Is It Wrong to Think Homosexuality is a Sin?

[ChrisL]

WE are only important in our own little worlds. In the bigger picture, we are nothing more than cogs in the machine, easily replaced.

 

[Taz]

Afghanistan wasn't justified, the Afghans had nothing to do with 9/11. That's like invading Italy to get at the mafia.

The government of Afghanistan was shielding Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They were given the opportunity to give them up- and decided against it. I am okay with our invasion of Afghanistan.

Iraq was a stupid distraction from our war in Afghanistan- and is in large part the reason why Afghanistan is such a mess today.

That's like saying that the Italian government was shielding the mafia, ok, they were, but still, we never invaded them.

Your support for the Taliban and their atrocities are noted.

Still, just because the Taliban were abusive assholes committing atrocities against humanity is not a reason to go to war. When they gave safe haven to terrorists who had repeatedly attacked the United States but murdered almost 3000 in one day, then, yeah, that's justification for taking them down.

Then why haven't we invaded all the other countries that have terrorists? Kenya, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, ...?

Has Kenya murdered thousands of Americans?

At what point do you think the US should become involved in foreign relations? At what point should we go to war with another country?

The US was justified to attack Afghanistan, but not Iraq. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan in 2003 instead of diverting resources and focus to Iraq leaving Afghanistan half-finished. Now we're still in Afghanistan trying to get back to where we were in 2003.

Ok, so even if I give you that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified to get Al-Qaeda and Osama, What's the justification for staying there now? Apparently, the US army thinks that Osama is dead and I haven't heard anything about Al-Qaeda being there any more either. So why stay?

 

[rightwinger]

GW Bush is a Christian who had rules but it didn't stop him from destroying 2 countries for no good reason.

Afghanistan was fully justified. Agreed on Iraq. That was about greed, but I do not think it was GW's idea. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld were both well known to be supporting a strong US presence in Iraq. It cost us.

Afghanistan wasn't justified, the Afghans had nothing to do with 9/11. That's like invading Italy to get at the mafia.

The government of Afghanistan was shielding Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They were given the opportunity to give them up- and decided against it. I am okay with our invasion of Afghanistan.

Iraq was a stupid distraction from our war in Afghanistan- and is in large part the reason why Afghanistan is such a mess today.

Yet when AlQaeda and Bin Laden escaped into Pakistan, we did nothing

Decided to invade Iraq instead

We worked with Pakistan on that issue, but the situation in Pakistan is delicate.

OTOH, the night we "invaded" Pakistan to take down bin Laden, the Paki national defense radar just happened to go down. Coincidence?

We had a double standard of what we tolerated from Afghanistan and what we tolerated from Pakistan

 

[Taz]

Don't be a fool, we never killed Osama Bin Laden.

Ahhh, an important clue. No doubt you believe "9/11 was an inside job", that TWA 800 was shot down by the US Navy and that the CIA murdered JFK.

Have a nice life.

When we killed Saddam's sons... anyone on the infamous deck of cards... Al-Zakarwy... we ALWAYS showed their dead bodies. It's possible that we CAPTURED Osama. But kill him? No proof. NONE!

 

[Taz]

The government of Afghanistan was shielding Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They were given the opportunity to give them up- and decided against it. I am okay with our invasion of Afghanistan.

Iraq was a stupid distraction from our war in Afghanistan- and is in large part the reason why Afghanistan is such a mess today.

That's like saying that the Italian government was shielding the mafia, ok, they were, but still, we never invaded them.

Your support for the Taliban and their atrocities are noted.

Still, just because the Taliban were abusive assholes committing atrocities against humanity is not a reason to go to war. When they gave safe haven to terrorists who had repeatedly attacked the United States but murdered almost 3000 in one day, then, yeah, that's justification for taking them down.

Then why haven't we invaded all the other countries that have terrorists? Kenya, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, ...?

Has Kenya murdered thousands of Americans?

At what point do you think the US should become involved in foreign relations? At what point should we go to war with another country?

The US was justified to attack Afghanistan, but not Iraq. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan in 2003 instead of diverting resources and focus to Iraq leaving Afghanistan half-finished. Now we're still in Afghanistan trying to get back to where we were in 2003.

I do think 9/11 was an excuse to attack Iraq. I think the powers that be wanted that maniac out of power, and they would have used anything to get in there and take him out. The "global economy" has to run smoothly after all, and Saddam was a thorn in the side of the "global community." How can we have world peace and harmony with such lunatics running the asylum?

Then why haven't we attacked China? North Korea? Russia? Nearly every African nation? The whole Middle East? They all have lunatics running their show?

 

[Taz]

Is it not a GOOD thing that Saddam was taken out? Sure ISIS filling the empty void is a shameful unintended consequence. However, Saddam was NOT just a menace to his own people. That is why so many wanted to take him out.

Things are worse now in Iraq. Just ask the Iraqi people. They say things were better under Saddam. Google it.

 

[ChrisL]

Afghanistan was fully justified. Agreed on Iraq. That was about greed, but I do not think it was GW's idea. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld were both well known to be supporting a strong US presence in Iraq. It cost us.

Afghanistan wasn't justified, the Afghans had nothing to do with 9/11. That's like invading Italy to get at the mafia.

The government of Afghanistan was shielding Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They were given the opportunity to give them up- and decided against it. I am okay with our invasion of Afghanistan.

Iraq was a stupid distraction from our war in Afghanistan- and is in large part the reason why Afghanistan is such a mess today.

Yet when AlQaeda and Bin Laden escaped into Pakistan, we did nothing

Decided to invade Iraq instead

We worked with Pakistan on that issue, but the situation in Pakistan is delicate.

OTOH, the night we "invaded" Pakistan to take down bin Laden, the Paki national defense radar just happened to go down. Coincidence?

We had a double standard of what we tolerated from Afghanistan and what we tolerated from Pakistan

There is a reason for that, I'm sure. Lol. It's not because "we like that one better." Maybe they are easier to work with and more willing to give?

 

[ChrisL]

That's like saying that the Italian government was shielding the mafia, ok, they were, but still, we never invaded them.

Your support for the Taliban and their atrocities are noted.

Still, just because the Taliban were abusive assholes committing atrocities against humanity is not a reason to go to war. When they gave safe haven to terrorists who had repeatedly attacked the United States but murdered almost 3000 in one day, then, yeah, that's justification for taking them down.

Then why haven't we invaded all the other countries that have terrorists? Kenya, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, ...?

Has Kenya murdered thousands of Americans?

At what point do you think the US should become involved in foreign relations? At what point should we go to war with another country?

The US was justified to attack Afghanistan, but not Iraq. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan in 2003 instead of diverting resources and focus to Iraq leaving Afghanistan half-finished. Now we're still in Afghanistan trying to get back to where we were in 2003.

I do think 9/11 was an excuse to attack Iraq. I think the powers that be wanted that maniac out of power, and they would have used anything to get in there and take him out. The "global economy" has to run smoothly after all, and Saddam was a thorn in the side of the "global community." How can we have world peace and harmony with such lunatics running the asylum?

Then why haven't we attacked China? North Korea? Russia? Nearly every African nation? The whole Middle East? They all have lunatics running their show?

Because apparently there is no good REASON to, according to the powers that be! How should I know? I'm just a lowly nobody.

 

[ChrisL]

Just think about what it would be like to have to be in charge of the world and make sure things run smoothly? You would have to do some horrible and distasteful things. There is just no way around it.

 

[ChrisL]

Liberals, you cannot have it BOTH ways. You cannot let lunatics run the asylum and have "peace on earth." Two opposing concepts are going to fight with one another.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberals, you cannot have it BOTH ways. You cannot let lunatics run the asylum and have "peace on earth." Two opposing concepts are going to fight with one another.

Lunatics run the asylum?

You are the ones who elected Trump

 

[ChrisL]

Liberals, you cannot have it BOTH ways. You cannot let lunatics run the asylum and have "peace on earth." Two opposing concepts are going to fight with one another.

Lunatics run the asylum?

You are the ones who elected Trump

Well who wouldn't over a corrupt old alcoholic?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Then why can't you provide a quote from Jesus condemning homosexuality?

I am hoping you don't believe that Jesus was speaking in Leviticus.

Here is an example of Jesus condemning 'activity'
Matthew 19
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 19 - New International Version
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

So we know that Jesus specifically said that activity like Donald Trump's- of divorcing his wife(he was the one committing sexual immorality- not her) and remarrying- both times- is committing adultery- as long as he is married.

Show me a quote of Jesus condemning homosexuality- so far no Christian has.

It is a sin but it could be forgiven by God.

However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13).

Great- now show me the quote where Jesus condemned homosexuality.[/QUOT

Read my posts and you have the explanation that for god it is a sin.

Read my posts and you have the explanation that for god it is a sin.

Bearing false witness is a sin.

I said:
Yep- Jesus never once condemned homosexuality.
You said: Yes, Yes he did...read the bible.

You have yet to show one example of Jesus condemning homosexuality- as you claimed he did in the Bible.

So now you are bearing false witness. But don't worry- God will forgive your sin.

You wan't me to say it in French maybe ?

"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche."

"Egorger vos fils!"

 

[Bonzi]

i'm kinda for no buttsex

Well that would pretty much rule out homosexuality in men. Unless they just do strictly oral

 

[Bonzi]

Is adultry a sin? And is it ok to talk against it?

This question is specifically for you Bonzi.

I've been a tad slow in the ol noggin, but it hit me just now. You claim you are a christian, are against gay lifestyle because it is against God's law, yet...you are having an affair.

How is this not hypocritical?

Okay, so, yes adultery is a sin.
Yes, it is ok to think adultery is a sin
I have not recently claimed I am a Christian, HOWEVER, I do believe that Jesus is God, but I would have to admit that I am a back slidden Christian, so, what I say means crap. However, I do believe those sincere Christians have rights etc etc. It's a subject I'm knowledgeable about (somewhat), and for whatever reason feel strongly about (the rights of Christians).

Personally, I don't care about the gay lifestyle, unless it has an over all negative impact on society. I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, but, that would be my only reason to not whole heartedly be okay with it.

Lastly, I am not having an affair.

 

[Bonzi]

I can only speak of my own personal experience. I've had sexual feelings towards both. I did choose to go one direction, and, my drive was more in one direction, and now is completely in one direction, so, not sure what that means...

Maybe we can have sexual feelings towards both, but we are wired to be with the opposite sex in a relationship way....

You're just lazy and probably still want to munch a rug.

How is that being lazy?

You want to, but you just can't get up off the sofa to go find some.

No, not interested. It was not any good actually

Did it taste like fish?

Nope

 

[Bonzi]

I can only speak of my own personal experience. I've had sexual feelings towards both. I did choose to go one direction, and, my drive was more in one direction, and now is completely in one direction, so, not sure what that means...

Maybe we can have sexual feelings towards both, but we are wired to be with the opposite sex in a relationship way....

You're just lazy and probably still want to munch a rug.

How is that being lazy?

You want to, but you just can't get up off the sofa to go find some.

No, not interested. It was not any good actually

What wasn't any good? The pussy you ate?

The whole experience. The fantasy was much better than the reality, it was weird, and actually kinda awkward and boring. Much much more fun and exciting with men

 

[Divine Wind]

Is it not a GOOD thing that Saddam was taken out? Sure ISIS filling the empty void is a shameful unintended consequence. However, Saddam was NOT just a menace to his own people. That is why so many wanted to take him out.

A bomb would have taken Saddam out. Was invading Iraq worth the lives of 4,424 Americans and 31,952 American wounded?

They had to find him first. Lol. Did you expect them to just bomb Iraq indiscriminately. Oh, well, we think he might be over there, so drop some bombs. Besides, I think they wanted to get him alive and pump him for information.

So, yes, killing Saddam was worth over 4400 American lives and about 32,000 American wounded, maimed and shattered?

 

[danielpalos]

no, it doesnt.

thats the problem when you dont understand what prescriptive and descriptive's differences are...and the implications of said differences.

You are arguing with a world renowned cosmologist, not me. Did you even listen to what he said?

i stream cosmologists, physicists, astrologers and philosophers in lieu of music in my headset for most of my waking hours

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential.." Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate

No one can know what was before the Big Bang. Only fools pretend to know.

The laws of nature existed before space and time. Space and time were created per the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation.



"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential.." Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate

AnCap theory? "Capitalism" is bound to happen, given enough time and the right circumstances.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The government of Afghanistan was shielding Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They were given the opportunity to give them up- and decided against it. I am okay with our invasion of Afghanistan.

Iraq was a stupid distraction from our war in Afghanistan- and is in large part the reason why Afghanistan is such a mess today.

That's like saying that the Italian government was shielding the mafia, ok, they were, but still, we never invaded them.

Your support for the Taliban and their atrocities are noted.

Still, just because the Taliban were abusive assholes committing atrocities against humanity is not a reason to go to war. When they gave safe haven to terrorists who had repeatedly attacked the United States but murdered almost 3000 in one day, then, yeah, that's justification for taking them down.

Then why haven't we invaded all the other countries that have terrorists? Kenya, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, ...?

Has Kenya murdered thousands of Americans?

At what point do you think the US should become involved in foreign relations? At what point should we go to war with another country?

The US was justified to attack Afghanistan, but not Iraq. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan in 2003 instead of diverting resources and focus to Iraq leaving Afghanistan half-finished. Now we're still in Afghanistan trying to get back to where we were in 2003.

Ok, so even if I give you that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified to get Al-Qaeda and Osama, What's the justification for staying there now? Apparently, the US army thinks that Osama is dead and I haven't heard anything about Al-Qaeda being there any more either. So why stay?

NYETO ordered us to make it an outpost against Russia.