>22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus only condemns having sex with a man "as one does with a woman", not having sex with a man itself. Leviticus only wants you to have sex with a MAN like a you would with a MAN, not mimicking straight sex (i.e. anal). Gay sex and sodomy are not synonymous.
Either way it's from the Old Testament so who gives a frick. You gotta deconstruct the anti-gay verses from the New Testament
>You gotta deconstruct the anti-gay verses from the New Testament
Christ never spoke out against homosexuality
Paul did
Paul was raised as an ultra-orthodox Pharisee
paul also thought slavery was good
what's wrong with slavery
So predictable.
No seriously, what's wrong with slavery. homosexuals don't have any kind of morals so what's wrong with slavery from a homosexual's perspective? Wouldn't homosexuals want slavery so they could frick little boys?
People will use any verse to justify what they want
ok, but there is only one:
> 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.
First of all, it is not an outright condemnation, Paul is talking about the past and what happened. God gave them over to shameful desires and men were inflamed with lust for one-another and committed shameful acts with other men.
Paul is talking about sodomy, not proper male relations, and since he says "lust", it's clear this is sexual desire outside of the confines of marriage. Paul is not condemning gay sex between two loving husbands, he is condemning straight men abandoning their wives to sodomize men's behinds who they have no legitimate relationship with.
1 Corinthians 6:9
the word used is arsenokoitai.
arren means men, koitai is to sleep with (sexually).
No arse coitus
>6:9
nice
but this verse says nothing about homosexuality:
>9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes,[a] men who engage in illicit sex,[b]
it condemns male prostitutes, and men who engage in "illicit" sex, not sex with men generally.
i literally just explained what word is used for it in greek. it's literally "men who sleep with men"
and that's a word Paul coined, and it repeats the same thing as Leviticus 20:13.
>If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
but again, that just condemns sodomy, not gay sex
That's false.
>Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals (NASB)
How do we know the term refers to those engaging in gay sex? Well, let's look at the Greek
>ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι Θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
And let's focus in on that last word, ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai), which is translated as "homosexuals." Where did Paul get this word from, because it's not used anywhere else outside of Paul's writings in the NT nor was the it likely a term that existed in Greek before Paul. Well, that's because arsenokoitai is a fusion of two words from the Greek OT in Leviticus 18:22:
>καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν.
>You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
and again in Leviticus 20:13:
>καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι· θανατούσθωσαν, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν.
>If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
The key words here are ἄρσενος (ársenos) "a man" and κοίτην (koitēn) "in a marriage-bed." To deny that the compound ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) doesn't thus refer to "a man who lies (read: have intercourse) with another man just as a man and a woman would in the marriage-bed" is manipulating the text to suit your degeneracy.
sounds like Paul is condemning men who are married to women who have an affair with men, hence "in the marriage bed"
gay marriage did not exist at the time so his meaning is clear he's talking about men who are cheating on their wives.
I wish I got paid to teach people the correct interpretation of scripture.
>sounds like Paul is condemning men who are married to women
Or, looking back at Leviticus, that he's condemning "a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman."
I already addressed Leviticus, that condemns sodomy, i.e. mimicking male-female sex with a man. men should not engage in anal sex.
That is in no way what Leviticus is talking about. For starters, "Sodomy" isn't even how men and women usually have sex, and יִשְׁכַּב is not referring to any particular sexual act, but the idea of having sex at all.
the passages say lying with a man
מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה
as with a woman.
> For starters, "Sodomy" isn't even how men and women usually have sex,
yes, but it's referring to how anal sex mimics veganal sex
what is this, Aquinas? I don't care about him.
Yes, in terms of יִשְׁכַּב. It means sexually, not just two guys sleeping in the same tent or something.
>yes, but it's referring to how anal sex mimics veganal sex
No it isn't. You just made that up because you're a stupid shill. You see the exact same prohibitory language in the two preceding verses. Only the subject of the sentences changes. Your "reading" would mean that it's okay to frick your father's wife or your daughter in law, just as long as you don't do anal with them. Needless to say, that is wrong.
you're ignoring how it does not simply say "lie with a man", it says "as you lie with a woman." the act that is condemned is compared to lying with a woman.
וְאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת-זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה
No, I'm not. I'm point out that's part of the subject of the sentence and not in the direct prohibition command, and thus your reading is wrong you moron. What's prohibited is having sex with a man. Full stop. It's not restricted to any particular sex act.
You're ignoring the second half the verse because you clearly have ulterior motives.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing out your "But it really only means anal" claim has absolutely no linguistic basis.
frankly you were, you based your argument off the fact the verse says lying with a man without acknowledging the comparative as one lies with a woman.
Please go back to the second grade and learn to read.
Does indeed address it, and points out how it's only a modification to the subject, not the command. Pull your head out of your ass and try to follow along.
NIV
>“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
NASB
>“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
KJV
>“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
NRSV
>“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
frick
NASB
>You shall not sleep with a male as [a]one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination.
KJV
>Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
NRSV
>You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
and as
pointed out, the inclusion of the woman as a comparative example is intended to convey a general idea of the activities that fall under the purview of the prohibition. The Hebrew root word is general, not particular. Your attempting to shoe-horn in exceptions on the basis of "like vs unlike" sexual activity is not defensible. Women can engage in oral, non-penetrative, and mutual stimulative sex just as well as any man. By your own principle of interpretation, since men are to abstain from all sexual activity with other men that would be analogous to those activities which can be performed with a woman, the result is that all non-reproductive sexual activities fall under the ban. In either case, the verse can only be read in a general and broad sense, given the grammatical structure.
the ban does not include all non-reproductive sex, that's reading a lot into the text that isn't there. also, the question isn't the root of the word "to lie", it's the comparative. it could have easily said you should not lie with a man and leave it at that.
>The ban does not include all non-reproductive sex
oh but it does, my friend. As I previously noted, the Hebrew word שָׁכַב is one of broad meaning and the comparison of man and woman employed in the verse is one in which all sexual activity that is analogous (or shared) amidst the two is necessarily brought into discussion. "You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination." This is a categorical command, as are most others in the Mosaic Law. You are perfectly aware of the divine intent regarding marriage and its facilitation of procreation and the rearing of family; sexual activity has its defined role in the pattern set down by the LORD, as pointed out by
. Hence, the restrictive use of the word שָׁכַב in the context of Leviticus; it is a reaffirmation of God's intent regarding sexual activity as only allowable between a man and a woman who have been joined in recognized legal union.
You can't argue your way out of this one.
>and the comparison of man and woman employed in the verse is one in which all sexual activity that is analogous (or shared) amidst the two is necessarily brought into discussion
yes, that's my argument. You can't frot with a woman. it's not analogous.
>genital rubbing or mutual stimulation of reproductive organs through close, but non-penetrative, contact.
This is analogous in the broad sense, and is hence forbidden. The likeness of woman to that of man is of such close similarity in terms of physiological structure and function that it is sufficient to establish all sexual activity as having a corresponding analogue in the opposite sex. Thus, the categorical prohibition against ALL types, kinds, or forms of sexual desire (i.e. lust) that a human would seek to express with another human of the same sex. This is as God intended it. gays don't get a free pass, anon.
frotting with your lawfully wedded husband is not lust, anon
Then how do you have sex with a man if you can't do anal
>How do gays have sex besides anal
You know not all gays do butt stuff right? Oral, Mutual Masterbation, and Thigh Jobs are all pretty popular to
Okay. I'm not too aware since I ditched all my troony friends
Why'd you ditch your troony friends?
Because I had to get married to a real girl. And she actually found me attractive.
The trannies liked other dudes
why do the cute trans girls only go after chuds?
I don't like trannies anymore. They've always disappointed me with their behavior so the point where I'll take a real girl instead
>tfw no big strong gym-bro to hold me down and give me a thighjob after leg day
I love how npcs out themselves by asking such unimaginative questions.
No this is the current Catholic catechism
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
I just want to add in support of
that the Hebrew of Leviticus 20:13 uses the exact same beginning of וְאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת-something to talk about incest before talking about homosexuality. It's clearly not restricted to marriage.
yeah, the Leviticus passage isn't talking about marriage, it's talking about lying with a man like you would with a woman, as in anal sex. gay sex in general is not condemned.
That is completely wrong, and nonsensical on its face. Are you just really dumb, or are you actively pushing something?
Nice try with the semantic twisting there, champ. It's always good to have a direct Greek concordance on hand to address such "creative" translations from the original and see how much liberty they take. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance states that μαλακός is a direct euphemism for catamites, especially in this passage's context. In other words, any subordinate role in a male-on-male sexual relationship is ruled out as sinful. The definition of ἀρσενοκοίτης is even more to the point; the word is literally a combination of the two Greek roots for "man" and "bed". Seeing as κοίτη is used throughout the Scriptures to refer to sexual intercourse, the only plausible rendering of the word in its context is "sodomite", that is, "a man in bed with (i.e. engaging in sexual relations with) another man". Paul then categorically condemns both parties who engage in this illicit act; both the dom and sub, the penetrator and penetratee.
makes quite clear the Biblical continuity regarding sexual norms and ethics as defined by God and revealed in His Word.
Lastly, your attempt to smuggle in "lawful" relations between so-called "married men" is a sick joke of textual eisegesis. The Hebrew word שָׁכַב, according to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, is used to denote any type of sexual intercourse. Hence, Leviticus's broad forbidding of any kind of sexual activity between a man and another man; the use of woman as a reference point is simply that, to convey the notion of the activity being legislated.
In sum, your reading of Scripture suffers from a lack of nuanced understanding of the original languages and how words interrelate with grammatical syntax. Your refusal to acknowledge the sinfulness of homosexual desire and its behavioral outworking is indicative of what Peter said in his epistle concerning the writings of Paul, "which the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, as also the other Scriptures."
well Paul is a heretic anyways, who rejected the Law of Moses which correctly only condemned anal sex with a man.
Catholics use all 73 books of the Bible and sees the Bible as a whole to integrate.
You are a viper who, when confronted with the plain meaning of the passage in its natural context and in the original languages, resorts to moving goalposts and rejecting whatever does not fit your hermeneutical agenda. You have no respect for the Scriptures, nor do you engage in this thread with good faith and honest intent. You are a ravening wolf who will receive the due penalty for your iniquity; you and those like you who encourage others to continue in their sin.
>You are a viper who, when confronted with the plain meaning of the passage in its natural context and in the original languages, resorts to moving goalposts and rejecting whatever does not fit your hermeneutical agenda. You have no respect for the Scriptures, nor do you engage in this thread with good faith and honest intent. You are a ravening wolf who will receive the due penalty for your iniquity; you and those like you who encourage others to continue in their sin.
are you talking about Paul, or me?
>can't even process the primary subject noun that begins the first sentence of a reply.
>has no idea when he's being addressed in a rebuttal.
No wonder your exegesis is so wack, anon. You'd barely pass basic literacy tests with that sort of question. I'm surprised you can even post, let alone post all of the garbage interpretations of Scripture that you copy-paste from your TikTok pastor's sermon notes.
confirmed straight people can't tell when someone is being coy
confirmed homosexuals can't tell when someone is employing sarcasm in order to coax out a reply.
This.
[Rom 1:27-31 KJV] 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
that only refers to unnatural lust, i.e. sodomy. making out with your bro while you rub your penises against eachother is not unnatural.
wrong, Black person. See
and
for the ban on all homo-lust, and
on your bizarre fixation with genital rubbing. You gays have been recycling the same shitty arguments like used condoms for the last two days; ain't it time you gave up the ghost, anon?
that's already been refuted
No, it hasn't. You have NOT provided either a concrete linguistic basis for your aberrant interpretations of Leviticus or 1 Corinthians, and in fact have been exposed as a charlatan in such exchanges, nor have you provided a normative instance or regulative decree establishing the Biblical legitimacy of non-sodomite homosexual behavior. Your citation of David and Jonathan is a joke; the website you linked as "evidence" is an overt attempt by a biased, gay atheist to smuggle into the passage unwarranted homoerotic subtext.
Your activity in this thread has been consistently to assert that which has not been proven, and then avoid responsibility in dealing with the issues under discussion. That shit doesn't work in school, anon, and it sure as shit won't get a pass here. Either put up or shut up.
there has been not one refutation of my interpretation of Leviticus, and it's obvious that David and Jonathan's relationship was covered up by a later editor, which is why Jonathan's son Ishbaal is called "Ishbosheth" (bosheth being shame). Ishbaal was Jonathan's son and adopted by David when they were together. Later editors wanted to cover this up.
>Ishbaal to Ishbosheth cope
First of all, you actually mean Mephibosheth, who was Jonathan's son and is referred to in other books of the Bible as Meribbaal, and not Ishbosheth, who was his brother. It helps to know the book you're trying to subvert, you godless sodomite.
In any case, the names were changed because of the negative cultural connotations associated with the god "Baal" and the Israelites' history of repeated idolatry concerning said deity. To be reminded of their unfaithfulness to YHWH and their failure to keep covenant with Him would surely bring shame to any nation; hence the name change and the shame being referenced. Likewise, Mephibosheth was crippled after his nurse dropped him as a child, resulting in his lameness. Such an infirmity, especially in the son of former royalty, may likewise be a contributing factor to his namesake. Regardless, it has nothing to do with David and Jonathan. Your subtext remains spurious and without concrete basis.
As for Leviticus, stop dodging the issue and respond to these posts directly, homosexual:
I mixed up two names, so what? the point still stands
also, the "refutation" you linked back to was not that. the meaning of שכב is not in question. it's simply "to lie", a euphenism. the issue is that the verse says not to lie with a man as with a woman, it does not say just not to lie with a man, it's qualified in what manner you should not, in a way none of the other sexual prohibitions in the chapter are. it's obviously only against sodomy, not homosexual relations.
As pointed out again and again, the word שכב is a general term with broad connotations. As for the comparison employed between men and women, it is establishing the type of relations that fall under the prohibition; that is, sexual behavior of any kind. That a man "shall not שכב with a man as he would a woman", is a categorical command and not a particular one. It is your responsibility to provide textual evidence to the contrary. Cite a verse, passage, or chapter in the entirety of the Bible that permits or illustrates an explicitly homosexual relationship and its reception of positive affirmation. No subtext; no semantic homo-eroticism. Just a plain indicator that the particular act of butt-fricking is what God had in mind in condemning sodomy.
>the issue is that the verse says not to lie with a man as with a woman, it does not say just not to lie with a man, it's qualified in what manner you should not
Yes, specifically in a sexual manner, "as you lieth with a women". I know you are deranged and perverse, but a sane man looks at a woman as a sexual object, he understands that lying with her means interacting with her sexually. The text does not contain a reference to penetration, as penetrative sex is not the only way for a man to have his way with woman, rather the meaning of the verse is "treat him like a woman", and since this is an abomination because it completely twists the sexual impulse into abject dysfunction out of rebellion to their creator, "they" shall be put to death, that is, both participants.
sounds like you're reading too much into the text. it says nothing about attraction/lust, just lying with a man like a woman. how do you lie with a man like a woman? you penetrate him
>sounds like you're reading too much into the text
Sounds like you don't believe the text
>how do you lie with a man like a woman?
By behaving sexually with him.
>you penetrate him
I repeat there is *no* reference to penetration in the text. It says "they" shall be put to death, explain that, does one get penetrated by a woman?
if the text just meant to lie with man then it would say that. the qualifier is there for a reason.
See
>employs a strictly literal constructionist reading of Leviticus to force a general Hebrew verb into a particular act verb, mutilating the passage's continuity in the process.
>uses loose constructionist methods in his exegesis of 1 Corinthians, to say nothing of importing anachronistic homo-erotic subtext into the reading of Jonathan and David's friendship.
>expects that no one will catch on to his double standard use of hermeneutics.
Hypocrisy is a hard stigma to rid oneself, anon. This is especially true when it's as flagrant as the semantic jugglery you've been engaged in this entire thread. Your arguments have no substance to them and have been torn to shreds in cross-examining.
The bottom line is that you simply don't care what the Bible says; you will import whatever position you wish to justify into the text and proceed from there. You are a clown and everyone can see it.
I'm strictly following what the text says. don't know what you're talking about. I admit only the Leviticus passage is strong evidence, but there is good reason to think David and Jonathan may have been a couple. It is legit up to debate.
No there isn't, and no it isn't.
Turn or burn
It's not strong evidence, as every single post addressing the Leviticus verses has pointed out. This has become the equivalent of an elementary school grammar lesson where the pupil repeatedly makes the same mistake despite the instructor showing how language works in context. Your interpretation is wrong and it will always be wrong; the bulk of over two millennia's worth of textual exegesis and cultural norms derived from Scripture demonstrates you to be in error. You are a sin loving homosexual who needs to repent.
>the point still stands
It's difficult to believe that when the argument itself has been riddled with more holes than swiss cheese. I know that the intestinal worms and brain-eating amoeba may be inhibiting your capacity for though, anon, but simply shouting that you've won does not make it so. Your homosexualry remains an aberration of God's providential intent for human sexual conduct and will be punished as such. Repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is how we know you're a troll, the actual sodomy defenders when met with the exegesis of scripture will at least attack its authority in some way and then spout some incoherent babble about "love", whereas you just ignore it and declare victory
Sure, but he never even entertains the idea of "two loving husbands." It's unthinkable to him because marriage was, to them, necessarily between a man and a woman.
Do you honestly believe that he just forgot to mention it and accidentally let gays be persecuted for thousands of years?
Mind you, homosexuality was quite common in the Roman Empire prior to Christianity. Why did early Christians roll back LGB rights if they didn't hate gays?
>Why did early Christians roll back LGB rights if they didn't hate gays?
because they had an incorrect interpretation of Scripture.
Most mentions of homosexual sex in the Roman empire were sodomy, which the bible condemns. proper homosexual relations simply got lumped in by careless readers of Scripture. Why else do gay sex deniers to this day fixate on sodomy alone without realizing that's not the only way to have sex with another man?
>"ughh why dont xh*ristian chads think about various ways of homosexual sex like i do?"
Tfw there are so many replies proving your cope wrong.
Tfw gays will still continue to make stuff up, ignore good arguments, and just move on to other things to try to argue.
Many such cases..
God is good, homosexual.
I've proved it to you so many times why your reading of Scripture is wrong and yet you continue to deny it because of your bizarre fetishization of sodomy.
homosexual monkey, burn in hell. Keep necking yourselves. Stick to your heightened substance abuse rates, higher adultery rates and so forth.
Cum snorters shall continue to slither down to their pits of hell. 🙂
Lulzies tho 4 me
But that’s the thing Jesus defines marriage as being between male and female.
> “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.
again, this says nothing about gay relationships and does not exclude them.
It does say what a marriage is
In refuting this twisting of the scripture to destruction we must consider Romans 1's place within the overarching narrative of 1-3, that is in Romans 1 the "unrighteousness of men" is established, in Romans 2 the hypocrisy of the israelites is established, and in Romans 3 it is concluded that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Therefore this interpretation that Romans 1 is just about "past events" is strictly impossible since its very purpose is to place all men whatsoever under the condemnation of God. To this end it gives an exhaustive description of the wickedness of which men are guilty, and an explanation of how some were led to the worst abominations possible, first in idolatry and then in sodomy. It is highly significant that sodomy is here paired with idolatry, since both in the Old Testament and in the worldview of 2nd temple Judaism it was consistently seen as the worst sin which one may commit. Nor does this text have any notion of "proper male relations", and the very idea of "gay marriage" or "two husbands" would unquestionably be seen by the author as the fulfillment of this exact text. Sodomy is instead presented as a curse caused by sin, that because they (mankind) did not honor God even though they knew Him by nature, He withdrew His hand and allowed them to destroy themselves in unthinkable ways, so "men depart from the natural function of the woman and burn in their lusts for one another", and even their women "exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature". Within the text of Romans 1 sodomy is not merely a sin, but a result of a fundamentally disordered nature caused by obstinate rebellion against the living God, leading ultimate to the conclusion "though they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but take pleasure in those who practice them".
No responses to either this or
? Not surprising. Sodomites, trannies, and other such like have no desire for meaningful exchange. All they do is pervert and import their own connotations into scripture, rather than allowing the original intent of the words guide their interpretation. They are dogs and mockers.
To all the anons in this thread who contributed in the spirit of charity and who hoped to correct certain misunderstandings, be not discouraged. The Lord honors those who honor Him. Your efforts will not go unnoticed. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.
I already addressed Romans 1 earlier in the thread here
didn't feel like responding again to a wall of text.
There are no “proper” male sexual relations to be found anywhere in Scripture. There is no lawfully or culturally recognized bond or union that renders such acts permissible; not once in the entire Bible is such an arrangement either described in a positive light (normative) or expressly permitted (regulators). Rather, God condemns all homosexual behavior in categorical terms, as pointed out by
and
. You are deceiving yourself and others by persisting in willful disobedience and unbelief.
The Bible only condemns sodomy, and records Jonathan seducing David in a positive light.
What sort of sex between males was allowed?
any kind as is proper for men and does not imitate sex between a man and a woman, as anal does. Frotting is the preferred method of homosexuals living by biblical truths.
Does it fall outside of fornication? You can do this whenever you want and you don't have to be married or anything?
no, obviously only within the confines of marriage
Care to explain what the logic behind that is? Why would God forbid sodomy but allow other homosexual acts?
Because that we the sodomite feels justified in his autotheism
because homosexual acts are natural, but homosexual relationships should be based on brotherly companionship, not the unequal dynamic of penetrator and penetrated which characterized sexual relationships between men and women.
Next you're going to tell me that heterosexual unions are bad because of the "unequal" dynamic...
no, that is the natural state of heterosexual relationships, just as this is the natural state of homosexual relationships.
The natural state of homosexual relationships is to be lashed to a stake and burned until dead
someone's feeling a little naughty now aren't we?
>someone's feeling a little naughty now aren't we? ACK
>homosexual acts are natural
wrong
>homosexual relationships should be based on brotherly companionship
also wrong
Are you sure you're not a Hellenized israelite living in the 1st century? You'd fit right in with the crowd at Athens or Alexandria, if you catch my drift.
There is no rational explanation for homosexualry, anon. The logic centers of their brains have been fried by dopamine and their addiction to sensory stimulation. They are completely incapable of imagining a relationship that does not consummate in sexual gratification.
>Are you sure you're not a Hellenized israelite living in the 1st century? You'd fit right in with the crowd at Athens or Alexandria, if you catch my drift
is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Seeing as they would have advocated for the same liberal interpretation of the Mosaic law as you do, enticing others to abandon the strict adherence of worship demanded by YHWH and to embrace the cultural norms of the degenerate Greeks, then yes, it is quite a negative statement to be compared to them.
all you know about Hellenistic israelites comes from the backwater Maccabbees. It was the very hellenized Alexandrian israelite Philo who in trying to synchronize Platonism with Judaism became a hige influence on the Christian movement, which also used similar methods of biblical interpretation like the allegorical method.
Philo is an exception to the rule. The majority of Philhellene were regarded by their contemporaries as extraordinarily loose in their morals and skewed in their reading of Scripture. Even Philo's allegorization of certain books obscures rather clarifies their meaning; Origen demonstrates the extremes of such interpretative methods.
Philo is far from the exception among israelites of his class in Alexandria
But anon! That's what Progressive "Christians" are doing today
See J. Gresham Machen's "Christianity & Liberalism". Those who don't hold to the original intent and inspiration of Scripture are not true Christians.
Passionate hand holding and cuddling french kissing is expected of course
*throws stone*
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that anal penetration is the only homosexual act prohibited by scripture. Until you respond to
and
the point stands that God explicitly forbade all same-sex relations and recognizes no legitimate union among them.
Your citation of 1 and 2 Samuel is a gross distortion of David and Jonathan’s friendship. Many commentators have addressed this spurious accusation of impropriety. David’s statements in 2 Samuel 1 are to be understood in the context of his lamenting Saul and Jonathan’s death; his emotional requiem in their memory is bound up in the language and meter that he employs. The burden of proof remains yours.
I have already proved it with my close reading of Leviticus 18 and the whole of David and Jonathan's relationship. Samuel says they were intimate in 1st Samuel 18
>4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his apparel, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
sword here is a euphemism for phallus.
>I have already proven it
No, in fact, you haven’t. You merely assert that which is not plain in a natural reading of the text. Present your argument in a concise manner or concede.
>the sword here is a euphemism for phallus
No serious scholar would contend for such a reading; it is neither supported linguistically nor historically. Rather, you are importing a warped and unsubstantiated subtext into the passage in question; you assume that a close relationship between two males implies the possibility of sexual gratification, because that is how you, personally, approach relationships with the opposite sex. Your subconscious desire for sensual stimulation renders you incapable of grasping the obvious.
https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/the-same-sex-relationship-in-the-bible-that-many-christians-ignore/
>satanicpropaganda.com
>directs me to a website named after a self-described atheist with the expectation that I’ll be fooled into accepting his hermeneutic.
Nice try, gay. Enjoy burning in hell.
When does it say David seduced Jonathon?
And what is "bow" a euphemism for, sodomite?
>get blown the frick out
>pretend it didn't happen until it goes away
Bravo homosexuals
I feel like this thread is just gay coping
this
He spoke against fornication
and gay sex within a marriage is not fornication
Nobody had the idea of gay marriage until after the sexual revolution.
like you said, the bible says nothing about gay marriage because it didn't exist yet. it only talks about gay sex being fornication outside of a marriage.
Marriage was created by God before the fall of man. There is not, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be such a thing as "gay marriage". It is an abomination, they shall surely be put to death, their blood is on their own heads.
how are you talking about it if it doesn't exist?
Because of the wickedness of men who in unrighteousness suppress the truth.
I'm Catholic and not Sola Scriptura. The Catechism clearly bans gay relations and calls for their celibacy.
good thing Catholics are bootlicking heretics.
Unrepentant sodomites have no cause to call anyone else a heretic.
>Same-sex marriage
kek, you're so ridiculous.
Jesus defined marriage as being between a man and a woman
You are right though it is not fornication, that would imply something natural but excessive about the act, much worse it is sodomy.
You're reading sodomy into these passages, but such abominations are not in any sense "love". Jonathon was stripping himself of royal badges, abdicating his claim to the throne to David.
he didn't "define" it, he was speaking about marriage when gay marriages weren't a thing. that passage is about divorce.
Catholic exegesis uses both Testaments and combines all the books.
The Catholic church uses all books of the Bible as a whole.
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Based.
The sexual ethic is rooted in the account of Adam and Eve, not in the Levitical code, and is a pattern of monogamous heterosexuality.
Genesis 2
>24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Christ quotes this ethic in Matthew 19:5 (Mark 10:7) in regards to divorce and sexual immorality.
Paul quotes this ethic in 1 Corinthians 6:16 in regards to sexual immorality, again in Ephesians 5:31 in regards to the mystical union of Christ to the church
this does not exclude homosexual marriage, it simply states that men and women get married. Jesus says absolutely nothing about gay relationships in this passage. The passage is about whether you can get divorced.
An excellent example of cherry-picking.
>a man cleaving to his wife does not exclude homosexual marriage
lol
show me the homosexual relationship here
>3Some Pharisees came to [b]Jesus, testing Him and [c]asking, “Is it lawful for a man to [d]divorce his wife for any reason at all?”
>4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
>5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
>6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.”
>7They *said to Him, “Why, then, did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND HER AWAY?”
>8He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to [e]divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
>9And I say to you, whoever [f]divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman [g]commits adultery[h].”
"What God has joined together" is the Adam and Eve pattern of man cleaving to his wife
homosexual marriage is not mentioned, but it is not condemned either. Jesus was not making any comment about homosexuality whatsoever.
NTA but it's obvious with the stressing of Man and Woman rather than Degenerate and Degenerate
well the passage ends with Jesus saying it's better to be celibate and not marry, so obviously marriage between a man and a woman is not the only option just because Jesus doesn't mention it.
>celebacy is an option
>therefore gays are ok
Lol this homosexual
>homosexual marriage is not mentioned
because such a thing does not exist, because marriage is rooted in the Genesis 2 ethic
>Jesus was not making any comment about homosexuality whatsoever.
I agree; he was addressing divorce. In doing so, he bases the sexual ethic in Adam and Eve, establishing it as the basis of marriage. In the sermon on the mount, he proclaims that all extramarital lust (which would necessarily include homosexual lust) is adultery
Matthew 5
27“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;
>28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
>29Now if your right eye is causing you to sin, tear it out and throw it away from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, [s]than for your whole body to be thrown into [t]hell.
>30And if your right hand is causing you to sin, cut it off and throw it away from you; for it is better for you [u]to lose one of the parts of your body, [v]than for your whole body to go into [w]hell.
>You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;
that's why you get married to another man. also this passage only mentions lusting after women. by your own logic regarding the marriage passage Jesus only thinks it's possible to lust after women, while sexual feelings towards men are not lust.
>by your own logic
>moves the goalposts further
Anyone continuing to reply to this CPA c**t are just feeding a troll at this point. Stop trying to argue with a shill who is only out to demoralize
showing the flaws in your logic is not moving the goalpost. my position has not changed once: Jesus never mentions or condemns homosexuality.
I'm not that anon, just an observer. You're a shill, and engaging with you is submitting yourself to idpol bullshit. Die, commie.
>that's why you get married to another man.
I guess you will just ignore my earlier post where I show how Christ defines marriage as male-female monogamy rooted in Genesis 2
>4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
>5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
>6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.”
>also this passage only mentions lusting after women. by your own logic regarding the marriage passage Jesus only thinks it's possible to lust after women, while sexual feelings towards men are not lust.
It also doesn't mention lusting after beasts, children, incestual, or other תּוֹעֵבַה so I guess those kinds of lust are okay as well. You will go to any length to defend butt sex because you like getting fricked in the butt, even if it means rejecting the obvious reading of scripture
>u will go to any length to defend butt sex because you like getting fricked in the butt, even if it means rejecting the obvious reading of scripture
I explicitly said anal sex is not ok, as it mimics sex with a woman. you should have sex with men like you would with a man, not as with a woman.
That's why I'm an atheist, can't be a part of something that stands for homosexuals.
>Leviticus only wants you to have sex with a MAN like a you would with a MAN, not mimicking straight sex (i.e. anal).
????????????????
You are moronic.
What about men having buttsex with women, as foreplay for having veganal sex for procreation?
That's not allowed
>That's not allowed
Source?
The implication that somehow Christians have got their teachings about homosexuality wrong for 2000 years and it somehow now needs correcting is nothing but proof of the sheer arrogance of some modern people, especially when sodomy is honestly one of the few things that Christian tradition seems to have been consistent on. It was condemned in the New Testament and the church fathers. It was condemned in Justinian’s law code. It was condemned by medieval and early modern states that were Christian and the church. It was condemned by Christian writers like ranging from Thomas Aquinas to Dante to John Milton. Literally no Christian tradition for the past 2000 years has supported it. And somehow all these Christians for the past 2000 years are now wrong?
Yes, Christians have barely been consistent about any interpretation of scripture for 2000 years, and somehow I'm the one doing mental gymnastics because I actually read what the Law of Moses says?
>Paul was a heretic
>only anal sex is forbidden cuz that's the only way in which guy sex is like normal women sex.
>Jesus loves gays too, guys.
Black person, you are the most obvious of con artists. Any man with a good set of peepers can see your clown nose and big shoes from a mile off. Say what you will, but gays and their ilk all get the rope of eternal punishment. Cope, seethe, and dilate.
>Jesus loves gays too, guys.
I made no such claim, Jesus does not address gays so his opinions on it are an open question.
What we can divulge from the Gospels is homosexuality is not a "problem" Jesus felt he needed to address in his short time on Earth.
Catholics use 73 books of the Bible and Jesus points us to the laws of the OT. Limiting us to 4-6 books when we have 73 is ridiculous. The Bible says nothing about IVF and we ban it in our church.
where did I say we should limit what books we use? I just don't trust Church orthodoxy because they can't be trusted to interpret Scripture.
Because if you limit the Bible to what Earthly Jesus said, this is by default eliminating most of the Bible. If you can't trust Church Orthodoxy you can't trust the Bible at all. Either the church can be trusted, or the Bible can't.
sounds like you're saying I have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
If you don't believe Scripture is inerrant than how can you even tell what Jesus said or did not say? You're also eliminating most of the Biblical texts as inerrant. What books can we or can't we use? If we dissect the Bible and throw parts away this is what happens.
I am but one renegade in a long line of renegades returning the people fooled by men to God and his Word, which is not in any book, but written into our hearts.
>returning the people fooled by men to God and his Word, which is not in any book, but written into our hearts
That's funny, anon. My Bible tells me that the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; sick to the point of being beyond cure. God goes so far as to say that every purpose or inclination of our thoughts (the Hebrew word לֵב refers to both will and intellect) betrays evil intent, even from our youth. Jesus Himself in the synoptic gospels confirms this propensity of man to continually produce and be mired in evil (Matthew 15:10-20, Mark 7:14-23). Given then that we are predisposed to self-deception and error, how can you maintain that God's immutable revelation is to be found in man's fickle heart. Rather, it is Scripture itself that stands as a record and a testimony to the works of the LORD. His statutes, His character, and His sublime wisdom; all are contained within the infallible pages of Holy Writ. To dispense with it so readily for an eclectic
so-called "ur-evangel" is manifest foolishness. The Word of our God stands forever; those who depart from it and dispute it are they who never believed it in the first place.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ draw you to His redeeming sacrifice. Amen.
Nice try Satan, but love is love.
>love is love
>x is x
>Self-referential statements regarding subjective mental states and emotional and/or physical desires are the sole valid criteria for determining whether such desires and their concomitant behavior are to be affirmed as having ethical legitimacy.
How about you go and take an introductory logic course, you braindead troony. No one besides millennial or Gen Z NPCs buys such an aphoristic dismissal of basic moral distinctions.
autism incarnate. love is love is a slogan, not a logical argument you dunce.
then why did
utilize it as a legitimate rebuttal against another poster? It's mindless mantra chanting that lazy thinkers believe will end all discourse and shut out the opposition. Black folk need to learn how to think, before they assume the privilege of acting.
>he says about the post that mocked his digits
This is all bullshit from this documentary.
5/5 performance in outstanding mental gymnastics
>gays
>intellectuals
lol
Yes.
>yes gays are intellectuals
okay that's not really an argument
Tbf "gays, Intellectuals, lol" isn't an argument either
It is because it's universally known that gays are moronic
yes.
>kurd
>intelligent
>Spends his life around, conversing with, and catering to a women
>Intellectual
Why can't homos stop posting this gymnast shit, the threads are dumpster fires every time
the word homosexual was invented in the 19th century nowhere does the word appear in the Bible
it's not really surprising that braindead gay with brain eating amoebas argue semantics about being homosexuals
Are these people serious? You mean to say that in all of history people misinterpreted the Bible, but now all of a sudden you've discovered the true interpretation, right around the time when homosexuality became accepted for entirely secular reasons?
everyone understood what it meant when sodomy was banned and there was no talk of homosexuals. you're the ones who disagree with historic biblical interpretation. gay marriage is a recent phenomenon, but one made so that it is biblically sound.
How is it Biblically sound? Where is the Biblical precedent for same-sex marriage? And how can you believe that sodomy is banned but other kinds of sex acts are okay? All non-procreative sex is one and the same.
>gays are like israelites
You don't mean Orthodox israelites.
Chapter and verse
He can't answer you honestly, anon. This whole thread has proved it. Time and again he's been confronted with linguistic and exegetical evidence to the contrary, only to duck, dive, and dodge his way through semantic minefields that would make Jacques Derrida marvel at his dexterity. He is a deluded sodomite who twists Scripture to his own ends and perverts others into following after his brand of wickedness. May the LORD repay him according to his deeds.
>Chapter and verse
1st Samuel 18
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.
And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his apparel, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
There's nothing sexual in those verses or anywhere else in the chapter. Jonathan loved David in a brotherly way.
he stripped down before David out of love. also
>2nd Samuel 1
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me; wonderful was thy love to me, passing the love of women.
First, it's not even clear that he was completely naked. "Down to the girdle" means he took off the belt, but he could have had some sort of undergarments. And even if he was completely naked, it could have meant a different thing to them 3000 years ago than it does today. Back when life was hard and people were dirty and wretchedly poor, nakedness was a part of life and it wasn't sexual. It was a sign of wretched poverty and weakness. Jonathan is showing his humility and weakness to David because he trusts him. Stop thinking everything is sexual.
>passing the love of women
Is sex the only way to demonstrate one's love? Could you think of any other ways?
>And even if he was completely naked, it could have meant a different thing to them 3000 years ago than it does today
Yeah and docking is an old-fashioned way of giving a handshake.
Don't play funny. You don't even have to look so far back in history. When israelites in the Holocaust were stripped naked it was to humiliate them. But gays will say even that was a sexual thing.
>When israelites in the Holocaust were stripped naked it was to humiliate them.
lmao! that's quite the red herring.
I'm talking about someone who loved David deeply, stripped down out of his robe in front of him out of love, and who David lamented as having loved more than women.
Love does not mean committed abominations with.
mutual masturbation with your buddy is not an abomination
God disagrees
Alright but what about solo here!!!!
no, God told me it was ok and personally blessed our union
gays are like israelites, or leftists. They know the only standing they have, the only structure to their lives, is purely semantics based nihilistic "there is no true meaning" shlock that instantly falls apart as soon as it's uttered aloud. That's why they have to throw parades for themselves because otherwise there's no positive reinforcement naturally in society outside their gay homosexual friend enablers.
there is a scene of two men in the Old Testament having sex or kissing
Firstly, Leviticus is not the only place where sodomy is condemned. Try and fit this sophistry into Romans 1
Secondly, the reference to a woman is as the natural contrast to the unnatural behavior being prohibited. It says "lie down with man as with woman" as in, do with man that which man naturally does with woman, anything sexual whatsoever
just go back to playing with your own poop lol
For all the anti-gay christians ITT:
consider the fact that there is no incentive at all for a gay man to try to become straight.
How bout the disincentive of hellfire for persisting in wickedness?
Won't they go to heaven for having faith in Christ anyway?
The blood of Christ absolves your sin, so who cares?
Only those who repent and believe will be saved. The sodomites do not repent, but are even glorifying their precious abomination and take pride in it. They are faithless, there is no fear of God before their eyes. "The blood of Christ absolves your sin so who cares" is the mindset of one whose sins have not been absolved by the blood of Christ. All those in whom God creates saving faith He also sanctifies so that they become perfect as He is perfect. All who have believed will cherish righteousness and hate wickedness. All who think that they in a single moment of "faith" punch their ticket to heaven and may return to their idols and sodomy at their pleasure are faithless dogs who have deluded themselves into thinking they can cheat God. Repent and believe for the kingdom of God is at hand.
I'm praying for you anon because you have not repented of false and misleading doctrines.
God will not be mocked, friend. Do you not know that you will stand before His judgement seat and be called to answer for every abomination? He has said of the likes of you "bring all who would not have me as king over them before me and slaughter them".
That's ultimately just your threat, and I don't take you seriously because I don't see any reason why homosexuality should be any more wicked in essence than heterosexuality
>inb4 cherrypicked problems that completely ignore the same problems for straight people
No sir that is God's promise. I am just His messenger.
>I am just His messenger.
That's what I'm saying, you're a self-important clown who thinks God whispers to him personally because you're so smart, wonderful and wise.
>whispers to him personally
What He says to me He does by shouting loud and clear for all to hear in this book
A perfectly crystal-clear book you perfectly understand, obviously, because you're so smart.
A perfectly clear book which I am not rebelling against because I do not burn with hatred of He who spoke it.
>he was speaking about marriage when gay marriages weren't a thing
Character, when God made marriage He made it between male and female and consequently gay marriages aren't a thing.
>A perfectly clear book
Oh, so now you're smarter than all theologians who ever disagreed on what it said. Quite impressive.
You are smarter than God, though. Turn or burn
Yes, again, the time being spoken of is the garden of Eden. Gay "marriage" and sodomy in general did not exist there, in the time when God looked upon creation and said "Behold, it is very good".
>You are smarter than God, though
Who are you quoting, schizo?
The imbecilic sodomite who despised the living God and lives his life to make war on Him. Repent and believe for the kingdom of God is at hand
>you think you're smarter than everyone else because you think you perfectly understand a book everyone disagreed on
>no, you think you're smarter than God because you disagree with me
Stop implying you're God, anon. You're just another entertaining schizo.
The warning has been given, friend. The fire awaits
You sound so ominous and scary right now. What if the schizo is right? Then provide clear proofs that explain how homosexuality is inherently wrong or shut the sewer that passes for your mouth forever.
gays are some of the most immoral people alive so it makes sense why their existence is a point of contention for a philosophy about personal morality
>gays are some of the most immoral people alive
As compared to who, straight people? The same straight people that support lgbt rights, the same people that have abortions, divorces, affairs, pornography, child marriages, inbred marriages, genital mutilations, and similar things on massive scales? That's funny.
>complain about straight people
>in a thread about people who take it in the ass
>responding to a post about gays being immoral generally
frick off homosexual
>lies about me 'complaining about straight people' when clearly it's a comparison to show his double standard
>lies about this thread being about people who take it in the ass
You do realize liars are among the people who go to Hell right?
>oh i'm so concerned about warning you because I'm a christian and we warn people out of love
>but no, I'm not gonna warn you with clear proofs, because I don't have those, just my schizo ramblings will do
I wish you could see yourself objectively.
See the problem with homosexuals and thinking they can debate religious people is they know they can be semantics slinging c**ts and liars and disingenuous because they don't subscribe to any sort of moral guidelines. That's why homosexuals do it because it gives them zoomies to revel in their own ideological degeneracy masquerading as "intellectuals"
You have nothing of value to say, then.
Pot calling the kettle black. homosexuals bring absolutely nothing to the table and any religious people you talk to are putting ten times the effort into the conversation you are. Go roll some balls of your own shit or whatever a disgusting fricking loser like yourself does in their spare time
>hey bring me clear proofs that show homosexuality is wrong, go on, convince me
>no I won't
>and any religious people you talk to are putting ten times the effort into the conversation you are
I understand having to think is hard for you.
That's pretty funny coming from a gay that's incapable of discourse outside of sematic arguments of a 2000 year old text. Where'd you learn your talking points? A discord meme?
You seem so triggered. Calm down, anon, christians are supposed to be patient. Or you can go to your safe space.
>see I can claim the moral high ground with Christians because I will keep harassing them until they get mad at me for being moronic
I'm not a Christian and you should have a nice day, get a hobby besides smoking pole
This is why society must be ruled top down for their own good. Promoting homosexuality is like promoting incest.
> Promoting homosexuality is like promoting incest.
Tell that to the zoroastrians who made incestuous marriages, they were just as homophobic as you are, you should get along very well.
Both of them defy natural law. Letting everyone do whatever they want has been a disaster.
>Letting everyone do whatever they want has been a disaster
I agree, but "everyone" means everyone, which includes self-important midwits like you.
My Lord commanded me not to give what is holy to dogs.
he was explaining the bonds of marriage between two partners when only men and women got married. it's not a statement against something that did not even exist at the time.
>*blocks your path*
HIV is not a gay disease, and this thread is not pro-anal. If gay men don't have anal their chances of spreading HIV is similar to lesbians, significantly lower than veganal intercourse.
>If gay men don't have anal
Same level of possibility as unicorns. You always create this perfect homosexual who never does the things homosexuals are proven to do time and again whenever you make this thread.
Personal incredulity fallacy. Boring.
Want me to go into the archives and show everyone how many times you’ve made this thread?
I've made this thread exactly zero times, I'm not OP and all those people who disagree with you are not secretly one person.
Not him but homosexuals all behave the exact same way. Not one has ever said anything on IQfy that was original
you clearly don't know how to separate separate issues: having anal sex or for that matter having unprotected anal sex with strangers can be criticized, but those issues alone don't make homosexual bad. those are a totally separate issue that is also applicable to straight people. do you seriously not think there's straight people having unprotected anal sex with strangers?
You WILL marry cute and supportive femboy gf
You WILL remain a faithful catholic when doing so
You WILL have a good marriage
You WILL pray together before going to bed, and then engage in passionate love making
You WILL be happy
Never despair
Will you be happy when you're thrown into the pit?
A Catholic school got excommunicated for that lately
Get with the times, bigot. Pope Francis is finally allowing some change to happen. I hope cardinal Zuppi becomes his successor
I am with the times. The Vatican isn't blessing same sex unions.
Based. Love it when the Catholic Church stands up against degeneracy.
What's the problem. There is nothing hotter than fricking a cute boy in his bussy. The way he clings to your chest, moaning and begging you to be gentle with him. His little dicklet flapping around as you breed him.
kys literally
God created humans with two sets of matching sex organs so that human males could have sex with human females. Leviticus condemns anything that deviates from this scheme, be it male-male pairings, female-female pairings, and human-animal pairings.
>You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination. You must not lie carnally with any animal, thus defiling yourself with it; a woman must not stand before an animal to mate with it; that is a perversion.
Nice pilpul btw. Do you happen to live in Tel Aviv by any chance?
Bro forget ass sex and gays, I just want to jerk off. <:^(
wasn't gay month last month, or was that Black person month
Nice troll OP, enjoying the absolute state of this thread.
>gay or Black person month
What’s the difference?
on today's episode of homosexual Engages In The Same Pharisee Legalism That Drove Christ Up The Fricking Wall
>I'm not a Christian
What are you even doing in this thread, getting annoyed on purpose? Rethink your life.
Because I know homosexuals are disingenuous morons without arguments and this kind of bullshit isn't allowed on my board. You want to make thread about le anti Christian memes, go ahead. You want to make homosexual threads about being a homosexual being moral according to Christianity you can frick off back to your containment board with your fetid butthole
>my board
The self-centeredness. I know you feel isolated in the real world, but this board isn't your personal home.
>no see YOU'RE the narcissist
Says the homosexual loser constantly trying to force people to accept him on the internet using semantics and his self perceived victimhood
>trying to force people to accept him
I don't do that, in case you're unaware debating someone with the intent of convincing him is not the same as forcing him. On the other hand, homophobes are actually trying to force us to be straight, using semantics and self-perceived victimhood.
>I'm trying to convince people to accept me by lying and being disingenuous
israelite tier
So you admit that you lied and I'm not trying to force anyone? I think you have too much pride for that, so you resort to projecting by calling me a liar instead.
Oh you are trying to force people, like I said, when you get caught out you pretend to be the victim, like now and in this
post
you're a piece of shit and should have a nice day
>you're a piece of shit
I'm not the one making things up constantly because of some weird persecution complex you seem to have though.
okay gay
>still not a single reason why I shouldn't frick this
Maybe he's not real and you're borderline psychotic :/
You can't frick a screen, anon.
13517896
Wow this is the worst post so far on IQfy, what happened to this place
gays n israelites. gays n israelites...
F*gs were tolerated
shut the frick up homosexual
>only femboys would abandon materialism for the trad lifestyle in the vvheat fields nowadays
Jesus most beloved disciple was a man
Hello?!?!
Why are homosexuals all liars?
>gays are liars
>posts lies
the westboro baptist church is pretty based in hindsight
don't care about bible
homosexuals aren't following nature's path
they're coomers
if the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality we need a scripture that does
simple. as.
the bible may not, but i do
The bible most certainly does. Both in the OT and NT.
It has been like 2 days of this gay fighting off dozens of Christchads who debunked him repeatedly. Tragically it does not listen or retain opinions that go against his beliefs.
To those still on the ground beating this masochistic mangay up, consider that he is a satanic troll wasting your time. No one has been hoodwinked by his semantics. No one would ever be.
Kill the Black folk so they won't kill.
Kill the feds so you won't kill innocents.
Kill the israelites so they won't cut your dick.
Kill the gays so they won't touch your kids.
Kill the atheist so they won't post on reddit.
Also, I think that one mormon poster was in this thread btfo'ing this gay. You were recognized Mormon'bro. No brotherwars when gays are around. I'll kill u l8r.
Brb gonna go take a massive shit
Your behavior is no different from inner city youths
homosexuals are bad m'kay.
>The Bible does not condemn homosexuality
Yes, it does
Romans 1 24-32 KJV
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
christians
>worship a male being and be his bride in the afterlife
also christians
>noooo you can't just love a man in this world that's wrooooong!
There's nothing inconsistent in that if a dualistic metaphysics is a presupposition.
yes, homosexuality is supported by dualistic metaphysics. if you only support heterosexual relationships you're limiting your experience of Life to one half.
I take a shit every day, I'm not missing out of anything not being gay
there's next to no chance you're hitting your prostate that way, and you'll need to hit it repeatedly to orgasm.
so if I eat enough food to shit constantly for about 5 minutes that's what it's like to be a gay?
Why are gays so keen on proselytizing? It feels like they can't imagine people not attracted to their "lifestyle", they HAVE to not know any better, it's not possible otherwise.
It's not about being religious, it's about forcing religious people to associate with them without being judged which gets them off because they know it makes people uncomfortable
the irony of someone complaining about gays "proselytizing" in a Christianity thread
There is no irony here moron, just a clear show of your lack of wit
You will never enter heaven
Almost 300 replies to obvious bait
you think christcucks aren't gay enough to make this OP, you're wrong
No one is actually dumb enough to be OP.
>legitimately one gay schizo spammer
you'd be surprised how one person can keep a topic going indefinitely on IQfy
It's not the first time OP made this exact same thread
>if I don't do anal it's not Sodomy
you will burn in hell unless you repent, there's still time for you to be saved
Sodomy: sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation
so yes if you're rubbing against one another's dick it's not sodomy.
Semantics: stupid homosexual talks bullshit for 12 hours
>Sodomy: sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation
Where is the reference to anal or oral copulation in Genesis 19?
first of all, it was attempted rape, and do you know of any cases of male-on-male rape that wasn't anal or oral?
I do not care about Christians, and neither should you. If they hate you, too bad. You'll only "go to Hell" in their minds.