Homosexuality Found not to be forbidden in The Bible

Alias said:
I find it hilarious that you did not respond at all to my nature's anatomy argument. Read my post again. I never said anything about "right or wrong". My response was to the poster who noted "nature". I could care less if you want to stick a penis up your ass. That's your business. But don't try and tell us it's natural and anatomical because it isn't.
Click to expand...

Your usage of the word "natural" is inherently value-loaded. Mine is objective. If it can happen, it's natural. The fact that you can stick a penis up your ass makes it natural, no matter what purpose it seems to have been "designed" for. It just turns out that anuses and mouths just happen to be very good at accepting penises. Even if they were bad at it, it wouldn't be unnatural. The only way anal sex would be unnatural is if it were physically impossible due to the laws of the universe, in which case we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
Emperor Nero said:
Your usage of the word "natural" is inherently value-loaded. Mine is objective. If it can happen, it's natural. The fact that you can stick a penis up your ass makes it natural, no matter what purpose it seems to have been "designed" for. It just turns out that anuses and mouths just happen to be very good at accepting penises. Even if they were bad at it, it wouldn't be unnatural. The only way anal sex would be unnatural is if it were physically impossible due to the laws of the universe, in which case we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

And that's the succinct end of that discussion. Well done.
 
Emperor Nero said:
Nature does not sit back and design. Nature happens. The purpose of an anus or a vagina is whatever you want it to be - just because it happens to be good at one thing doesn't mean you are morally obligated to not use it for another purpose which it also happens to be good for. Even if we do accept the premise that nature "designed" something, the proposition, which is simply assumed in your argument, that it's immoral to use it in a different way, would be ridiculous and absurd.

No, this argument is retarded. Can you list to me one other instance in which you seriously believe that finding a new, not originally "intended" use for something makes this new usage as perverted and immoral as you find homosexuality to be? It seems that if the people who espoused this argument had not already arrived at the conclusion that homosexuality was immoral for whatever emotionalistic reasons they have, they wouldn't care about the argument at all. So why are we discussing it?
Click to expand...

I think I luv you, is that perverted?
 
Damocles said:
I've read three different versions. One from scrolls found recently, a Christian one, and a Jewish one... The Jewish Bible includes what appears to be a rewritten book, changing areas where the Son of Man was prophesied..

The Book of Enoch is where you will find many of the angel names and other things as well as the depiction of Hell you see in many works of art. Interesting that this book was referred to Christ himself, but excluded from most Christian bibles. The Christian version that I read was from Ethiopia, where they include some of the books of the Apocrypha that were excluded by the council of Nicea, the Jewish version was from their own Bible.
Click to expand...

Enoch is also where you will find the best description of the war between God and the Angels and Lucifer and the Fallen. Funny how so much of the mythology of the war between heaven and hell which is accepted by mainstream Christianity comes from a book that was, for whatever political reasons, excluded from the cannon by the Council of Nicea.
 
Socrtease said:
Enoch is also where you will find the best description of the war between God and the Angels and Lucifer and the Fallen. Funny how so much of the mythology of the war between heaven and hell which is accepted by mainstream Christianity comes from a book that was, for whatever political reasons, excluded from the cannon by the Council of Nicea.
Click to expand...

The hilarious thing about the omission is that Jesus quoted the Book of Enoch on a couple of occasions, isn't that ironic. Jesus found them sacred, but the Council of Nicea didn't like them.
 
Rana said:
Jesus found them sacred
Click to expand...

????...upon what do you base that conclusion?.....

by the way, if you google it you will find you are wrong....Jesus never quoted from the book of Enoch......I presume your source was Bruce?....
 
Last edited:
Where does Jesus quote Enoch? I don't recall any instance where Jesus quoted Enoch. I could be wrong, of course.

That aside, I find Enoch to be a valuable book that backs up much of what is written in Daniel, Revelation, and other prophetic books. Most historians regard it as pseudepigrapha, a theory with which I disagree. However, it is not technically scripture, and as a Christian I'm uncomfortable with treating it as equal to scripture. This is my personal belief.

The Council of Nicea dealt with matters of doctrine (e.g. Arianism); it is a misconception that Biblical canon was settled at the Council of Nicea. This is easily proven by the fact that we still have extant documents of Nicea, as well as historical accounts of what took place at the council.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Ireneaus listed the current canon as early as 190 AD.......
Click to expand...

Yes. Contrary to the claims of those who oppose the Bible, it did not come into being by the edict of any council. Certainly, there were councils that reinforced what Christians had already come to accept as scripture in the early church. But, for the most part, it was obvious to early believers which books should be regarded as scripture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top