ron.reagan said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

No one is a homosexual. There are people who engage in homosexual conduct. It is not an immutable characteristic as some would like you to believe.

---

Holy ****, this might be the most ignorant post I've seen on the board. Homosexuality is by definition a sexual orientation that is characterized by a romantic and/or sexual attraction to individuals of the same gender.

Do you genuinely believe no one is actually homosexual?

---

Have you ever read something on these boards that it made you want to slap that person upside the head and knock some sense into them?

---

All the time

---

and yet, you've not assaulted anyone. You've resisted your urges.

So by your method of applying definitions, you're a violent criminal yet by his method, you're not.

Double standard much?

---

Aren't we all? It is the definition of civility.
I bet you have committed adultery in your heart. "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Heterosexuals who resist urges to rape can live exemplary lives and contribute to society.
Celibate homosexuals resist temptation and can live exemplary lives.

---

Really just shows how bat **** crazy and evil the modern christian is. Rape and homosexuality is on the same level to you people. So glad this rabid breed of religion is fading out. Good luck in your struggles

---

What is crazy is thinking that "mother nature" programmed a small minority of people to engage in physically and emotionally destructive behavior and you think they have no choice but to either engage in that destructive behavior or "struggle" with the urge to do so. What is crazy is thinking that there is a fatalistic determination on some people to injure themselves and subject themselves to high rates of disease and intimate-partner violence. That is crazy. I think we all have a choice.

---

You are a mental illness denier? Your friends here that are more intelligent here won't call you out on this ignorant rebuttal because bigots need the useful idiots on their side.

---

As another poster pointed out some time ago, heterosexuality is the DEFAULT SETTING of all mammalia. If this were not the case, there would be no more mammalia. Anything else is, therefore, a DEVIATION….NOT NORMAL…in violation of natural biological order and unhealthy behavior. This isn't a religious view. It's an evolutionary view.

Additionally, far from denying mental illness, this view acknowledges that homosexuality either springs from, is the proximate cause of, or is itself, a mental illness….as are all the other letters in the alphabet soup pride mafia. Normalizing mental illness and deviation from natural order, and certainly advocating it and grooming children into it, makes you and your ilk fundamentally evil. Congratulations.

ron.reagan said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

No one is a homosexual. There are people who engage in homosexual conduct. It is not an immutable characteristic as some would like you to believe.

---

Holy ****, this might be the most ignorant post I've seen on the board. Homosexuality is by definition a sexual orientation that is characterized by a romantic and/or sexual attraction to individuals of the same gender.

Do you genuinely believe no one is actually homosexual?

---

Have you ever read something on these boards that it made you want to slap that person upside the head and knock some sense into them?

---

All the time

---

and yet, you've not assaulted anyone. You've resisted your urges.

So by your method of applying definitions, you're a violent criminal yet by his method, you're not.

Double standard much?

---

Aren't we all? It is the definition of civility.
I bet you have committed adultery in your heart. "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Heterosexuals who resist urges to rape can live exemplary lives and contribute to society.
Celibate homosexuals resist temptation and can live exemplary lives.

---

Really just shows how bat **** crazy and evil the modern christian is. Rape and homosexuality is on the same level to you people. So glad this rabid breed of religion is fading out. Good luck in your struggles

---

What is crazy is thinking that "mother nature" programmed a small minority of people to engage in physically and emotionally destructive behavior and you think they have no choice but to either engage in that destructive behavior or "struggle" with the urge to do so. What is crazy is thinking that there is a fatalistic determination on some people to injure themselves and subject themselves to high rates of disease and intimate-partner violence. That is crazy. I think we all have a choice.

---

You are a mental illness denier? Your friends here that are more intelligent here won't call you out on this ignorant rebuttal because bigots need the useful idiots on their side.

---

I bet it really upsets you when people use words with three or more syllables.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

---

Then you are in complete darkness, and you are doing the work of Satan. I'm just gonna be clear and direct, this is the truth.

---

If you truly believe I am doing the work of Satan, just block me lol. Hopefully that way Satan won't be able to tempt you through my posts.

---

It wasn't for me. It was for you.

---

Nice

---

Don't say you weren't warned.

---

I don't need a warning, I need a reason. Care to give me one? How exactly do you know that I am doing the work of Satan?

---

If you don't even believe Satan exists, what good would a reason do?

Just don't say you were never warned.

---

I prefer to live my life based on evidence and reason, not fear and superstition. But thanks for the warning.

---

Actually, you don't. You shun evidence and reason, and create intellectually dishonest ones in its place. Just like with the historical Jesus, and with Darwinian evolution.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Right, the OT is so "quiet" and "unclear" about it that it directly states that the homosexual act is a detestable sin and an abomination in Leviticus. One has to really wonder about the honesty of someone who purposely omits something they surely knew was there.

---

You are correct - I tend to not include Leviticus in critical analysis when thinking of Christian morality, mostly just due to a common belief in Christian theology that Levitical law is not required to be followed (I'm sure that those here that trim their beard don't think they're actually sinning). Like Paul says in Galatians 2:16, "yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

But yes, you are correct - when considering Jews or the Old Testament as a collection, Leviticus is probably a better example than Sodom & Gomorrah. I chose this story though, as it is (in my opinion) more relevant to the Christians on this board.

Regardless though, when I originally researched this topic in Leviticus I discovered that meaning has been lost in the translations from the original Hebrew. First the verb "lie" in Genesis refers to an incestuous relationship, and the meaning here in Leviticus is not clear if it's an adult relationship, or incest/pedophilia. Second, the conjunction of the sentence, "as", is closer translated to "like" in the oldest translations we have. So, the verse would read like this in English: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, like with womankind: it is an abomination." This further muddies the meaning, as this could be referring to a standard sexual relationship like you are referring to, or a dominant/submissive sexual relationship.

Additionally, it is worth noting that in the original Hebrew text, the gender of the woman in the relevant passage is clearly specified as an adult, while the noun used for the male is non-specific. As such, it is possible that the text is referring to either a young boy or a grown man, while the woman in question is unambiguously identified as an adult.

Quote:

---

And Paul is taking the greek translation of this passage in Leviticus ("arsen" - man, and "koitai" - bed) and combining them. He clearly has Leviticus in mind by writing this.

---

In some passages, Paul speaks of the OT law in a positive light, in some others he is critical. To say meaning here is clear is in my opinion not correct, but that is your interpretation so that's cool.

Quote:

---

Also, Paul clearly characterizes as sin the "dishonorable passions" of sex between women and the "burning of lust" between men who commit "indecent acts with other men" in Romans chapter 1. Anyone with a basic level of intelligence knows what's being said here. There just isn't any justifcation to say this is "unclear". Your attempt to obfuscate all this is ridiculous, and more importantly, satanic.

---

To frame Romans 1, we can probably agree it is about humanity's rebellion against God:
"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1:24-25)

In 1:26 specifically, Paul is discussing men and women who are assumed to be in relationship with each other:
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27)

The verse in question suggests that some people have forsaken natural sexual relations in favor of unnatural ones, driven by lust as a result of their turning away from God and worshiping idols. It is not a matter of love, but rather a sinful expression of sexual desire that applies to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals.

---

BaylorJacket and the serpent - "Did God really say....."

The Hebrew word "mishkav" which means to lay or lie, is used many times in the bible and refers to either a lying down in a bed, or as a euphemism for sex. It does not refer to only incestuous sex. For example, it is used in Judges 21:11-12, and it is clearly not referring to incest.

Romans 1 is not referring to men and women in a relationship with each other, you are reading in what you want (or need) to read in order to justify sin. Paul is clearly saying that homosexual behavior is a vile act against nature, and is a result of God "giving them over", i.e. meaning it is not a good thing in God's eyes. To say that it is only a sin if it is a form of "rebellion", but otherwise it's ok, is completely ridiculous. It is clear that these acts were the RESULT of their state of rebellion - that God "gave up" on them, and withdrew his grace which led them to pursue their "vile passions" and shameful lusts. It is clear that the entirety of the act itself is what is a sin, and not the circumstances surrounding them.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

---

Then you are in complete darkness, and you are doing the work of Satan. I'm just gonna be clear and direct, this is the truth.

---

If you truly believe I am doing the work of Satan, just block me lol. Hopefully that way Satan won't be able to tempt you through my posts.

---

It wasn't for me. It was for you.

---

Nice

---

Don't say you weren't warned.

---

I don't need a warning, I need a reason. Care to give me one? How exactly do you know that I am doing the work of Satan?

---

If you don't even believe Satan exists, what good would a reason do?

Just don't say you were never warned.

---

I prefer to live my life based on evidence and reason, not fear and superstition. But thanks for the warning.

---

Actually, you don't. You shun evidence and reason, and create intellectually dishonest ones in its place. Just like with the historical Jesus, and with Darwinian evolution.

---

I have admittedly stated my minority position in the historicity of Jesus, but the Darwinian evolution is not the dunk you think it is. You are the one who claims to have scientific evidence and rationalization for intelligent design.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Right, the OT is so "quiet" and "unclear" about it that it directly states that the homosexual act is a detestable sin and an abomination in Leviticus. One has to really wonder about the honesty of someone who purposely omits something they surely knew was there.

---

You are correct - I tend to not include Leviticus in critical analysis when thinking of Christian morality, mostly just due to a common belief in Christian theology that Levitical law is not required to be followed (I'm sure that those here that trim their beard don't think they're actually sinning). Like Paul says in Galatians 2:16, "yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

But yes, you are correct - when considering Jews or the Old Testament as a collection, Leviticus is probably a better example than Sodom & Gomorrah. I chose this story though, as it is (in my opinion) more relevant to the Christians on this board.

Regardless though, when I originally researched this topic in Leviticus I discovered that meaning has been lost in the translations from the original Hebrew. First the verb "lie" in Genesis refers to an incestuous relationship, and the meaning here in Leviticus is not clear if it's an adult relationship, or incest/pedophilia. Second, the conjunction of the sentence, "as", is closer translated to "like" in the oldest translations we have. So, the verse would read like this in English: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, like with womankind: it is an abomination." This further muddies the meaning, as this could be referring to a standard sexual relationship like you are referring to, or a dominant/submissive sexual relationship.

Additionally, it is worth noting that in the original Hebrew text, the gender of the woman in the relevant passage is clearly specified as an adult, while the noun used for the male is non-specific. As such, it is possible that the text is referring to either a young boy or a grown man, while the woman in question is unambiguously identified as an adult.

Quote:

---

And Paul is taking the greek translation of this passage in Leviticus ("arsen" - man, and "koitai" - bed) and combining them. He clearly has Leviticus in mind by writing this.

---

In some passages, Paul speaks of the OT law in a positive light, in some others he is critical. To say meaning here is clear is in my opinion not correct, but that is your interpretation so that's cool.

Quote:

---

Also, Paul clearly characterizes as sin the "dishonorable passions" of sex between women and the "burning of lust" between men who commit "indecent acts with other men" in Romans chapter 1. Anyone with a basic level of intelligence knows what's being said here. There just isn't any justifcation to say this is "unclear". Your attempt to obfuscate all this is ridiculous, and more importantly, satanic.

---

To frame Romans 1, we can probably agree it is about humanity's rebellion against God:
"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1:24-25)

In 1:26 specifically, Paul is discussing men and women who are assumed to be in relationship with each other:
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27)

The verse in question suggests that some people have forsaken natural sexual relations in favor of unnatural ones, driven by lust as a result of their turning away from God and worshiping idols. It is not a matter of love, but rather a sinful expression of sexual desire that applies to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals.

---

BaylorJacket and the serpent - "Did God really say....."

The Hebrew word "mishkav" which means to lay or lie, is used many times in the bible and refers to either a lying down in a bed, or as a euphemism for sex. It does not refer to only incestuous sex. For example, it is used in Judges 21:11-12, and it is clearly not referring to incest.

Romans 1 is not referring to men and women in a relationship with each other, you are reading in what you want (or need) to read in order to justify sin. Paul is clearly saying that homosexual behavior is a vile act against nature, and is a result of God "giving them over", i.e. meaning it is not a good thing in God's eyes. To say that it is only a sin if it is a form of "rebellion", but otherwise it's ok, is completely ridiculous. It is clear that these acts were the RESULT of their state of rebellion - that God "gave up" on them, and withdrew his grace which led them to pursue their "vile passions" and shameful lusts. It is clear that the entirety of the act itself is what is a sin, and not the circumstances surrounding them.

---

I am incredibly thankful the holy spirit is speaking so clearly to you on the meanings of the verses.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Repent. Seems like that is the recurring theme in dealing with sin struggles.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Im glad you asked.

"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal.5.16,Gal.5.17,Gal.5.18,Gal.5.19,Gal.5.20,Gal.5.21,Gal.5.22,Gal.5.23,Gal.5.24&version=ESV

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Yes. God loves them and wants the best for them

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

---

Then you are in complete darkness, and you are doing the work of Satan. I'm just gonna be clear and direct, this is the truth.

---

If you truly believe I am doing the work of Satan, just block me lol. Hopefully that way Satan won't be able to tempt you through my posts.

---

It wasn't for me. It was for you.

---

Nice

---

Don't say you weren't warned.

---

I don't need a warning, I need a reason. Care to give me one? How exactly do you know that I am doing the work of Satan?

---

If you don't even believe Satan exists, what good would a reason do?

Just don't say you were never warned.

---

I prefer to live my life based on evidence and reason, not fear and superstition. But thanks for the warning.

---

Actually, you don't. You shun evidence and reason, and create intellectually dishonest ones in its place. Just like with the historical Jesus, and with Darwinian evolution.

---

I have admittedly stated my minority position in the historicity of Jesus, but the Darwinian evolution is not the dunk you think it is. You are the one who claims to have scientific evidence and rationalization for intelligent design.

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Right, the OT is so "quiet" and "unclear" about it that it directly states that the homosexual act is a detestable sin and an abomination in Leviticus. One has to really wonder about the honesty of someone who purposely omits something they surely knew was there.

---

You are correct - I tend to not include Leviticus in critical analysis when thinking of Christian morality, mostly just due to a common belief in Christian theology that Levitical law is not required to be followed (I'm sure that those here that trim their beard don't think they're actually sinning). Like Paul says in Galatians 2:16, "yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

But yes, you are correct - when considering Jews or the Old Testament as a collection, Leviticus is probably a better example than Sodom & Gomorrah. I chose this story though, as it is (in my opinion) more relevant to the Christians on this board.

Regardless though, when I originally researched this topic in Leviticus I discovered that meaning has been lost in the translations from the original Hebrew. First the verb "lie" in Genesis refers to an incestuous relationship, and the meaning here in Leviticus is not clear if it's an adult relationship, or incest/pedophilia. Second, the conjunction of the sentence, "as", is closer translated to "like" in the oldest translations we have. So, the verse would read like this in English: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, like with womankind: it is an abomination." This further muddies the meaning, as this could be referring to a standard sexual relationship like you are referring to, or a dominant/submissive sexual relationship.

Additionally, it is worth noting that in the original Hebrew text, the gender of the woman in the relevant passage is clearly specified as an adult, while the noun used for the male is non-specific. As such, it is possible that the text is referring to either a young boy or a grown man, while the woman in question is unambiguously identified as an adult.

Quote:

---

And Paul is taking the greek translation of this passage in Leviticus ("arsen" - man, and "koitai" - bed) and combining them. He clearly has Leviticus in mind by writing this.

---

In some passages, Paul speaks of the OT law in a positive light, in some others he is critical. To say meaning here is clear is in my opinion not correct, but that is your interpretation so that's cool.

Quote:

---

Also, Paul clearly characterizes as sin the "dishonorable passions" of sex between women and the "burning of lust" between men who commit "indecent acts with other men" in Romans chapter 1. Anyone with a basic level of intelligence knows what's being said here. There just isn't any justifcation to say this is "unclear". Your attempt to obfuscate all this is ridiculous, and more importantly, satanic.

---

To frame Romans 1, we can probably agree it is about humanity's rebellion against God:
"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1:24-25)

In 1:26 specifically, Paul is discussing men and women who are assumed to be in relationship with each other:
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27)

The verse in question suggests that some people have forsaken natural sexual relations in favor of unnatural ones, driven by lust as a result of their turning away from God and worshiping idols. It is not a matter of love, but rather a sinful expression of sexual desire that applies to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals.

---

BaylorJacket and the serpent - "Did God really say....."

The Hebrew word "mishkav" which means to lay or lie, is used many times in the bible and refers to either a lying down in a bed, or as a euphemism for sex. It does not refer to only incestuous sex. For example, it is used in Judges 21:11-12, and it is clearly not referring to incest.

Romans 1 is not referring to men and women in a relationship with each other, you are reading in what you want (or need) to read in order to justify sin. Paul is clearly saying that homosexual behavior is a vile act against nature, and is a result of God "giving them over", i.e. meaning it is not a good thing in God's eyes. To say that it is only a sin if it is a form of "rebellion", but otherwise it's ok, is completely ridiculous. It is clear that these acts were the RESULT of their state of rebellion - that God "gave up" on them, and withdrew his grace which led them to pursue their "vile passions" and shameful lusts. It is clear that the entirety of the act itself is what is a sin, and not the circumstances surrounding them.

---

I am incredibly thankful the holy spirit is speaking so clearly to you on the meanings of the verses.

---

The ironic thing about this comment, is that you meant it as a kind of insult, but actually it's the closest thing to the truth that you've said here. All believers have the Holy Spirit, and if unimpeded, it gives them discernment on these matters.

Instead of performing a circus routine to justify sin, there is a much better alternative: admit it is a sin, then be thankful that we have Jesus, and through repentance and faith in him, we are no longer condemned in our sin.

Can't we all just get along??????????????lol. Ramadan Mubarak

cms186 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Adult children of lesbian parents less likely to identify as straight, study finds

They're "significantly more likely to report same-sex attraction, sexual minority identity, and same-sex experience" than the general population.

By Julie Moreau

The children of lesbian parents are less likely to identify as heterosexual as adults and much more likely to report same-sex attraction, according to a long-term study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a think tank focused on sexual orientation and gender.

Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the report's lead author and a visiting distinguished scholar at the Williams Institute, told NBC News there are multiple theories to explain sexual orientation including hormones, genetics and the environment -- but so far, she added, "the evidence suggests that there is no one factor that is a single determinant."

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/adult-children-lesbian-parents-less-likely-identify-straight-study-finds-n989976

---

Could it possibly be that, if a Child is raised in a home environment that demonstrates that a Homosexual relationship is loving and valid and nothing to be ashamed about, they are less likely to feel unable to come out should they be homosexual themselves?

---

Exactly. Thank you

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Im glad you asked.

"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal.5.16,Gal.5.17,Gal.5.18,Gal.5.19,Gal.5.20,Gal.5.21,Gal.5.22,Gal.5.23,Gal.5.24&version=ESV

---

Thank you for answering the question.

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Yes. God loves them and wants the best for them

---

Was sexual identity the defining characteristic of a human being?

Osodecentx said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

No one is a homosexual. There are people who engage in homosexual conduct. It is not an immutable characteristic as some would like you to believe.

---

Holy ****, this might be the most ignorant post I've seen on the board. Homosexuality is by definition a sexual orientation that is characterized by a romantic and/or sexual attraction to individuals of the same gender.

Do you genuinely believe no one is actually homosexual?

---

Have you ever read something on these boards that it made you want to slap that person upside the head and knock some sense into them?

---

All the time

---

and yet, you've not assaulted anyone. You've resisted your urges.

So by your method of applying definitions, you're a violent criminal yet by his method, you're not.

Double standard much?

---

Aren't we all? It is the definition of civility.
I bet you have committed adultery in your heart. "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Heterosexuals who resist urges to rape can live exemplary lives and contribute to society.
Celibate homosexuals resist temptation and can live exemplary lives.

---

And if they don't then according to your theology they go to hell.

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Yes. God loves them and wants the best for them

---

Thank you for actually giving a straight up answer to the question, I appreciate that.

Hopefully, this is where we can find some common ground. I completely understand your perspective that homosexuality is a sin, and interpreting these verses to back up this theology. However, we can at least hopefully agree that the bible and especially Jesus are significantly more critical on a vast array of other topics (love/compassion/treatment of the poor/adultery), and we as a society should not place such harsh limitations (outlawing marriage) on people who may or may not even follow these religious ideologies.

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Yes. God loves them and wants the best for them

---

Was sexual identity the defining characteristic of a human being?

---

I'd say being made in God's image

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

Are you referring to this paper you posted?: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

This paper focused on understanding the mechanisms behind the rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila species and provided insights into how these changes might have happened through natural processes. To suggest that this provided evidence for intelligent design is... interesting.

You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

No modern scientist today will say that "Darwinian Evolution" as Darwin himself drew it up is accurate. Through the centuries we have made changes and updates to the model, and it looks quite different than it did in the 1800s. That is how science works - it does not make concrete claims, but uses evidence to make testable hypothesis. If you want to use god of the gaps to fixate on things we may not yet understand, that is fine, but do not pretend that your position is the objective truth.

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Yes. God loves them and wants the best for them

---

Was sexual identity the defining characteristic of a human being?

---

I'd say being made in God's image

---

what's your interpretation of that passage in Genesis that would rule out homosexuality?

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Yes. God loves them and wants the best for them

---

Was sexual identity the defining characteristic of a human being?

---

I'd say being made in God's image

---

what's your interpretation of that passage in Genesis that would rule out homosexuality?

---

Uh, He made them male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Im glad you asked.

"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal.5.16,Gal.5.17,Gal.5.18,Gal.5.19,Gal.5.20,Gal.5.21,Gal.5.22,Gal.5.23,Gal.5.24&version=ESV

---

I don't see the words homosexual acts?

He Hate Me said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Yes. God loves them and wants the best for them

---

Was sexual identity the defining characteristic of a human being?

---

I'd say being made in God's image

---

what's your interpretation of that passage in Genesis that would rule out homosexuality?

---

Uh, He made them male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply.

---

Yes, but God said nothing about sexual identity. It would be helpful if you point it out to me.

Waco1947 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I don't remember any poster saying it is an acceptable lifestyle. I have said there are people who have same sex attractions and who struggle with temptation.
There are people who are heterosexual who struggle with temptation (e.g. adultery or serial fornication).

Both groups have struggles with temptation

---

I am advocating that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, even from a Christian worldview.

It is unfair to compare a straight person's struggle with adultery to a gay person's same-sex attraction. The straight person has the legal freedom to love and marry someone, and yet chooses to pursue a relationship outside of this marriage. Beyond spiritual implications, this action directly hurts their spouse.

What is the solution for a gay person who "struggles" with same-sex attraction? To be celibate the rest of their lives? Celibacy is something that one should choose themselves if they feel led and called to, so that they can focus on other aspects of their lives. However, forcing someone to be celibate seems cruel in my opinion.

---

paragraph 2: why do you get to make the rules?

You simply disagree with what scripture says. There are a lot of people that disagree with what scripture says but are humble enough to accept God's standards.

Why do some have anger issues?
Why do some struggle to control their diet?
Why do some go through life with great eyesight while others need glasses most of their lives?
Why was I given the footwork of a great post player but I'm only 5'7".

Some go through life with a thorn in the flesh while others go through a season.

Empathy doesn't change sin.

---

I want to better understand your position. To confirm, you believe, due to scripture, that the best action for homosexual people is to remain celibate?

There are many things that I disagree with found in scripture - homosexuality though is not one of them, as the Bible is not clear on the topic as mentioned above.

---

The Bible is crystal clear. Sex is to be between one man and one woman in a marriage. Anything outside of that is sin. Agree, disagree, it makes no difference.

---

Okay, that's great - for arguments sake we can assume that's true. So what does scripture state on what these homosexual people should do who struggle with this sin? Remain celibate?

---

Yes. God loves them and wants the best for them

---

Was sexual identity the defining characteristic of a human being?

---

I'd say being made in God's image

---

what's your interpretation of that passage in Genesis that would rule out homosexuality?

---

Uh, He made them male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply.

---

Yes, but God said nothing about sexual identity. It would be helpful if you point it out to me.

---

Male and Female. There was no mental illness at the time they were created.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Right, the OT is so "quiet" and "unclear" about it that it directly states that the homosexual act is a detestable sin and an abomination in Leviticus. One has to really wonder about the honesty of someone who purposely omits something they surely knew was there.

---

You are correct - I tend to not include Leviticus in critical analysis when thinking of Christian morality, mostly just due to a common belief in Christian theology that Levitical law is not required to be followed (I'm sure that those here that trim their beard don't think they're actually sinning). Like Paul says in Galatians 2:16, "yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

But yes, you are correct - when considering Jews or the Old Testament as a collection, Leviticus is probably a better example than Sodom & Gomorrah. I chose this story though, as it is (in my opinion) more relevant to the Christians on this board.

Regardless though, when I originally researched this topic in Leviticus I discovered that meaning has been lost in the translations from the original Hebrew. First the verb "lie" in Genesis refers to an incestuous relationship, and the meaning here in Leviticus is not clear if it's an adult relationship, or incest/pedophilia. Second, the conjunction of the sentence, "as", is closer translated to "like" in the oldest translations we have. So, the verse would read like this in English: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, like with womankind: it is an abomination." This further muddies the meaning, as this could be referring to a standard sexual relationship like you are referring to, or a dominant/submissive sexual relationship.

Additionally, it is worth noting that in the original Hebrew text, the gender of the woman in the relevant passage is clearly specified as an adult, while the noun used for the male is non-specific. As such, it is possible that the text is referring to either a young boy or a grown man, while the woman in question is unambiguously identified as an adult.

Quote:

---

And Paul is taking the greek translation of this passage in Leviticus ("arsen" - man, and "koitai" - bed) and combining them. He clearly has Leviticus in mind by writing this.

---

In some passages, Paul speaks of the OT law in a positive light, in some others he is critical. To say meaning here is clear is in my opinion not correct, but that is your interpretation so that's cool.

Quote:

---

Also, Paul clearly characterizes as sin the "dishonorable passions" of sex between women and the "burning of lust" between men who commit "indecent acts with other men" in Romans chapter 1. Anyone with a basic level of intelligence knows what's being said here. There just isn't any justifcation to say this is "unclear". Your attempt to obfuscate all this is ridiculous, and more importantly, satanic.

---

To frame Romans 1, we can probably agree it is about humanity's rebellion against God:
"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1:24-25)

In 1:26 specifically, Paul is discussing men and women who are assumed to be in relationship with each other:
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27)

The verse in question suggests that some people have forsaken natural sexual relations in favor of unnatural ones, driven by lust as a result of their turning away from God and worshiping idols. It is not a matter of love, but rather a sinful expression of sexual desire that applies to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals.

---

BaylorJacket and the serpent - "Did God really say....."

The Hebrew word "mishkav" which means to lay or lie, is used many times in the bible and refers to either a lying down in a bed, or as a euphemism for sex. It does not refer to only incestuous sex. For example, it is used in Judges 21:11-12, and it is clearly not referring to incest.

Romans 1 is not referring to men and women in a relationship with each other, you are reading in what you want (or need) to read in order to justify sin. Paul is clearly saying that homosexual behavior is a vile act against nature, and is a result of God "giving them over", i.e. meaning it is not a good thing in God's eyes. To say that it is only a sin if it is a form of "rebellion", but otherwise it's ok, is completely ridiculous. It is clear that these acts were the RESULT of their state of rebellion - that God "gave up" on them, and withdrew his grace which led them to pursue their "vile passions" and shameful lusts. It is clear that the entirety of the act itself is what is a sin, and not the circumstances surrounding them.

---

I am incredibly thankful the holy spirit is speaking so clearly to you on the meanings of the verses.

---

The ironic thing about this comment, is that you meant it as a kind of insult, but actually it's the closest thing to the truth that you've said here. All believers have the Holy Spirit, and if unimpeded, it gives them discernment on these matters.

Instead of performing a circus routine to justify sin, there is a much better alternative: admit it is a sin, then be thankful that we have Jesus, and through repentance and faith in him, we are no longer condemned in our sin.

---

It was not my intention to insult you - I understand your passion for your beliefs and the importance of discernment. You have a strong conviction on your interpretation of scripture, which is awesome, but I am attempting to explain that there are vast and diverse interpretations of scripture. The bible is incredibly complex.

nein51 said:

---

At this point I'm not even sure there any real debate. It's clearly just a choice.

---

So?

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

Are you referring to this paper you posted?: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

This paper focused on understanding the mechanisms behind the rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila species and provided insights into how these changes might have happened through natural processes. To suggest that this provided evidence for intelligent design is... interesting.

You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

No modern scientist today will say that "Darwinian Evolution" as Darwin himself drew it up is accurate. Through the centuries we have made changes and updates to the model, and it looks quite different than it did in the 1800s. That is how science works - it does not make concrete claims, but uses evidence to make testable hypothesis. If you want to use god of the gaps to fixate on things we may not yet understand, that is fine, but do not pretend that your position is the objective truth.

---

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

That paper specifically calculated how it long it would take for a similar pair of mutations show up in humans. I even quoted that part to you. And here, you are trying to minimalize the paper as only dealing with fruit flies. I guess I can't blame you for avoiding it, seeing how destructive it is to your world view.

Your claim that I think ID is "proved" is a red herring. I have been clear in explaining that ID can be shown to be the "best inference" from historical data. And if you don't think that the evidence I provided from that article supports Intelligent Design, and you insist on ID as being merely a "god of the gaps" argument, then you have a poor understanding of what the ID argument actually is.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

Are you referring to this paper you posted?: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

This paper focused on understanding the mechanisms behind the rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila species and provided insights into how these changes might have happened through natural processes. To suggest that this provided evidence for intelligent design is... interesting.

You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

No modern scientist today will say that "Darwinian Evolution" as Darwin himself drew it up is accurate. Through the centuries we have made changes and updates to the model, and it looks quite different than it did in the 1800s. That is how science works - it does not make concrete claims, but uses evidence to make testable hypothesis. If you want to use god of the gaps to fixate on things we may not yet understand, that is fine, but do not pretend that your position is the objective truth.

---

David Gelernter is an interesting guy if you want to read about him. He rejects most evolution models.

[David Gelernter, who has taught computer science at Yale University since 1982, penned an article earlier this year in the Claremont Review of Books detailing his journey of coming to believe that Darwinian evolution for which he still retains some fond feelings, calling it "brilliant and beautiful" is wrong.

"Like so many others, I grew up with Darwin's theory, and had always believed it was true. I had heard doubts over the years from well-informed, sometimes brilliant people, but I had my hands full cultivating my garden, and it was easier to let biology take care of itself. But in recent years, reading and discussion have shut that road down for good," he explained in May.

The Yale professor does not accept intelligent design as Meyer describes, and thinks that belief in Darwinian theory will persist for a long time due to its sizable influence in culture.

"An intelligent designer makes perfect sense in the abstract. The real challenge is how to fit this designer into life as we know it. Intelligent design might well be the ultimate answer. But as a theory, it would seem to have a long way to go," he wrote.

He recounted in a July 6 interview with the Hoover Institution that his public rejection of Darwinism is taken among many of his colleagues as a personal, existential threat.

Although his fellow academics remain his friends and are courteous to him, he noted, "when I look at their intellectual behavior, what they publish, and, much more important, what they tell their students, Darwinism has indeed passed beyond a scientific argument."]

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Right, the OT is so "quiet" and "unclear" about it that it directly states that the homosexual act is a detestable sin and an abomination in Leviticus. One has to really wonder about the honesty of someone who purposely omits something they surely knew was there.

---

You are correct - I tend to not include Leviticus in critical analysis when thinking of Christian morality, mostly just due to a common belief in Christian theology that Levitical law is not required to be followed (I'm sure that those here that trim their beard don't think they're actually sinning). Like Paul says in Galatians 2:16, "yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

But yes, you are correct - when considering Jews or the Old Testament as a collection, Leviticus is probably a better example than Sodom & Gomorrah. I chose this story though, as it is (in my opinion) more relevant to the Christians on this board.

Regardless though, when I originally researched this topic in Leviticus I discovered that meaning has been lost in the translations from the original Hebrew. First the verb "lie" in Genesis refers to an incestuous relationship, and the meaning here in Leviticus is not clear if it's an adult relationship, or incest/pedophilia. Second, the conjunction of the sentence, "as", is closer translated to "like" in the oldest translations we have. So, the verse would read like this in English: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, like with womankind: it is an abomination." This further muddies the meaning, as this could be referring to a standard sexual relationship like you are referring to, or a dominant/submissive sexual relationship.

Additionally, it is worth noting that in the original Hebrew text, the gender of the woman in the relevant passage is clearly specified as an adult, while the noun used for the male is non-specific. As such, it is possible that the text is referring to either a young boy or a grown man, while the woman in question is unambiguously identified as an adult.

Quote:

---

And Paul is taking the greek translation of this passage in Leviticus ("arsen" - man, and "koitai" - bed) and combining them. He clearly has Leviticus in mind by writing this.

---

In some passages, Paul speaks of the OT law in a positive light, in some others he is critical. To say meaning here is clear is in my opinion not correct, but that is your interpretation so that's cool.

Quote:

---

Also, Paul clearly characterizes as sin the "dishonorable passions" of sex between women and the "burning of lust" between men who commit "indecent acts with other men" in Romans chapter 1. Anyone with a basic level of intelligence knows what's being said here. There just isn't any justifcation to say this is "unclear". Your attempt to obfuscate all this is ridiculous, and more importantly, satanic.

---

To frame Romans 1, we can probably agree it is about humanity's rebellion against God:
"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1:24-25)

In 1:26 specifically, Paul is discussing men and women who are assumed to be in relationship with each other:
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27)

The verse in question suggests that some people have forsaken natural sexual relations in favor of unnatural ones, driven by lust as a result of their turning away from God and worshiping idols. It is not a matter of love, but rather a sinful expression of sexual desire that applies to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals.

---

BaylorJacket and the serpent - "Did God really say....."

The Hebrew word "mishkav" which means to lay or lie, is used many times in the bible and refers to either a lying down in a bed, or as a euphemism for sex. It does not refer to only incestuous sex. For example, it is used in Judges 21:11-12, and it is clearly not referring to incest.

Romans 1 is not referring to men and women in a relationship with each other, you are reading in what you want (or need) to read in order to justify sin. Paul is clearly saying that homosexual behavior is a vile act against nature, and is a result of God "giving them over", i.e. meaning it is not a good thing in God's eyes. To say that it is only a sin if it is a form of "rebellion", but otherwise it's ok, is completely ridiculous. It is clear that these acts were the RESULT of their state of rebellion - that God "gave up" on them, and withdrew his grace which led them to pursue their "vile passions" and shameful lusts. It is clear that the entirety of the act itself is what is a sin, and not the circumstances surrounding them.

---

I am incredibly thankful the holy spirit is speaking so clearly to you on the meanings of the verses.

---

The ironic thing about this comment, is that you meant it as a kind of insult, but actually it's the closest thing to the truth that you've said here. All believers have the Holy Spirit, and if unimpeded, it gives them discernment on these matters.

Instead of performing a circus routine to justify sin, there is a much better alternative: admit it is a sin, then be thankful that we have Jesus, and through repentance and faith in him, we are no longer condemned in our sin.

---

It was not my intention to insult you - I understand your passion for your beliefs and the importance of discernment. You have a strong conviction on your interpretation of scripture, which is awesome, but I am attempting to explain that there are vast and diverse interpretations of scripture. The bible is incredibly complex.

---

There can be as many interpretations as there are humans. That doesn't mean all are valid and none are faulty. We can use facts, logic, and reason to discern between them. The bible may be complex, but that is no excuse to try and insert one's own agenda by twisting it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

Are you referring to this paper you posted?: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

This paper focused on understanding the mechanisms behind the rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila species and provided insights into how these changes might have happened through natural processes. To suggest that this provided evidence for intelligent design is... interesting.

You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

No modern scientist today will say that "Darwinian Evolution" as Darwin himself drew it up is accurate. Through the centuries we have made changes and updates to the model, and it looks quite different than it did in the 1800s. That is how science works - it does not make concrete claims, but uses evidence to make testable hypothesis. If you want to use god of the gaps to fixate on things we may not yet understand, that is fine, but do not pretend that your position is the objective truth.

---

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

That paper specifically calculated how it long it would take for a similar pair of mutations show up in humans. I even quoted that part to you. And here, you are trying to minimalize the paper as only dealing with fruit flies. I guess I can't blame you for avoiding it, seeing how destructive it is to your world view.

Your claim that I think ID is "proved" is a red herring. I have been clear in explaining that ID can be shown to be the "best inference" from historical data. And if you don't think that the evidence I provided from that article supports Intelligent Design, and you insist on ID as being merely a "god of the gaps" argument, then you have a poor understanding of what the ID argument actually is.

---

If someone provided me with legitimate evidence for ID that is objective and testable, I would integrate it into my understanding of evolution. Science as a whole loves changes and new theories - it's not some static and unchanging system.

You personally are convicted that ID is the best inference from historical data. That's great - I don't see it, nor do 99.99% of scientists. Chop Chalk it up to intellectual dishonesty or whatever else you'd like to call it.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

Are you referring to this paper you posted?: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

This paper focused on understanding the mechanisms behind the rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila species and provided insights into how these changes might have happened through natural processes. To suggest that this provided evidence for intelligent design is... interesting.

You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

No modern scientist today will say that "Darwinian Evolution" as Darwin himself drew it up is accurate. Through the centuries we have made changes and updates to the model, and it looks quite different than it did in the 1800s. That is how science works - it does not make concrete claims, but uses evidence to make testable hypothesis. If you want to use god of the gaps to fixate on things we may not yet understand, that is fine, but do not pretend that your position is the objective truth.

---

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

That paper specifically calculated how it long it would take for a similar pair of mutations show up in humans. I even quoted that part to you. And here, you are trying to minimalize the paper as only dealing with fruit flies. I guess I can't blame you for avoiding it, seeing how destructive it is to your world view.

Your claim that I think ID is "proved" is a red herring. I have been clear in explaining that ID can be shown to be the "best inference" from historical data. And if you don't think that the evidence I provided from that article supports Intelligent Design, and you insist on ID as being merely a "god of the gaps" argument, then you have a poor understanding of what the ID argument actually is.

---

If someone provided me with legitimate evidence for ID that is objective and testable, I would integrate it into my understanding of evolution. Science as a whole loves changes and new theories - it's not some static and unchanging system.

You personally are convicted that ID is the best inference from historical data. That's great - I don't see it, nor do 99.99% of scientists. Chop it up to intellectual dishonesty or whatever else you'd like to call it.

---

Testability is not the only way to truth. All history and historical sciences rely on this.

99.99% of scientists at one time thought the sun went around the earth. Besides, I think what you just presented (if it's even close to being true) is a problem about scientists, and not about ID.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

Are you referring to this paper you posted?: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/180/3/1501/6063886?login=false

This paper focused on understanding the mechanisms behind the rapid turnover of transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila species and provided insights into how these changes might have happened through natural processes. To suggest that this provided evidence for intelligent design is... interesting.

You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

No modern scientist today will say that "Darwinian Evolution" as Darwin himself drew it up is accurate. Through the centuries we have made changes and updates to the model, and it looks quite different than it did in the 1800s. That is how science works - it does not make concrete claims, but uses evidence to make testable hypothesis. If you want to use god of the gaps to fixate on things we may not yet understand, that is fine, but do not pretend that your position is the objective truth.

---

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

That paper specifically calculated how it long it would take for a similar pair of mutations show up in humans. I even quoted that part to you. And here, you are trying to minimalize the paper as only dealing with fruit flies. I guess I can't blame you for avoiding it, seeing how destructive it is to your world view.

Your claim that I think ID is "proved" is a red herring. I have been clear in explaining that ID can be shown to be the "best inference" from historical data. And if you don't think that the evidence I provided from that article supports Intelligent Design, and you insist on ID as being merely a "god of the gaps" argument, then you have a poor understanding of what the ID argument actually is.

---

If someone provided me with legitimate evidence for ID that is objective and testable, I would integrate it into my understanding of evolution. Science as a whole loves changes and new theories - it's not some static and unchanging system.

You personally are convicted that ID is the best inference from historical data. That's great - I don't see it, nor do 99.99% of scientists. Chop it up to intellectual dishonesty or whatever else you'd like to call it.

---

Testability is not the only way to truth. All history and historical sciences rely on this.

99.99% of scientists at one time thought the sun went around the earth. Besides, I think what you just presented (if it's even close to being true) is a problem about scientists, and not about ID.

---

Scientists used to think that the Sun revolved around the Earth because it appeared to fit everyday experience, mathematical models, and religious beliefs. However, as more precise astronomical observations were made, the heliocentric model became increasingly accepted as the more accurate explanation.

The reason why 99.99% of scientists accept macro-evolution as a valid theory, is the overwhelming evidence from numerous fields and it's ability to predict what we find in nature. ID is a really intriguing concept, it may even be correct, but as Carl Sagan said best: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The claim that humanity and all organisms as a whole were designed is indeed an extraordinary claim, and it better have supporting evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it's just an intellectual position to support religious ideology.

Perhaps our modern understanding of evolution is indeed like geocentricism, and we are completely wrong. I'm open to this, as is hopefully anyone who seriously purses science.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Not only was it a dunk, you also got posterized.

I gave you scientific evidence that showed for ONE PAIR of random, beneficial mutations to arise and be fixed in the human population, it would take greater than 100 MILLION years. If there are only six million years between homo erectus and homo sapiens, I'd say that provides pretty good scientific evidence and rationalization against Darwinian evolution being the cause. And if you think all it takes is ONE mutation to get from a species that used simple tools, to a species that could travel to the moon, then your biological and genetics knowledge is laughably poor.

So I didn't just "claim" evidence and rationalization, I provided it. When you realized I had, you left the conversation without a word.

---

...You are perhaps the most confident "Intelligent Design"er that I've come across - so I do have to give you credit. Typically, folks who seriously look into evolution admit that Intelligent Design is a theological perspective, but you are adamant that you can prove it with evidence.

---

Here's what you, and many others, get wrong about ID: it is NOT making any theological claims. It is merely showing the evidence for "design". There are, of course, theological implications that arise from an argument for design, but that is not the focus of the argument.