|
Post by Bogus0Pomp on Mar 22, 2021 13:40:23 GMT -5
I want someone to give me one good reason to support an ideology and/or a religion that wants me not only dead, but tortured for eternity.
|
|
|
Post by Bogus0Pomp on Jun 2, 2021 8:10:22 GMT -5
Wale:Also Wale:Those are YOUR words, Wale. What I'm asking is why YOU treat females who are attracted to one another VERY DIFFERENTLY in YOUR comments than you do males who are attracted to each other? NO I DONT, IT IS UNNATURAL FOR FEMALES TO BE ATTRACTED TO FEMALES AS WELL AS THE DYSFUNCTION OF MALES TO MALES. You still just can't bring yourself to use all the same rhetoric for females attracted to other females that you use for males attracted to other males, i.e. "it is a DYSFUNCTION" and "it is INVALID." It just seems that even though YOU consider homosexuality in both males and females to be "unnatural," a "defect in the programming for attraction," your intense hatred and vitriol is directed only at the males. Again, why is that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 9:15:44 GMT -5
NO I DONT, IT IS UNNATURAL FOR FEMALES TO BE ATTRACTED TO FEMALES AS WELL AS THE DYSFUNCTION OF MALES TO MALES. You still just can't bring yourself to use all the same rhetoric for females attracted to other females that you use for males attracted to other males, i.e. "it is a DYSFUNCTION" and "it is INVALID." It just seems that even though YOU consider homosexuality in both males and females to be "unnatural," a "defect in the programming for attraction," your intense hatred and vitriol is directed only at the males. Again, why is that?Only seems that way to you. I respond to the person posing the question or statement. If there were a female as virulent as you, say Katie, I would respond the same. YOU insist that legitimate opposition to the dysfunctionality of homosexuals can ONLY be hatred, so you are responded to in kind
|
|
|
Post by Bogus0Pomp on Jun 2, 2021 11:05:32 GMT -5
Ah so, Wale, you are apparently, indirectly, admitting that it really is strictly a PERSONAL attack thing... ...that your projected homophobia, make that your articulated disdain towards male homosexuals... ...since you so dislike the accurate word I used to describe your comments to the point denying it's actual definition and use... ...is merely a device with which to attack me simply because I do not agree with your opinions and/or call you on your lies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 12:08:13 GMT -5
Ah so, Wale, you are apparently, indirectly, admitting that it really is strictly a PERSONAL attack thing... ...that your projected homophobia, make that your articulated disdain towards male homosexuals... ...since you so dislike the accurate word I used to describe your comments to the point denying it's actual definition and use... ...is merely a device with which to attack me simply because I do not agree with your opinions and/or call you on your lies. NO, you are so irrational, where to start? Not a personal attack just a response BUTT since you are the only one who attacks legitimate opposition as mischaracterizations then you are the only one who is responded to and NEEDS CORRECTION. There is NO SUCH THING as HOMOPHOBIA once again and neither is legitimate opposition to your dysfunctional behavior hatred.
|
|
|
Post by Bogus0Pomp on Jun 2, 2021 15:51:25 GMT -5
Why thank you, Wale, for that load of ridiculously rationalized self serving crap that abundantly and completely proves my previous post on this thread. By the way...
homophobia noun Definition of homophobia
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
Definition courtesy Webster's (Link) Go take your supreme knowledge of languages to Webster's. See how well they take your 'corrections.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 19:26:19 GMT -5
Why thank you, Wale, for that load of ridiculously rationalized self serving crap that abundantly and completely proves my previous post on this thread. By the way...
homophobia noun Definition of homophobia
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
Definition courtesy Webster's (Link) Go take your supreme knowledge of languages to Webster's. See how well they take your 'corrections.'
and THANK YOU for demonstrating to ALL just how many ways you have varied saying the same thing which boils down to " If you contradict what I believe in the you are hateful"- Boogus
|
|
|
Post by justin on Jun 2, 2021 19:32:21 GMT -5
I want someone to give me one good reason to support an ideology and/or a religion that wants me not only dead, but tortured for eternity.
Hi Bogus0Pomp, I'm a Catholic. I'm gonna tell you, my first and dominate view is that I think you are a beloved child of God. If that is not the message you're receiving from me, then I apologize in advance. To me, that is the most important message that I can pass along. Everything else is second to that extremely important message. Secondly, I have zero desire to wish that you are dead and tortured.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 19:38:29 GMT -5
I want someone to give me one good reason to support an ideology and/or a religion that wants me not only dead, but tortured for eternity.
Hi Bogus0Pomp, I'm a Catholic. I'm gonna tell you, my first and dominate view is that I think you are a beloved child of God. If that is not the message you're receiving from me, then I apologize in advance. To me, that is the most important message that I can pass along. Everything else is second to that extremely important message. Secondly, I have zero desire to wish that you are dead and tortured. But Justin AS a Catholic you also have a responsibility to tell anyone that the Doctrine you espouse and are an adherent of states categorically that homosexuality is a sin!
|
|
|
Post by justin on Jun 2, 2021 20:15:31 GMT -5
Hi Bogus0Pomp, I'm a Catholic. I'm gonna tell you, my first and dominate view is that I think you are a beloved child of God. If that is not the message you're receiving from me, then I apologize in advance. To me, that is the most important message that I can pass along. Everything else is second to that extremely important message. Secondly, I have zero desire to wish that you are dead and tortured. But Justin AS a Catholic you also have a responsibility to tell anyone that the Doctrine you espouse and are an adherent of states categorically that homosexuality is a sin! Of course. I don't deny that one bit. Homosexual sex is as much of a sin as anyone having sex outside marriage. Heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage is as sinful as homosexuals having sex outside of marriage. That includes divorced heterosexuals who have remarried. My view of the sinfulness of homosexual sex is equal to that of heterosexual sex outside of a legitimate marital bond. Do you see a difference? Shouldn't the first message anyone sees from the Church to be one of invitation, and not one of condemnation? I'm not suggesting a single message, but the first message. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize multiple marriages anymore than it recognizes homosexual marriages. One marriage, between one man and one woman, until death. Any sex outside of that union is sinful. Melania Trump is in a marriage not recognized by the Catholic Church, shouldn't your condemnation of her be equal to that in which to show to Bogus0Pomp? I believe she was raised Catholic. The assumption is that they are both practicing sex outside of a recognized marriage, right? And frankly, same sex attraction is not, in and of itself, sinful. A same sex couple could live as two brothers, or two sisters and not be in a sinful relationship. It's the marital act itself that get folks into trouble. All types of God's children, not just those attracted to the same gender struggle in this area. As a Catholic, I want them both to know that there is loving God longing for a relationship with them. In my opinion, the best vehicle to transmit that message is to let them know that, not to condemn them. In my opinion, if the message from the Catholic church is nothing more than a wagging finger, and not an invitation to a loving relationship with God then, in my opinion, we are not practicing our faith honestly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 23:09:14 GMT -5
But Justin AS a Catholic you also have a responsibility to tell anyone that the Doctrine you espouse and are an adherent of states categorically that homosexuality is a sin! Of course. I don't deny that one bit. Homosexual sex is as much of a sin as anyone having sex outside marriage. Heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage is as sinful as homosexuals having sex outside of marriage. That includes divorced heterosexuals who have remarried. My view of the sinfulness of homosexual sex is equal to that of heterosexual sex outside of a legitimate marital bond. Do you see a difference? Shouldn't the first message anyone sees from the Church to be one of invitation, and not one of condemnation? I'm not suggesting a single message, but the first message. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize multiple marriages anymore than it recognizes homosexual marriages. One marriage, between one man and one woman, until death. Any sex outside of that union is sinful. Melania Trump is in a marriage not recognized by the Catholic Church, shouldn't your condemnation of her be equal to that in which to show to Bogus0Pomp? I believe she was raised Catholic. The assumption is that they are both practicing sex outside of a recognized marriage, right? And frankly, same sex attraction is not, in and of itself, sinful. A same sex couple could live as two brothers, or two sisters and not be in a sinful relationship. It's the marital act itself that get folks into trouble. All types of God's children, not just those attracted to the same gender struggle in this area. As a Catholic, I want them both to know that there is loving God longing for a relationship with them. In my opinion, the best vehicle to transmit that message is to let them know that, not to condemn them. In my opinion, if the message from the Catholic church is nothing more than a wagging finger, and not an invitation to a loving relationship with God then, in my opinion, we are not practicing our faith honestly. The Scriptures make a specific mention of same sex interaction so The Lord speaking through human writers tells us this is VERY SERIOUS and specifically lists this as an abomination, apart from sex outside marriage.
|
|
|
Post by justin on Jun 3, 2021 19:45:51 GMT -5
The Scriptures make a specific mention of same sex interaction so The Lord speaking through human writers tells us this is VERY SERIOUS and specifically lists this as an abomination, apart from sex outside marriage. Scripture also tells us how VERY SERIOUS anything outside of lawful marriage is sinful. Not only Scripture, but Jesus himself tells us that any union outside of permanent marital union between one man and one woman is considered adultery (see Matthew 19 and Mark 10). That is from the Word Incarnate, not something to be dismissed as unserious. The Apostles themselves were struck by how difficult this teaching was (see Matthew 19:10).
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 3, 2021 20:06:09 GMT -5
Scripture also tells us how VERY SERIOUS anything outside of lawful marriage is sinful. Not only Scripture, but Jesus himself tells us that any union outside of permanent marital union between one man and one woman is considered adultery (see Matthew 19 and Mark 10). That is from the Word Incarnate, not something to be dismissed as unserious. The Apostles themselves were struck by how difficult this teaching was (see Matthew 19:10). Hi Justin,
If the sins are equivalent, why was there a need to differentiate in the bible? Why not just say "sex outside marriage is bad"? Why make an additional, apparently superfluous (in your opinion), rule for homosexuals?
Also, if "outside marriage" is the key, why not allow same sex couples to marry so they can avoid sin?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2021 20:06:50 GMT -5
The Scriptures make a specific mention of same sex interaction so The Lord speaking through human writers tells us this is VERY SERIOUS and specifically lists this as an abomination, apart from sex outside marriage. Scripture also tells us how VERY SERIOUS anything outside of lawful marriage is sinful. Not only Scripture, but Jesus himself tells us that any union outside of permanent marital union between one man and one woman is considered adultery (see Matthew 19 and Mark 10). That is from the Word Incarnate, not something to be dismissed as unserious. The Apostles themselves were struck by how difficult this teaching was (see Matthew 19:10). Yes agreed. Those SPECIFICALLY mentioned are VERY SERIOUS, as is engaging in homosexual acts.
Leviticus 18:22 Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:26-27 NIV 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9 NIV 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
|
|
|
Post by justin on Jun 3, 2021 20:54:57 GMT -5
Hi Justin,
If the sins are equivalent, why was there a need to differentiate in the bible?
A good question. I suppose for the same reason that the sin of running a red light is differentiated from the sin of speeding down the highway. Both are moving violations of a vehicle, but recognized differently by a court of law. There's a distinction made, but not a lot of difference. I don't make the rules. I see no reason to quibble about the nature of sex outside of marriage anymore than I see a reason to quibble about the distinction between running a red light and speeding down a highway. Perhaps you would like to quibble about the different traffic laws? Do you think it is worth our time? Within the context of "sin", marriage is officially recognized as a union between a man and woman. How can same sex couples avoid that basic construct?
|
|
|
Post by argy on Jun 4, 2021 2:30:14 GMT -5
A good question. I suppose for the same reason that the sin of running a red light is differentiated from the sin of speeding down the highway. Both are moving violations of a vehicle, but recognized differently by a court of law. There's a distinction made, but not a lot of difference.
Hi Justin,
I'm not sure that catches the drift of my question. Perhaps I should try to put it another way. In your previous post you implied that homosexual sex and heterosexual sex outside marriage were wrong for the same reason (sex outside marriage is wrong). However, is there another layer to this? Is homosexual sex outside marriage intrinsically more sinful than heterosexual sex?
Ha! However, regardless of who made the rule, are you able to explain it?
I believe there are circumstances where laws may be broken without punishment because they cannot cover all circumstances. For example, I would say it's okay to speed or run a red light if you were racing to hospital with a critically ill child in need of urgent attention. Are there any circumstances where you would accept that the rule against sex outside marriage could be broken?
I know that church law is different to civil law, but homosexual marriage is officially recognised in most western countries.
One thing I'm not curious about. Is it sinful for married homosexuals who do not share your beliefs to have sex, or is it only sinful if they share your beliefs?
|
|