MuttleyLaff:
Don't mind that covetous OkCornel, he is lusting after the small glory I gave you. He wants to be cojoined in the shine, even when he can see that I still asked you to give me Lot's reason for refusing the attempting gang raping. He is jealous because I was generous with you than him. Shepherd00 FYI, Lot gave a reason for the wickedness and for refusing them. What did Lot say, what was the reason he gave.

And you are here still lying shamelessly... I don't care about any worthless shine here...

Or you still want to deny I never gave you the same answer Shepherd00 gave despite asking me that same question more than once?

This is really shameless of you...

Meanwhile, we still await your interpretation to "strange flesh" with your source(s) inclusive, and also your source(s) to the meaning of Arsenokytes...

And the three other questions you've been dodging...
1) When will Muttley provide one example of same sex marriage in the scriptures that can encourage homosexuality in the church?
2) What does Muttley make of those who turned away from homsexuality/lesbianism after encountering Jesus? Are their testimonies lies?
3) Why would Lot offer up his virgin daughters to be raped, rather than being a party to a legion of old and young men who wanted to pursue their unnatural desires (going after strange flesh) i.e the male visitors in Lot's house?

OkCornel:


Did you notice Muttley has been hesitant to provide sources on his interpretation of Arsenokytes?

Dude is giving us flawed and questionable interpretation... which is the bedrock of his argument...

I'm waiting for his response here. I will check from my Hebrew, Greek to England Bible.

Shepherd00:

I'm waiting for his response here. I will check from my Hebrew, Greek to England Bible.

Thank you very much.

I have also included a translation from the Greek Bible into English earlier today on this thread...

Now let us start with the Greek Bible;

I Timothy 1 v 10 (SBL Greek New Testament);
10 πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+1&version=SBLGNT

1 Timothy 1 v 10 (kjv)
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine




Now let us translate this word ἀρσενοκοίταις into what it truly means;

1) Arsenokytes
2) Arsenocitis

ἀρσενοκοίτης • (arsenokoítēs) m (genitive ἀρσενοκοίτου); first declension

man who engages in sexual activity with other males, homosexual, sodomite
specifically, the active (penetrating) partner in male homosexual activity, as opposed to the passive partner

Antonym: μαλακός (malakós)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%80%CF%81%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%AF%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82

The picture below explains it better.

MuttleyLaff:
You are behaving like an ignorant customer asking the shop cashier to tell him which cow the pint of milk, he's bought, was obtained from. This is hilarious, and I am literally just laughing out loud thinking of the whole scene. Look at him asking for source behind what is obvious. You think I milk only one, two, three or four cows before making cheese. Cheese making doesn't work like that matey. Ask TV01, he'll you that you've goofed, and goofed big time.

Now, in your own words, not a third party website sign posting shenanigan again, please give me your best and perfect example what "strange flesh" is, as used in the context Jude made use of the phrase. Thank you.

You didn't post your source tho.

MuttleyLaff:
Don't mind that covetous OkCornel, he is lusting after the small glory I gave you. He wants to be cojoined in the shine, even when he can see that I still asked you to give me Lot's reason for refusing the attempting gang raping. He is jealous because I was generous with you than him. Shepherd00, fyi, Lot gave a reason for the wickedness and for refusing them. What did Lot say, what was the reason he gave for the refusal, aside the obvious wickedness.

What shine?

It wld've been easier if you said what reason Lot gave.

OkCornel:


Muttley, muttley, muttley. I have told you what going after strange flesh is. The unnatural desire for a man to lust after a fellow man and have sex with him.

Strange flesh in this context i.e. unnatural desire of a man burning with desire and lust for a fellow man.

Don't want to join in this homo discussion. I have read through some pages, and will like to ask you a pertinent question.

Homosexuality as defined by you is ' unnatural desire of a man burning with desire and lust for a fellow man'.

If the definition above is correct, does that mean you are equating Angel (spirit) to Man (flesh)?

Don't take offense in my question, the discussion presently is centred on 'going after strange flesh...',
Has an angel ever been flesh?

My understanding of what about Angel is that they are heavenly beings devoid of blood and flesh. The natural system and feature of a man cannot be found in them, hence they cannot be referred or categorised with men. At such, Angel doesn't fit into definition of homosexuality (sexual desire of man to another man). Also, Angel are not flesh and cannot be categorised under 'strange flesh'.

You may have another angle to Angel been men or flesh, and will appreciate if you can present it.

FOLYKAZE:


Don't want to join in this homo discussion. I have read through some pages, and will like to ask you a pertinent question.

Homosexuality as defined by you is ' unnatural desire of a man burning with desire and lust for a fellow man'.

If the definition above is correct, does that mean you are equating Angel (spirit) to Man (flesh)?

Don't take offense in my question, the discussion presently is centred on 'going after strange flesh...',
Has an angel ever been flesh?

My understanding of what about Angel is that they are heavenly beings devoid of blood and flesh. The natural system and feature of a man cannot be found in them, hence they cannot be referred or categorised with men. At such, Angel doesn't fit into definition of homosexuality (sexual desire of man to another man). Also, Angel are not flesh and cannot be categorised under 'strange flesh'.

You may have another angle to Angel been men or flesh, and will appreciate if you can present it.

In this instance, the Angels took the form of men (i.e. they were flesh and blood for this particular assignment)

Bear in mind Genesis 18 v 1-2 when the Lord and those two angels first appeared to Abraham, they showed up as men (flesh and blood), rather than their true form...

1 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 and he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground


.

OkCornel:


In this instance, the Angels took the form of men (i.e. they were flesh and blood for this particular assignment)

Bear in mind Genesis 18 v 1-2 when the Lord and those two angels first appeared to Abraham, they showed up as men (flesh and blood), rather than their true form...

1 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 and he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground


.

Very apt. I appreciate that scrutiny response. I read quickly through the Bible passage and thought the act of homosexuality is not entirely wrong.

My observations;

- sex with beautiful men is norm in the city. Lot is aware of this practice.

- the city men saw the angel as human, they did not have knowledge the visitors were heavenly beings taking human form.

- Lot recognized his visitors weren't human even when they appeared as one. He knew they were angels.

- the wicked act, is therefore referring to actions of the people who wanted to have sex with Angels in human form (strange flesh).


If the above is correct, the Bible account reveals that the wrong the people did is attempting to have sex with Angels (not men), not homosexuality. On another turn, bible accounted love between Solomon and David, the relationship is homosexual in nature and it wasn't recorded as wrong.

Maybe you may help and show us, outside Lot story, where homosexuality is refer to as sin. Thanks

FOLYKAZE:


Very apt. I appreciate that scrutiny response. I read quickly through the Bible passage and thought the act of homosexuality is not entirely wrong.

My observations;

- sex with beautiful men is norm in the city. Lot is aware of this practice.
- the city men saw the angel as human, they did not have knowledge the visitors were heavenly beings taking human form.
- Lot recognized his visitors weren't human even when they appeared as one. He knew they were angels.
- the wicked act, is therefore referring to actions of the people who wanted to have sex with Angels in human form (strange flesh).

We'll get back to this matter of strange flesh (which other bible translations also call unnatural desire)

FOLYKAZE:

If the above is correct, the Bible account reveals that the wrong the people did is attempting to have sex with Angels (not men), not homosexuality. On another turn, bible accounted love between Solomon and David, the relationship is homosexual in nature and it wasn't recorded as wrong.

You mean the relationship between David and Jonathan? How is that an evidence of homosexual relationship? That they were very close friends mean they were homosexuals?

Alright, remember Jesus loves the little children, does it make Jesus a Paedophile?

Also remember John claimed Jesus called him (John) the beloved disciple. Does it also mean Jesus is gay?

FOLYKAZE:

Maybe you may help and show us, outside Lot story, where homosexuality is refer to as sin. Thanks

In the new testament, we can start with Paul's letter to the Romans in Chapter 1 v 26-28;

Romans 1 v 26-28 (AKJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


Then let's move on to Paul's letter to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6 v 9-10;

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.



Also read Paul's letter to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1 v 8-10 (KJV);

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


What do you think of the scriptures above?

budaatum:

Went to a philosophical forum once but the theme spokesperson didn't turn up so they decided to discuss the merits of feeding their dogs only vegetables. After a while of healthier dog, better environment, I couldn't help asking how the 18 members of the forum got there and found they got the bus, train and most drove. "Did you all wonder what conditions are like where you get your fuel from?" I asked. It just amazed me that they'd be more concerned at the good they do making vegetarians of their dogs than what they could have done if they'd walked.

Same here. All the girls "being bullied, beaten, shamed, abandoned, rejected, scared for their lives, put to death etcetera"..........

What's the relevance of this with regards to the Op in discuss?

OkCornel:




You mean the relationship between David and Jonathan? How is that an evidence of homosexual relationship? That they were very close friends mean they were homosexuals?

Just to add to what you have aptly said,the bond David had for Jonathan was nothing but BROTHERLY LOVE!
David referred to Jonathan as HIS BROTHER NOT his LOVER!

2 Samuel 1:26 New International Version (NIV)
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan MY BROTHER;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.

2 Samuel 1:26 The Message (MSG)
26 O my DEAR BROTHER Jonathan,
I’m crushed by your death.
Your friendship was a miracle-wonder,
love far exceeding anything I’ve known—
or ever hope to know.

FOLYKAZE:


Don't want to join in this homo discussion. I have read through some pages, and will like to ask you a pertinent question.

Homosexuality as defined by you is ' unnatural desire of a man burning with desire and lust for a fellow man'.

If the definition above is correct, does that mean you are equating Angel (spirit) to Man (flesh)?

Don't take offense in my question, the discussion presently is centred on 'going after strange flesh...',
Has an angel ever been flesh?

My understanding of what about Angel is that they are heavenly beings devoid of blood and flesh. The natural system and feature of a man cannot be found in them, hence they cannot be referred or categorised with men. At such, Angel doesn't fit into definition of homosexuality (sexual desire of man to another man). Also, Angel are not flesh and cannot be categorised under 'strange flesh'.

You may have another angle to Angel been men or flesh, and will appreciate if you can present it.

You are a pagan, this is not your territory sir. And OkCornel didn't say anything, the Bible did.

OkCornel:


We'll get back to this matter of strange flesh (which other bible translations also call unnatural desire)

K

OkCornel:

You mean the relationship between David and Jonathan? How is that an evidence of homosexual relationship? That they were very close friends mean they were homosexuals?

Alright, remember Jesus loves the little children, does it make Jesus a Paedophile?

Also remember John claimed Jesus called him (John) the beloved disciple. Does it also mean Jesus is gay?

Many scholars and writers have argued that the relationship between Jonathan and David is romantic rather than been casual friendly relationship.

While it is fact that David is married, what he had with Jonathan is pure romantic. For a fact, they had knowledge of their nudity, which is evidence of sexual practises.

OkCornel:

In the new testament, we can start with Paul's letter to the Romans in Chapter 1 v 26-28;

Romans 1 v 26-28 (AKJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


Then let's move on to Paul's letter to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6 v 9-10;

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.



Also read Paul's letter to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1 v 8-10 (KJV);

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


What do you think of the scriptures above?

With the help of commentaries and concordance, I am able to understand the act of homosexuality is disgusting and very detestable. That is, sexual affair is purposely to procreate. Since homosexual acts doesn't lead to reproduction of new life, it is perceived disgusting or destestable.

Even though homosexual acts don't procreate, they are 'naturally' attracted to one another. And the attraction is bounded by love. I am of the view that God is not against been natural, and loving another person.

The Definition of Sin

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6A.HTM#$21C

If my understanding of statement above is correct, it implies that any action that isn't isn't founded on genuine love for God and fellow human is a sin. On another round, an action that injures, cause pain or wound to man is sin.

Homosexuality from much that I know is founded on natural love to fellow men or women. The attraction for their fellow is inbuilt. This trait can be found among animals. Let me say, that is how God made them, not how they made themselves.

And the act doesn't cause pain, injury or wound to another person. Are they mutually happy with their actions? Yes.


The biblical aspect of the argument above;

Roman 13:8-10

8: Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.
9: The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: 10: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.



The bible passage also confirms that love fulfills the law. It doesn't harm others or cause people pain. This implies that sin is the absence of love.

Act of homosexuality is that of love which doesn't cause harm or pain to people. The act is simply an expression of love between mutually attracted adults. The attraction is natural, the love is natural, the act is consensual, and no one is been hurt either by it, it shouldn't be a sin or wrong.

Unless maybe there is a verse in the bible that speak against the love between homos, the act isn't a sin.

FOLYKAZE:


K



Many scholars and writers have argued that the relationship between Jonathan and David is romantic rather than been casual friendly relationship.

While it is fact that David is married, what he had with Jonathan is pure romantic. For a fact, they had knowledge of their nudity, which is evidence of sexual practises.




With the help of commentaries and concordance, I am able to understand the act of homosexuality is disgusting and very detestable. That is, sexual affair is purposely to procreate. Since homosexual acts doesn't lead to reproduction of new life, it is perceived disgusting or destestable.

Even though homosexual acts don't procreate, they are 'naturally' attracted to one another. And the attraction is bounded by love. I am of the view that God is not against been natural, and loving another person.

The Definition of Sin

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6A.HTM#$21C

If my understanding of statement above is correct, it implies that any action that isn't isn't founded on genuine love for God and fellow human is a sin. On another round, an action that injures, cause pain or wound to man is sin.

Homosexuality from much that I know is founded on natural love to fellow men or women. The attraction for their fellow is inbuilt. This trait can be found among animals. Let me say, that is how God made them, not how they made themselves.

And the act doesn't cause pain, injury or wound to another person. Are they mutually happy with their actions? Yes.


The biblical aspect of the argument above;

Roman 13:8-10

8: Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.
9: The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: 10: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.



The bible passage also confirms that love fulfills the law. It doesn't harm others or cause people pain. This implies that sin is the absence of love.

Act of homosexuality is that of love which doesn't cause harm or pain to people. The act is simply an expression of love between mutually attracted adults. The attraction is natural, the love is natural, the act is consensual, and no one is been hurt either by it, it shouldn't be a sin or wrong.

Unless maybe there is a verse in the bible that speak against the love between homos, the act isn't a sin.

1) If a man loves his dog, to the point of sleeping with his dog? Can we also excuse bestiality as a show of love?

2) If you claim God created man and woman with natural tendencies to be attracted to the same sex. Why in the first place did God create the male and female? And not male/male or male/female?

FOLYKAZE:
Don't want to join in this homo discussion. I have read through some pages, and will like to ask you a pertinent question.

Homosexuality as defined by you is ' unnatural desire of a man burning with desire and lust for a fellow man'.

If the definition above is correct, does that mean you are equating Angel (spirit) to Man (flesh)?

Phew! Sigh of relief. The voice of reason has stepped in

FOLYKAZE:
Don't take offense in my question, the discussion presently is centred on 'going after strange flesh...',
Has an angel ever been flesh?

My understanding of what about Angel is that they are heavenly beings devoid of blood and flesh.

Wait until someone jumps on here to come and tell you that, angels found human beings women irresistibly beautiful, that they impregnated these women and made them their wives etcetera. They will even quote same Jude for you on it. SMH. Let's see amongst the posters will dare come on this thread, to talk that nonsense. You have been forewarned about them FOLYKAZE.

FOLYKAZE:
The natural system and feature of a man cannot be found in them, hence they cannot be referred or categorised with men. At such, Angel doesn't fit into definition of homosexuality (sexual desire of man to another man).

Yeepa! Somebody please give this man the house' best and the most chilled bottle of orijin please. Foly Baba! Atten-shun! I salute. Yeba Yeba, Yebariba, Samboribobo. I hail. Thank you. thank you, thank very much.

FOLYKAZE:
Also, Angel are not flesh and cannot be categorised under 'strange flesh'.

Ah-ah, why did you have to come spoil everything with this your last sentence comment now hmm? Next time quit while you're still ahead and don't be trying to improve on something that you've already well said and put

FOLYKAZE, as you continue reading, you''ll find out that angels are categorised, as an example under "strange flesh". This by Jude, who happened to be our Lord, Jesus Christ's half-brother. This means that, Jude should then, know what he is talking about

FOLYKAZE:
You may have another angle to Angel been men or flesh, and will appreciate if you can present it.

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
- Jude 7 KJV

FOLYKAZE, your wish is my command. I am treating your desire as a command. Straight away, I will begin presenting that which you request to know about. I will make the wish happen and come true

The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to gang rape two "men," but what the men of Sodom and Gomorrah, didnt know, was that the two "men" werent human beings, men, they actually were angels, that had the appearance of looking like human being males or men. They are different, they are beings, another of a different quality and kind.

Now watch this, in Jude 7 above that, what Jude expressed complete disapproval of, is human beings men having sex with or better still, human beings men attempting to have sex with angels. Please carefully observe and notice that, Jude does not make mention nor condemn homosexuals, lesbians and whatnots, in that scripture. Doesnt this piece of observation arouse your interest, doesnt this finding hold your breath or catch your attention, hmm?. Wait, it gets better than this, as we go on. Meanwhile, christians/believers, brethren and sisters alike, regularly, as already has been evident on this thread so far, use this verse to argue that Jude 7 is finding fault(s) with SSA persons

FOLYKAZE, grab a chair, make sure you sit down comfortably before reading what is going to be interesting and thats coming up next. We are going to deconstruct the phrase "strange flesh"

Jude used two Greek words "sarx/sarkos" and "heteras/heteros" translated as "strange flesh" in English. The first word is self explanatory. In English, its translated as flesh

The interesting thing here, is that Jude by deliberate choice, used the Greek word, "heteras/heteros", which means "different", in that verse. By the way and fyi, it is from this same Greek word, "heteras/heteros" that the familiar English word, heterosexual, originates from.

Now, as I was saying, Jude used the Greek word, "heteras/heteros", which means "different", instead of using the Greek word, "homoios/homos", which means "same or similar" Another important fyi here, is that the Greek word, "homoios/homos", is from how we got another familiar English word, homosexual (i.e. of the same sex)

The deliberate choice and use of that particular and certain "heteras/heteros" Greek word, shows that the Jude 7 verse, had nothing whatsover, to do with human beings of any sort nor homosexuality. This is incontrovertible and certain because the sin that Jude highlighted and expressed a complete disapproval of, is that of human beings men attempting to have sex with angels. The sin was attempting to have sex with someone/something has different "flesh". The "flesh" is "heteras/heteros". The men of Sodom and Gomorrah lusted after another of a different quality. This essentially and somewhat technically, is beastiality on steroids. According to the story in Genesis 19:4-5, 100% of the males of Sodom and Gomorrah, both young and old, surrounded the house and called out, wanting to gang rape the angels, wanted to have unconsenting carnal knowledge of strange flesh. Note FOLYKAZE, not, human beings men flesh but "sarx/sarkos" and "heteras/heteros"

https://www.nairaland.com/5221576/deconstructing-lies-myth-consensual-adult/24#79586669
You can look at the above URL link about the different types of homosexuality acts that are sin and disapproved of, in the Bible. The Bible doesnt completely and entirely of itself, condemn homosexuality, the bible though however specifically, unambiguously and outrightly does condemn certain type or forms of homosexuality, and these are presented as 5 "Case in points"
cc EmperorHarry

FOLYKAZE:


Unless maybe there is a verse in the bible that speak against the love between homos, the act isn't a sin.

Did you read what Paul said in the following scriptures below?

In the new testament, we can start with Paul's letter to the Romans in Chapter 1 v 26-28;

Romans 1 v 26-28 (AKJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


Then let's move on to Paul's letter to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6 v 9-10;

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.



Also read Paul's letter to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1 v 8-10 (KJV);

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

In Romans 1 v 27, are you explicitly telling us Paul was wrong to say men having desire for their fellow men was not natural (i.e. abnormal)?

OkCornel:


1) If a man loves his dog, to the point of sleeping with his dog? Can we also excuse bestiality as a show of love?

2) If you claim God created man and woman with natural tendencies to be attracted to the same sex. Why in the first place did God create the male and female? And not male/male or male/female?

1. Sex is not show of love if it is not mutually consented.

2. Isaiah stated that God created log and darkness. He created the eye for sight, and deliberately chose not to give the poor blind boy sight not until Jesus fix the error. Remember, this blind boy didn't lost his sight because of his sin, his blindness was all to the glory of God. Awamaridi !!

FOLYKAZE:


1. Sex is not show of love if it is not mutually consented.

And the men Paul spoke of and condemned in Romans 1 v 27, didn't they abandon the natural use of women and consented to having sex with one another? Did Paul mention in there that homosexuality is natural?

FOLYKAZE:

2. Isaiah stated that God created log and darkness. He created the eye for sight, and deliberately chose not to give the poor blind boy sight not until Jesus fix the error. Remember, this blind boy didn't lost his sight because of his sin, his blindness was all to the glory of God. Awamaridi !!

And how does this support homosexuality?


Now you earlier mentioned homosexuality and lesbianism is natural, so therefore...Paul was wrong to write this?

Romans 1 v 26-28 (AKJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

OkCornel:


Did you read what Paul said in the following scriptures below?




In Romans 1 v 27, are you explicitly telling us Paul was wrong to say men having desire for their fellow men was not natural (i.e. abnormal)?

Abnormal in that context mean inability to procreate. It isn't a sin unto God.

OkCornel:


And the men Paul spoke of and condemned in Romans 1 v 27, didn't they abandon the natural use of women and consented to having sex with one another? Did Paul mention in there that homosexuality is natural?

You see, you don't want to accept the fact that homos are naturally attracted to men. It is their nature, not choice. Hence, very natural

OkCornel:

And how does this support homosexuality?

That is how God create them.

FOLYKAZE:


Abnormal in that context mean inability to procreate. It isn't a sin unto God.

Oh...so Paul was only talking about pro-creation in Romans 1 v 27 ba?

Romans 1 v 26-28 (AKJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


Meaning Paul was okay with men sleeping with their fellow men after writing the above isn't it?


So why did Paul mention homosexuals as part of the unrighteous people here?

1 Corinthians 6 v 9-10;
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

FOLYKAZE:


You see, you don't want to accept the fact that homos are naturally attracted to men. It is their nature, not choice. Hence, very natural

Romans 1 v 26-28 (AKJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


Did you notice Paul called these homosexuals/lesbians those with a reprobate mind? So you are telling us here that God created people with reprobate minds?

FOLYKAZE:

That is how God create them.

Back up this claim of yours with the scriptures...
And I don't want another person mistaking an eunuch for a homosexual or lesbian...

Perhaps, someone into bestiality or rape or abuse of substances like weed will also claim God created them that way...

God created humans to indulge in homosexual acts and yet no scripture to back this claim?

Not even a union or marriage was mentioned in the bible of SS union!

The use of the 'Brotherly bond' between Jonathan and david as a homosexual ideology is only possible when people do not peruse scriptures and erroneously take it out of context!

openmine:
God created humans to indulge in homosexual acts and yet no scripture to back this claim?

These homosexual activists are very funny.

They talk as though it was same sex relationship that made it possible for them to be conceived and raised up on this planet...

Big fat absurdity and hypocrisy...

OkCornel:


Romans 1 v 26-28 (AKJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


Did you notice Paul called these homosexuals/lesbians those with a reprobate mind? So you are telling us here that God created people with reprobate minds?

Reprobate simply mean not respectable behavior or action that is morally wrong. Neither of these equates to sin.

And in fact, God created light and darkness. That is what the bible said.

OkCornel:

Back up this claim of yours with the scriptures...
And I don't want another person mistaking an eunuch for a homosexual or lesbian...

Please read John 9:1-12

It explained how a boy was born blind. He was actually created by God without a sight.

As it happened to the boy, homosexuals were created by God with their deformities which make them attracted to fellow men. There attraction is natural not choice

OkCornel:

Perhaps, someone into bestiality or rape or abuse of substances like weed will also claim God created them that way...

You are still not getting it. All those you listed like bestiality, rape and abuse of substances are sin.

Bestiality, non consented sex with animal. It causes pain to such animal.

Rape, non consented sex with human. It is not founded on love and causes harm, pain and wounds to the victim.

OkCornel:


These homosexual activists are very funny.

They talk as though it was same sex relationship that made it possible for them to be conceived and raised up on this planet...

Big fat absurdity and hypocrisy...

What is most disconcerting is that scriptures that display LOVE is now implemented erroneously to depict love between same sex partners!

This height of absurdity is unfortunate and to think a 'believer' is audaciously applauding such obvious calumny is pathetic!

OkCornel:


These homosexual activists are very funny.

They talk as though it was same sex relationship that made it possible for them to be conceived and raised up on this planet...


Big fat absurdity and hypocrisy...

You are the one that is economical with truth.

I have argued that homosexuality is unnatural as it is not a sexual form of procreation. It doesn't mean it is a sin.

I have defined what a sin is.

The Definition of Sin

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6A.HTM#$21C

Homosexuality doesn't hurt or cause pain to anyone, hence it isn't a sin

FOLYKAZE:


Reprobate simply mean not respectable behavior or action that is morally wrong. Neither of these equates to sin.

So why did Paul specifically mention homosexuals as unrighteous people here?
1 Corinthians 6 v 9-10;
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

FOLYKAZE:

And in fact, God created light and darkness. That is what the bible said.

Oh yes, but does God want you to walk in darkness? That is the issue here...

FOLYKAZE:

Please read John 9:1-12

It explained how a boy was born blind. He was actually created by God without a sight.

As it happened to the boy, homosexuals were created by God with their deformities which make them attracted to fellow men. There attraction is natural not choice

Again, you are blatantly contradicting what Paul wrote in Romans 1 v 26-27. Was Paul wrong to say lesbianism/homosexuality is not natural?

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

FOLYKAZE:

You are still not getting it. All those you listed like bestiality, rape and abuse of substances are sin.

Bestiality, non consented sex with animal. It causes pain to such animal.

Wow, so in a case where a dog mounts a lady and has intercourse with the lady (willing to do this for cash and pleasure)...that is causing pain to the dog isn't it? It is also against the dog's consent isn't it?

Now...why isn't this case of dog and lady seen as an act of love...since it's consensual and seemingly hurts no one?

What of cases of hor.ny horses attempting to have intercourse with humans? If the human is willing...isn't it consensual? Why isn't this also seen as love...since it hurts no one?




Besides, where in the Bible does it show that abuse of substance like weed is a sin? Why did you call it a sin? Point out where the Bible said smoking of cigarettes, weed e.t.c. is a sin. If you can't...but still concluded it's a sin... why are you advocating homosexuality which Paul clearly wrote against isn't a sin?

FOLYKAZE:


You are the one that is economical with truth.

I have argued that homosexuality is unnatural as it is not a sexual form of procreation. It doesn't mean it is a sin.

I have defined what a sin is.

The Definition of Sin

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6A.HTM#$21C

Homosexuality doesn't hurt or cause pain to anyone, hence it isn't a sin

Wow, so anal sex (which a significant majority of homosexuals engage in) doesn't hurt right?

The anus was created for sex abi? Answer this and let scientific evidence show you up...

FOLYKAZE:


You are the one that is economical with truth.

I have argued that homosexuality is unnatural as it is not a sexual form of procreation. It doesn't mean it is a sin.

I have defined what a sin is.

The Definition of Sin

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6A.HTM#$21C

Homosexuality doesn't hurt or cause pain to anyone, hence it isn't a sin

Per the bolded, you are here claiming homosexuality is not a sin.

Why did Paul label homosexual people as unrighteous? Stop dodging this...

1 Corinthians 6 v 9-10;
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

FOLYKAZE:
You are the one that is economical with truth.

I have argued that homosexuality is unnatural as it is not a sexual form of procreation. It doesn't mean it is a sin.

Homosexuality is unnatural to you, to me and to any other applicable to, homosexuality however is natural to same sex attraction people

FOLYKAZE:
I have defined what a sin is.

The Definition of Sin

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6A.HTM#$21C

Homosexuality doesn't hurt or cause pain to anyone, hence it isn't a sin

FOLYKAZE, you're coasting very beautifully well, just a bit a slight tweak though, as I can't afford to see you slip up like this again, which is about instead to use homosexuality per se. It doesn't hurt or cause pain to anyone, it is specific homosexuality acts that are a sin.

Some of such bad, evil and wrong homosexuality acts can be found at this link>>> https://www.nairaland.com/5221576/deconstructing-lies-myth-consensual-adult/24#79586669