as you put it is something that people can choose to do or not according to wish, given that we have such a thing as contraception.

You are desperately trying to derive an ought from an is - a moral edict from a biological process - and failing spectacularly because it can't be done.

[Spud]

If you don't want kids, or have completed your family why is it secondary?

Don't forget nurture of the family ideally requires the parents to stay together for life.
Not wanting kids doesn't change the fact that the main purpose of sex is to have them, and that pleasure increases the probability of having them.

[Rhiannon]

Presumably menopausal and post menopausal women who have sex are similarly 'disordered'.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Spud,

What's it like down there, keep digging you might reach China, anyway old son,

http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong

I will contemplate on the fact that I might be wrong, will you do that?

Gonnagle.

PS: It really is okay to be wrong, I think

[Rhiannon]

We're all wrong, Gonners, it's just that some are more wrong than others, because that kind of wrong leads to a lot of hurt.

[Stranger]

Shaker and Stranger, the reason homosexuality is a disorder is that the sufferer cannot participate in the transfer of genetic material because they are not sexually aroused by the opposite sex.

Your 'logic' makes anybody who wants to have sex but not children similarly 'disordered', along with those who choose celibacy.

[BeRational]

Your 'logic' makes anybody who wants to have sex but not children similarly 'disordered', along with those who choose celibacy.

And those who cannot have children

[Sassy]

You might be in for a nasty shock one day with that sort of smug attitude! You don't present your case well, and bring the faith into disrepute.

You have nothing to actually add to the content of the thread or even the individual aspects of a post.
SMUG ATTITUDE... how do you arrive a such a thought when NOTHING within the post would actually suggest such a thing.
Your mind is the problem... your bigoted attitude to believers and faith.
If I am smug so is every other believer including your own daughter... whoops the brick you threw broke your glass house window. We have to make light because your ignorance is beyond belief.

[Sassy]

Presumably menopausal and post menopausal women who have sex are similarly 'disordered'.

You presume wrong!
There is a difference between once having and then having not - to have never had.

[Sassy]

Dear Spud,

What's it like down there, keep digging you might reach China, anyway old son,

http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong

I will contemplate on the fact that I might be wrong, will you do that?

Gonnagle.

PS: It really is okay to be wrong, I think

I believe Spud is just expressing an opinion. Could be digging a hole...would of thought Australia more his destination.
However as a directive how do you contemplate the nature of man and woman in the eyes of Gods creation?
Did God make another man for Adam to procreate and live with as a companion?  The way of the LORD and that of mankind are very different. But God wants the best for his creation. When young we do not always appreciate our Fathers direction but when Fathers or Mothers ourselves we understand only too well how different life can be for everyone.

In the next life men and women won't marry and there will be no arguments about two men or two women it will be irrelevant.

Truth is Gonnagle we only know how to live with what we are now.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

We're all wrong, Gonners, it's just that some are more wrong than others, because that kind of wrong leads to a lot of hurt.

That is Wisdom, a little pearl of Wisdom.

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

You presume wrong!
There is a difference between once having and then having not - to have never had.

What about infertile couples that never could?

[Sassy]

We're all wrong, Gonners, it's just that some are more wrong than others, because that kind of wrong leads to a lot of hurt.

It isn't a right or wrong that leads to hurt. It is the attitudes of others to those who believe different things to be right and wrong.

People get hurt when someone disagrees and the other feels the need to launch an attack.
Spud is not trying to hurt anyone with what he says. But a lot would disagree so insult and attack him.

The twin towers do you feel that wrong and hurt caused to many innocent people did not give America the right to hit back at those responsible for it happening? With actions comes responsibility. Had they done nothing how many more attacks would have taken place?

In reality only humans can hurt other humans. The right and the wrong comes from them.

[Sassy]

Quote from: Spud on Today at 09:04:01 AM
Shaker and Stranger, the reason homosexuality is a disorder is that the sufferer cannot participate in the transfer of genetic material because they are not sexually aroused by the opposite sex.

Your 'logic' makes anybody who wants to have sex but not children similarly 'disordered', along with those who choose celibacy.

The real logic is that Spud is talking about the 'disorder' he refers to as Homosexuality cannot by natural means of nature transfer genetic material to have children.
It therefore cannot apply to those who can have children by natural means but want to refrain from doing so.
Celibacy is simply abstaining as birth control is a method of prevention.
Whilst both require a deliberate act to prevent transference of gentic material they are not the same as homosexuality in that they are unable to transfer genetic material to make a baby.

So it is not the same thing.

[horsethorn]

You presume wrong!
There is a difference between once having and then having not - to have never had.

That's OK then - people just have to have sex *once* with the intention of procreation, then they can have all the pleasure sex they want, using contraception.

Sorted.

ht

[Sassy]

Dear Rhiannon,


That is Wisdom, a little pearl of Wisdom.

Gonnagle.

That is not knowing what is precious pearls so as not to cast them before the swine.

Bit like stringing pearls around your pigs neck then taking them out to dinner.
Would the string of pearls really fool anyone that it was still a pig wearing them?

I know this is all getting through to you. I see your heart hardening resisting the LORD God.
But when you do come face to face with God. You have nothing to hide behind. Not even a string of pearls for your wisdom you have cast aside choosing the world over Gods.

[floo]

 

[Sassy]

What about infertile couples that never could?

Usually there is a medical issue including age having left it too late in life to have babies.
But there being something wrong with the ability to share the genetic material is not the same as never having had the ability.
Cancer treatment can make someone infertile. Does not mean they were not naturally made to have children.
ALL whether male, female or homosexual have the material to make babies men and women the natural way.
But infertility affects all and it is not their sexuality which makes having babies impossible in heterosexual couples.
But it is the sexuality in homosexuals which makes it impossible for them to conceive "pass genetic material" one from another to make a baby.
Two men, two women cannot procreate by themselves and can be infertile. Where as heterosexuals can pass the genetic material male to female and also be infertile. Infertility has nothing to do with the ability to naturally conceive a child.

Only a man and a woman can conceive by passing the necessary genetic material one to another during sexual relations.
Two men together or two women together cannot. So infertilty has nothing to do with what Spud is clumsily trying to say.
Either he is clumsy or you are just deliberately throwing anything in to try and make something wrong into a right.
In this case it cannot be done because Spud is scientifically right when it comes to natural conception.
Only one immaculate and that was Jesus Christ.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sass,

My opinion and just because it is you, one Christian speaking to another Christian.

Before I even open the Bible I think on the two Greatest Commandments, why, because he told me to, Our Lord commanded it.

So if I read the Bible and any part does not agree with The Two Greatest Commandments then it is flat wrong.

In this world we live in there is so much hurt, so much pain, what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own home becomes an irrelevance.

To end, and remember it is only my opinion, have you ever watched a gay pride march, the passion and commitment, if we could harness that, I say open the doors, a world changer for the better.

Gonnagle.

[Sassy]

That's OK then - people just have to have sex *once* with the intention of procreation, then they can have all the pleasure sex they want, using contraception.

Sorted.

ht

HI h,

Talking about ' natural ability'  your reply has nothing to do with what is being said.

Menopausal women and post menopausal women were once able to have babies by conceiving the natural way.
Homosexuals never can or could have babies through homosexual sex. Men and women are all capable if not infertile of possessing the necessary genetic material to make a baby. You just cannot do it naturally by sexual intercourse unless a man and a woman.

Spud was addressing the fact two men together and two women as together as couples cannot transfer that genetic material to make a baby.

As I said there is a difference to once having something and then not having it... to having never had it.

Quote from: Sassy on Today at 10:06:22 AM
You presume wrong!
There is a difference between once having and then having not - to have never had.

I think you get the picture now. The other posts would have explained.

[BeRational]

Usually there is a medical issue including age having left it too late in life to have babies.
But there being something wrong with the ability to share the genetic material is not the same as never having had the ability.
Cancer treatment can make someone infertile. Does not mean they were not naturally made to have children.
ALL whether male, female or homosexual have the material to make babies men and women the natural way.
But infertility affects all and it is not their sexuality which makes having babies impossible in heterosexual couples.
But it is the sexuality in homosexuals which makes it impossible for them to conceive "pass genetic material" one from another to make a baby.
Two men, two women cannot procreate by themselves and can be infertile. Where as heterosexuals can pass the genetic material male to female and also be infertile. Infertility has nothing to do with the ability to naturally conceive a child.

Only a man and a woman can conceive by passing the necessary genetic material one to another during sexual relations.
Two men together or two women together cannot. So infertilty has nothing to do with what Spud is clumsily trying to say.
Either he is clumsy or you are just deliberately throwing anything in to try and make something wrong into a right.
In this case it cannot be done because Spud is scientifically right when it comes to natural conception.
Only one immaculate and that was Jesus Christ.

Some men and women NEVER had the ability.

Can they still have sex?

[Sassy]

Dear Sass,

My opinion and just because it is you, one Christian speaking to another Christian.

Before I even open the Bible I think on the two Greatest Commandments, why, because he told me to, Our Lord commanded it.

Your posts show you do not even obey the first of those two great commandments...

Your replies show NO love for God.

So if I read the Bible and any part does not agree with The Two Greatest Commandments then it is flat wrong.

Again, you twist everything ignoring the truth.
Christ said: " If you love me you will obey my commandments"
The first commandment is to love God with all your heart. If you obey Christ, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

In your reply lies the very error in your thinking.

You see God made all the laws for the good of mankind not his harm.
If you take away one iota of the law and teachings of the Prophets Christ said...

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

God gave laws to keep people safe from their own evil. When the woman caught in adultery was forgive she was told not to sin again.

You do worse harm than someone teaching another believer. You tell sinners it is okay to carry on sinning.

In this world we live in there is so much hurt, so much pain, what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own home becomes an irrelevance.

To whom? To all mankind it is irrelevant but what do you believe God thinks about it?

A married woman consenting to sleep with another man in the privacy of her own home... How does that sit well?

To end, and remember it is only my opinion, have you ever watched a gay pride march, the passion and commitment, if we could harness that, I say open the doors, a world changer for the better.

Gonnagle.

Have you ever watched a public excution of a woman stoned to death for an adultery she did not commit?
Or a man killed and beheaded for being a Christian in a Muslim Country?
Or even a man being executed for being homosexual?

Those three things ending is a changer for the better.

We are not talking about live and let live. We are talking about falsely giving them false hope.
We both know that homosexuality is not Gods way. We both know that we love all others because God is love and places love and care in our hearts for everyone regardless of colour, creed, religion and sexuality. But what we don't do and must never do is lie and change Gods laws to fit in with your own blown up thoughts of the bible and truth.

You see Christ never sinned because God was his first love. He said:- Anyone who does the will of my FATHER, is my mother, brother and sister."

If everyone loved God first with all their hearts would those three things above have happened in the first instance?
Those three things happen because man does not love God or know Christ.

[Sassy]

Some men and women NEVER had the ability.

Can they still have sex?

You need to read it properly everything is covered in that one post.

The issue is that two men together or two women cannot pass to each other the genetic material to procreate.
Infertility or ability to have actual sexual intercourse is not and never has been the issue.
It is what can be passed gentically to make a baby through intercourse.

It is clear and you do yourself a disservice in deliberate avoidance of the truth.