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

[jeremyp]

ONLY A MAN AND WOMAN CAN NATURALLY PROCREATE DURING SEX.
Is that clear enough?

Yes it's clear.

My mother is well past the age where she can naturally procreate, therefore, you think her marriage to my father is a sin.

This is what I have to say to you on that:

Please take your bigotry and spite elsewhere.

EDIT I'm surprised I got back here before the mods.

[Spud]

Who are you to deny sexual relationships to anybody? That's right - nobody.
These may well be your beliefs. They are certainly bald assertions unsupported by evidence, and as such are not binding upon anybody.

The thread is about what Christians believe, and the teaching of the New Testament is that sexual relationships are to be reserved for one man and one woman only. I was answering Brownie's question about why God (not me) would deny anyone a sexual relationship.

[Spud]

It's special pleading to let contraception go through on the nod for a reason that you happen to decide is acceptable (spacing out births) while saying that two people of the same sex shouldn't have sex because they can't produce offspring that way. No they can't, but contrary to your belief sex isn't just about reproduction. Indeed, it's not about reproduction for the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time, since there are vastly more instances of sexual intercourse than there are offspring. Unless you're stupid enough to believe that couples who have just the one child only ever had sex on one occasion.

Point about special pleading taken, and ok, sex isn't just about reproduction. But I haven't actually said that same sex couples shouldn't have sex - they can't. What they do is in no shape or form sexual intercourse. What I said was that they shouldn't engage in homosexual acts, which cannot to be compared with it, as ht did.

Lastly, your keyboard seems to put quotation marks around random words for no particular reason. The English word couple refers to a pair or a duo, two of something, as in two human beings (of whatever sex) in a romantic-sexual relationship. If you're not quoting a text from another source you don't need quotation marks around the word.

If I'm not mistaken, the English word 'couple' (meaning a man and woman in a relationship) was coined before homosexuality became accepted, Shaker.

[Shaker]

Point about special pleading taken, and ok, sex isn't just about reproduction. But I haven't actually said that same sex couples shouldn't have sex - they can't. What they do is in no shape or form sexual intercourse.

I don't claim to be any great expert in these matters but I'm pretty sure they can and it is. 

What I said was that they shouldn't engage in homosexual acts. These are not comparable to sexual intercourse, and therefore are not to be compared with it, as ht did.

This is not your decision to make.

If I'm not mistaken, the English word for couple was coined before homosexuality became accepted, Shaker.

It may well have been - but is utterly irrelevant. Acceptance is neither here nor there or indeed anywhere; we all know what a couple refers to in any context. A couple of pints of lager; a couple of minutes; the couple next door. You get it I'm sure.

Two people in a relationship whether they are of the same sex or of different sexes are a couple and remain a couple whether accepted or not. That is, if you understand what the word couple refers to.

[Spud]

I don't claim to be any great expert in these matters but I'm pretty sure they can and it is.

If you want to think that, fine, but you're wrong. Only a male and female can.

  This is not your decision to make.

Horsethorn apparently wanted a reason why homosexuals should not while heterosexual couples (who may or may not be infertile) can.

[Bubbles]

In the words of a song




Burt Bacharach
What The World Needs Now Is Love

What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love,
No not just for some but for everyone.
Lord, we don't need another mountain,
There are mountains and hillsides enough to climb
There are oceans and rivers enough to cross,
Enough to last till the end of time.
What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love,
No, not just for some but for everyone.
Lord, we don't need another meadow
There are cornfields and wheat fields enough to grow
There are sunbeams and moonbeams enough to shine
Oh listen, lord, if you want to know.
What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love,
No, not just for some but for everyone.
No, not just for some, oh, but just for everyone.


Everyone, is ..... Well everyone.

Love isn't just about sex and procreation.

What people of the same sex do, to express that love, is private.

Love is blind, crosses boundaries

 We can recognise love exists between consenting adults and be blind to things that are only their business.

Christians IMO should show the fruits of the spirit towards them

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness"

Love is love.

Why judge and discriminate?

The world needs more love, wherever it exists.

There is no love in being reduced to a breeding 'mare'

Love is so much more.

[Shaker]

If you want to think that, fine, but you're wrong. Only a male and female can.

Flat assertion may work in your old book, chummy, but not on here it doesn't. You're going to need to do very significantly better at explaining yourself than simply tossing out assertions.

[Bubbles]

I saw this


Peter tells us that "Love covers a multitude of sins" (1Peter 4:. He echoes the proverb, "Hatred stirs up strife but love covers all sins" (Proverbs 10:12).

So I would argue to Christians, that love covers ALL sins.

So no-one should judge the love,  one consenting adult holds for another, maybe their love, covers all.

They are not hurting anyone else, just because they are the same sex.

[floo]

The thread is about what Christians believe, and the teaching of the New Testament is that sexual relationships are to be reserved for one man and one woman only. I was answering Brownie's question about why God (not me) would deny anyone a sexual relationship.

Not all Christians believe that at all, only ignorant bigots!

[Rhiannon]

Can you be bigoted if you haven't actually thought about the issues in question?

Ignorant, yes.

[Sassy]

Yes it's clear.

My mother is well past the age where she can naturally procreate, therefore, you think her marriage to my father is a sin.

Why does marriage mean you can or cannot procreate? Explain how being past the age of conceiving makes being married a sin.

You can't because by all means of logic and reasoning it is the most ridiculous reply anyone could make...

This is what I have to say to you on that:

Please take your bigotry and spite elsewhere.

EDIT I'm surprised I got back here before the mods.

  Which also makes this reply of yours totally false and even idiotic.
From now on may the Almighty God show the reality of how you deliberately add things no one has said or suggested because of your bigotry towards believers. May they always be as plain as the nose on your faith and may God show others just how stupid they would look and become if they try to defend such dreadful misleading thoughts. In the name of Jesus. Amen

Spud made an comment not intended to harm or hurt anyone. But the fact is that his comment is true.
I also made a statement to the fact that Spud was saying:

When it comes to being natural then procreation in it's most natural form is a male and female of any species.

They can exchange the necessary materials naturally. Now marriage does not affect this act.

Did they not argue that Homosexuality was natural?

My posts were to explain what SPUD WAS saying and defining it clearly for all.
When it comes to being natural then procreation in it's most natural form is a male and female of any species.
As for the rest then I suggest you stop giving the atheist or believers something to gripe over.

What the real problem is... is atheists and pagans constantly griping over things which do not concern them.
Using homosexuality as a battering ram for believers because they have absolutely nothing else to cover their nudity when it comes to real reasons to attack. The ordinary man in the street know that atheists, theists, and Pagans all have people in their walk of life who are literal homophobic's. Those who attack and don't live and let live.

Trent I really do not know any Christians who would treat people differently because of their colour or sexual orientation.
By all means be annoyed at people who hurt others and attack others for those things. But do not make the grave mistake of thinking anyone here would hurt, harm or treat differently because of their colour and sexual orientation.

In future Jeremyp keep your own brand of bigotry and false accusations to yourself. No one is interested in trouble makers and from now on people will see such posts for what they are.  Believers would no more harm a person because of their sexual orientation (on this forum) than the homosexual person would harm the believer because of their faith(on this forum).

I do not believe that Spud or Trent meant harm to each other or insult.
Diversity of beliefs is what keeps this forum alive and going. The more believers who leave the less this forum will be in it's contents.

[Aruntraveller]

Trent I really do not know any Christians who would treat people differently because of their colour or sexual orientation.

But you do.

They are on here. They would deny the same rights to gay people that are applied to heterosexual people.

Do you not read Hope's posts. He defines himself as a Christian. He was against civil partnerships when they were introduced (and that wasn't even an equalising measure but a half way house towards marriage) and he was against civil marriage for gay people which again in some people's eyes was only one step further than a half way house.

I have seen a few Christians on here in the past deny even the most basic rights - and in one memorable case a Christian poster calling for the death penalty for gay people (where for art thou Cymru?).

Now you may not know them in 'Real life' I fully accept that - but you are aware that they exist - the proof is, and always has been, right here under your nose.

[Rhiannon]

I know Christians personally who think as Hope does. The frightening thing is that they generally tend to be quite nice, homophobia aside.

[floo]

There was one poster, now banned, who claimed to be a Christian but took a great pride in being rabidly anti-gay and racist.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Trent and ProfDavey,

Over here lads, on this thread, I don't want to derail the experience thread further.

Yes gentlemen, you are both right,

I think like myself on a couple of issues there is a residual prejudice by the very nature of our upbringing and heritage.

We are a product of our past and the culture and society that shaped that past.

When I see another thread which attacks homosexuality I think, oh no here we go again.

Nature, nurture, science says this, therapy for gay people, and the most galling, paedophilia rears its ugly head, it disgusts me, and if I try to walk a mile in a homosexuals shoes, what the fuck must they be feeling.

As you suggest gentlemen, the real problem is homophobia, this is what should be discussed in an open and frank manner, what is wrong with these people, why do they think like that, do they need therapy.

In discussion with Leonard James I agree with him that Christianity is a major factor, in this country you can't get round it, over it, we are a culturally Christian country, residual prejudice, product of our past.

I think this has to be highlighted, confronted, where we have come from, how the ordinary man in the street thinks, our thinking has to be woken up.

To end gentlemen, this word "homophobia" am I wrong in thinking that in the past it simply mean't fear of, and that today it has been changed to include, hatred of, I think this is important, we could then ask, what the hell are you afraid of??

Gonnagle.

[Sassy]

I saw this


Peter tells us that "Love covers a multitude of sins" (1Peter 4:. He echoes the proverb, "Hatred stirs up strife but love covers all sins" (Proverbs 10:12).

So I would argue to Christians, that love covers ALL sins.

So no-one should judge the love,  one consenting adult holds for another, maybe their love, covers all.

They are not hurting anyone else, just because they are the same sex.

Is homosexual love right for you, Rose?

Is Christianity right for you, Rose?

Does that mean by not engaging in any of these you have no love?

To live and let live is to show love. Spud is not judging and neither am I, those who are homosexual or Christians.

In truth we live together in this world and we should live and let live each to our own.
You subscribe to neither Christianity or homosexuality does that make you incapable or not loving truly?

Love is not about who we have sex with or which G/god we believe in. Love is a selfless action of how we treat others.
As people we are not defined by our sexual orientation or religious beliefs. We are defined by our actions and how we show love.

bigot
ˈbɪɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

The atheists and some of the pagans are intolerant to some of those who hold different opinions here.
They do not allow those who hold different beliefs to hold them without being intolerant.
They are more bigoted toward the believers for belief in God, than there are people intolerant of them.

At the end of the day it is about how we treat others. Spud was asked a question and used what he believed to be the evidence by natural process.

What I dislike is when people especially Jeremyp try to deliberately ignore the true contents of peoples posts and twist it to something it isn't making false accusations. No love in that action and definitely nothing good for the believer or in helping take away the suffering of those who are truly suffering the real homosexual bigots of the world.

We need to protect those in our society who would use one targeted group by bigots against another group targeted by bigots.
The believers as you can see get targeted by some atheists and pagans for making a simple statement which is not and never was meant to target anyone.

There was nothing bigotry in the response from Spud. He was talking of the 'normal' by that 'natural' process of procreation.
As this is not reliant on sexual orientation but a fact of life that only male and female can mate and procreate from their union there is nothing offensive or bigotry in what he stated.

Look at the replies I had from Jeremyp for just trying to explain what Spud was saying. One of my nephews came out about two years ago he is gay. I treat him no differently now to before. I love him still and I cannot think why his homosexuality would make me want to treat him differently. How can we stop atheists who are not homosexual using the homosexuality soap box to voice their bigotry toward Christians?

They need to grow up and mature in these discussions.

[Aruntraveller]

The same sex "couple" are more than simply infertile. Homosexual and some other kinds of acts are in essence counterfeit,

Sassy are you saying you see nothing judgemental in this pronouncement from Spud?

[Shaker]

Sassy are you saying you see nothing judgemental in this pronouncement from Spud?

Or this one?

I haven't actually said that same sex couples shouldn't have sex - they can't. What they do is in no shape or form sexual intercourse. What I said was that they shouldn't engage in homosexual acts, which cannot to be compared with it

[Sassy]

But you do.

They are on here. They would deny the same rights to gay people that are applied to heterosexual people.

Do you not read Hope's posts. He defines himself as a Christian. He was against civil partnerships when they were introduced (and that wasn't even an equalising measure but a half way house towards marriage) and he was against civil marriage for gay people which again in some people's eyes was only one step further than a half way house.

I have seen a few Christians on here in the past deny even the most basic rights - and in one memorable case a Christian poster calling for the death penalty for gay people (where for art thou Cymru?).

Now you may not know them in 'Real life' I fully accept that - but you are aware that they exist - the proof is, and always has been, right here under your nose.

Yes they do exist, Trent.

But I have no problem with civil partnerships. What I have to ask myself is this question:-

Whilst Hope may not believe in somethings because of his faith does that mean he does not love or care about what happens to
people regardless of their sexual orientation?

A person should not be judged because of their sexual orientation or religious beliefs.
A person should be loved for themselves and how they actually treat others in real life.

How do educate a world where people cannot see that it the 'person' as a whole who needs support and love.
That no one should be loved according to anything but who they are.

My nephew came out and it was difficult for him because out of the forty odd grandchildren in the family he is the only person who is homosexual. However, the grandchildren do not have any prejudices or bias as they were raised as my siblings and I.
Without prejudices of any kind. When raised right we love others for who they are.

I wish I could take the hurt away that the beliefs of others cause so that homosexuals can see themselves as the person and not how  the belief sees you. Worthy of love and worthy of being able to live without any stigma because they are different to what man has classed the norm for many centuries. In all centuries I believe homosexuality has existed. But it is only the last two centuries where people can live openly.

For myself, it is not about sexuality it is about treating others the same.

[Sassy]

There was one poster, now banned, who claimed to be a Christian but took a great pride in being rabidly anti-gay and racist.

The same pride you take in attacking Christians?

[jeremyp]

Why does marriage mean you can or cannot procreate? Explain how being past the age of conceiving makes being married a sin.

You're the one defining sex as sinful unless you can procreate with it. You tell me.

From now on may the Almighty God show the reality of how you deliberately add things no one has said or suggested because of your bigotry towards believers.

Instead of invoking a fictional deity, why not do your own arguing?

[Sassy]

Sassy are you saying you see nothing judgemental in this pronouncement from Spud?

I am saying that Spud was not being judgmental against the sexual orientation of any person.
He was asked for evidence of the natural. In this case he used a natural as being the truth that only a male and female during intercourse can swap the genetic material to make a baby.

I do not see it was an attack or even a judgement because if the statement is correct that Homosexuality is natural.
Then the truth is that we all have to see what Spud says as being a natural truth too.
To suggest what Spud has said to be judgmental would mean that people would have to think it showed something thought to be natural was not natural.

So I do not see that what Spud said actually to be judgmental. For that to happen people would have to judge something thought natural to be proved not natural by his statement.
He literally was just giving an example of the natural truths of nature. I am sure you see what I see now. 

[Sassy]

You're the one defining sex as sinful unless you can procreate with it. You tell me.
Instead of invoking a fictional deity, why not do your own arguing?

I have never defined sex as  sinful unless you can procreate.

You got the wrong person... 

What you have stated is untruthful. Never and never would I, make such a ridiculous statement.

Never in the history of my posting have I ever said or made such a ridiculous and stupid statement.

The world wonders why bigotry still exists when atheists make up their own untrue stories.

[jeremyp]

I have never defined sex as  sinful unless you can procreate.

Reply #360 shows you up as a liar in that respect.

[Sebastian Toe]

From now on may the Almighty God (blah blah blah). In the name of Jesus. Amen

(my italics)

This and the other 'request' to have this board closed (how is that going by the way), reminds me of the Traveller women who used to come to our doors offering 'lucky' heather and then always and I do mean always, offering a 'curse' when the purchase was not concluded!