Magus55

If it's so natural, why was the human species not designed for it? There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is biological or genetic.

Magus55

Gen 19:1-3 is about hospitality. 4-9 is about homosexual rape.

Abacus

Well, I believe that your God most likely doesn't exist, that sin is a meaningless concept, and that the Sodom and Gomorrah story is nothing but a myth. Until you can provide some compelling evidence that any of the above has a factual basis, I'm not going to be convinced.

crocodile deathroll

Here is a valid analogy
If you build and drive your own new model of car, and as you test drive is you turn the steering wheel to the right and the front wheels left and you crash it. Then you may as well say it is not my fault because it has an engineering floor in it and did not obey my directive to turn right when I turned the steering wheel right it failed the "test" of obedience, then turned left instead.
Shucks I should not of given the new car the function of "free will"
what a stupid design idea!!!

CDR

Abacus

Please explain "the human species not designed for it".

Magus55

http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/topics/arch5.htm

http://www.truth777.netfirms.com/Chr.../Bible/BA4.htm

http://www.probe.org/docs/arch-ot.html (scroll down to S&G)

Magus55

Male and female anatomy are perfectly designed to go together. Anal and oral orifices are not designed for sex, they are for eating and waste removal.

Abacus

What criteria did you use to determine that the above anatomical features are designed? What criteria do you use to determine whether a design is perfect or imperfect?

Wayne Delia

May I ask a sincere question? This might be at risk of being dismissed as ridicule or of not being serious, but I assure you, it is very serious based on your assertion here.

Apparently, "Jesus fulfilled the OT laws," which means that there is no longer a prohibition against Christians doing things like eating meat with milk or milk products (i.e. a cheeseburger) or dressing in clothes made of mixed fabrics, laws which don't apply under the New Covenant, according to your assertion.

Other Old Testament laws include a prohibition against bestiality, which is having sexual relations with animals. If "Jesus fulfilled the OT laws," would this law also be nullified? And if a Christian was to engage in sex with, say, a sheep, wouldn't that be nothing more than a violation of an OT law no longer in effect?

So could one conclude that if the standard practices outlawed in the Old Testament (eating shellfish, dressing in clothes of mixed fabrics, etc) are now OK because of the "New Covenant," then a practice of bestiality by a Christian would not be considered a sin based on the same line of reasoning?

An answer would be appreciated, because this has always seemed like a blatant Christian double-standard. The normal, mundane, everyday activities which used to be condemned as abominations in the Old Testament are now OK, but the abnormal, perverted abominations outlawed in the Old Testament seem to remain as sins, even though Jesus fulfilled the O.T. laws and made a New Covenant. If that doesn't apply to bestiality, then it also doesn't apply to the standard stuff, either.

WMD

Wayne Delia

HERETIC!!!

We know by faith and reasoning that the IPU exists. We know by reasoning that She is invisible (because She cannot be seen), and we know by faith that She is pink.

Repent now.

WMD

N.B. Magus, that too was a joke.