Is homosexuality a sin?

Is homosexuality a sin?

Created by Travis Morgan on Oct 27, 2007

59,181 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#75283 Oct 18, 2012
RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
<quoted text>
"gays" in general don't have an evil bone in their collective body.
Are you for real???

Straights can be evil, but gays are perfect?

Do you understand how stupid and the depth of denial a statement like that takes?

Mind boggling blonde!

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#75284 Oct 18, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
Gays lie, including you. It is only lust if based on the gender physically. What about mentally? You can only fall in love with someone who is of the opposite sex mentally.
You're an idiot.

For someone demanding proof on here, you sure don't provide much of it yourself.

Where do you find this garbage? I'd love to see a link!

I'm not sure how anyone can tell someone else in love, that they are lieing, they CANNOT be in love.

You're an idiot.

There's really no other way to put it.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#75285 Oct 18, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have read my posts anyway, you will know I hate any generation--now-it-all-shits lol anyway, just to let you know LOL.
Your velcro gloves worn out yet?

Say hi to the goat for me.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#75286 Oct 18, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Love is based mentally and not physically. You could say, but love is genderless, yes, physically without gender, but somehow, for some reason love can only work with both people being of the opposite sex to each over. I don't know why, but the bible says its true lol.
Tell that to all the married gay couples around the world.

Or to the lesbian widow that sued and is potentially getting DOMA reversed after her wife of 44 years passed away.
Yeah.. bet they weren't in love. Not at all.

Don't be jealous that I have a beautiful woman to go home to and sleep beside every night that loves me more than anything else on Earth.
Try being nice to the girls- they like that.
Take it from a lesbian. I know the ladies. ;)

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#75287 Oct 18, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
If any of you gays have actually fallen in love, go on, describe those connections, if you can't, it obviously means gays only want sex.
:)

Son, if you're expecting some lovely gay love stories or lesbian porn to unfold before you, you're mistaken.

Go down to the basement check out dad's old skin mags like the rest of us did when we were 14.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#75288 Oct 18, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you for real???
Straights can be evil, but gays are perfect?
Do you understand how stupid and the depth of denial a statement like that takes?
Mind boggling blonde!
Can you read at all?!

I said in general, meaning, a generalization.
I said collectively, meaning as a whole.

I would say the same thing about straight people or humanity in general.

Everyone is basically good.

get over yourself kmart.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#75289 Oct 18, 2012
RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
<quoted text>
You think you are so superior with your jumble of fancy words and your fake vagina. Marriage has nothing to do with evolution- procreation does. Furthermore, CIVIL marriage has nothing to do with anything but a list of rights and benefits for 2 people that choose to solidify a life long committment to each other, kids or not. Do you deny that the purpose of marriage when it began was simply a matter of property?
<quoted text>
yeah, that's exactly what I said, Pollyanna. And I don't see how an entire congregation doing the exact same thing as any other has "turned from the faith."
We do use the same Bible- there is only ONE, in many different versions. How is accepting homosexuals as worthy and loving human beings distorting and discounting MOST of the Bible? That's absurd made up BS and you are well aware of it. Is the whole Bible based on condemning homos? NO. When was the last time you sat in on a sermon or a meeting at my church?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Homosexuality RARELY comes up. There are bigger fish to fry.
<quoted text>
Your problem is you see differences where they are not. You see minor irrelevant differences as fundamentally different on every level. A flat head scredriver with a blue handle and a phillps with a red handle have obvious differences, but it doesn't change the fact they are BOTH the same thing and used for the same purpose.
What is the big "distinct difference" between a gay marriage and straight one? Body parts and procreation don't count because we are all HUMAN with hearts capable of loving and science and adoption can bring children to ANYONE of any gender or orientation.
<quoted text>
The way you seem to interperet this is that every man and every woman must pair up together and never be separated. In that case, why is it homos that ruin this ideal? Why not get all fired up about divorce, women who are not virgins when married, men and women who NEVER pair off and marry? Aren't they ruining this "design" as well?
And what about you with your kmart vagina and teeny weeny? you're not male or female. By your own definition you are an abomination.
This verse is a suggestion and explanation of why a PERSON would "abandon" the family that raised them and begin their own family. I do not see anywhere that it says 2 genders are required for a family. A man will leave to join with his wife... or spouse.. or whoever he PLANS to marry, because obviously he isn't married to anyone until he decides to take the plunge. It doesn't define what to do if that man is gay, and it doesn't address women at all. So is it equally sinful for a woman to leave her family to choose a husband? You like to take vague wording and make it mean things that have never been implied. If specific words are not there, what gives any human the right to adlib what SHOULD be there? And then turn around and criticize others for doing the same thing with other verses?
Hypocrite.
Stupid and stubborn. I marvel you can function....

1. Marriage would not exist if evolution had not refined higher life forms (so far only humans). Cultures formalized human mating behavior. Civil laws followed AFTER that, and play a partial and rare role in marriage.

You top this off by asserting that "the purpose of marriage when it began was simply a matter of property". Not sex? Not children? Not love? Blonde beyond belief...

2. What at one point is termed heresy of faith, becomes apostasy when core tenants of faith are abandoned. Christianity has had a bottom line distinction. Jesus is the only way, truth and life. The UCC has rejected that.

3. No major distinctions? Body parts don't count? Natural human fruit within the relationship isn't a major distinction? The union of diverse genders doesn't produce a vastly different result than duplicate?

Do you know the severe denial the above exposes???

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#75290 Oct 18, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Love is based mentally and not physically. You could say, but love is genderless, yes, physically without gender, but somehow, for some reason love can only work with both people being of the opposite sex to each over. I don't know why, but the bible says its true lol.
Oh, BTW, there are some good gay love stories in the Bible... so that was a lie.

You should check them out. You might like the book of Ruth. Sweet lesbo love.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#75292 Oct 18, 2012
RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
<quoted text>
The way you seem to interperet this is that every man and every woman must pair up together and never be separated. In that case, why is it homos that ruin this ideal? Why not get all fired up about divorce, women who are not virgins when married, men and women who NEVER pair off and marry? Aren't they ruining this "design" as well?
And what about you with your kmart vagina and teeny weeny? you're not male or female. By your own definition you are an abomination.
This verse is a suggestion and explanation of why a PERSON would "abandon" the family that raised them and begin their own family. I do not see anywhere that it says 2 genders are required for a family. A man will leave to join with his wife... or spouse.. or whoever he PLANS to marry, because obviously he isn't married to anyone until he decides to take the plunge. It doesn't define what to do if that man is gay, and it doesn't address women at all. So is it equally sinful for a woman to leave her family to choose a husband? You like to take vague wording and make it mean things that have never been implied. If specific words are not there, what gives any human the right to adlib what SHOULD be there? And then turn around and criticize others for doing the same thing with other verses?
Hypocrite.
4.

Matthew 19:4-6 (NJB)
He answered,‘Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female
5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?
6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.' Jesus.

Doesn't matter how you or I interpret the passage. If you read the context, Jesus is interpreting it for us, and he interprets it as you attributed to me with the exception of 'requirement'. You add the demand for 'every person'.

I am fired up about divorce. However, this forum is about homosexuality. Which is where you quote the serpent in the Garden and insinuate, did God really say 'man leave and cleave to a wife', or was it spouse...

Here is the Greek word and how it is interpreted;

Transliterated Word: gunê
Root: a prim. word;

Definition: a woman:--

List of English Words and Number of Times Used
bride (1),
wife (71),
wife's (1),
wives (11),
woman (96),
woman's (1),
women (33).
New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

Scripture addresses all the issues you seek to divert with, they just are not included in marriage, with the exception of woman.

"You like to take vague wording and make it mean things that have never been implied. If specific words are not there, what gives any human the right to adlib what SHOULD be there?" I didn't do that, you did.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#75293 Oct 18, 2012
RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
<quoted text>
"gays" in general don't have an evil bone in their collective body.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you for real???
Straights can be evil, but gays are perfect?
Do you understand how stupid and the depth of denial a statement like that takes?
Mind boggling blonde!
RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you read at all?!
I said in general, meaning, a generalization.
I said collectively, meaning as a whole.
I would say the same thing about straight people or humanity in general.
Everyone is basically good.
get over yourself kmart.
"don't have an evil bone in their (collective) body".

A extreme generalization that is not only untrue on it's face, but it is also untrue individually. No one is perfect. Yet you want to assert that a certain class of people has no element (bone) of evil?

This is a example of your stubbornness adamantly supporting your stupidity.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#75294 Oct 18, 2012
RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, BTW, there are some good gay love stories in the Bible... so that was a lie.
You should check them out. You might like the book of Ruth. Sweet lesbo love.
So a mother-in-law widow converts to lesbianism with a daughter-in-law widow who ALSO converts to lesbianism?

You are asserting that orientation can be changed?

But wait, THEN, the lesbian mother-in-law convinces the lesbian daughter-in-law to RECONVERT to heterosexuality to marry a man!?

Clearly UCC theology AND sweet stupidity.

Smirk.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#75295 Oct 18, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid and stubborn. I marvel you can function....
1. Marriage would not exist if evolution had not refined higher life forms (so far only humans). Cultures formalized human mating behavior. Civil laws followed AFTER that, and play a partial and rare role in marriage.
You top this off by asserting that "the purpose of marriage when it began was simply a matter of property". Not sex? Not children? Not love? Blonde beyond belief...
2. What at one point is termed heresy of faith, becomes apostasy when core tenants of faith are abandoned. Christianity has had a bottom line distinction. Jesus is the only way, truth and life. The UCC has rejected that.
3. No major distinctions? Body parts don't count? Natural human fruit within the relationship isn't a major distinction? The union of diverse genders doesn't produce a vastly different result than duplicate?
Do you know the severe denial the above exposes???
You are such an arrogant male chauvenist moron.

Marriage is a social construct. You can throw in all the fancy diverse gender human fruit one flesh evolution bridging the gap mumbo jumbo you want but it doesn't change the fact that marriage is an agreement. A contract. A social construct.
Any 2 idiots can bump uglies and make a baby, that doesn't make what they have a marriage.
Yes, marriage was all about property. Heirs, inheritance, dowry, ownership of a woman. Why was the word "obey" ever put into marriage vows for a woman? Why is it HUSBAND and wife and not the other way around? Why were women not allowed to own property, work, vote? Why did widows without children have to go back to their OWN parents or brothers back in the day? Because women were thought to be USELESS heir incubating PROPERTY owned and controlled by the whims of their husbands.
Beautiful and sacred, that heterosexual traditional marriage.

"Christianity has had a bottom line distinction. Jesus is the only way, truth and life. The UCC has rejected that."
Let's see you prove THAT one!
Jesus is our ultimate example and the one we turn our questions to. You know better kmart, I'm disappointed in you.

"The union of diverse genders doesn't produce a vastly different result than duplicate?"
Um. No. Not at all.
If you're talking about children, specifically, still no, because not all people make babies. And gay people still have the option to reproduce.
"Duplicate."
you make it sound like we are carbon copies of each other. Sorry, not true. Your "diverse" genders aren't that "diverse" either. There are only 2.
A a couple black kids and a couple Mexican kids in a class doesn't make a diverse classroom, does it?

And it really disturbs me that you refer to BABIES as human fruit.
It likes human fruit.
It puts the lotion on its skin
or else it gets the hose again
it eats your babies and wears you skin
to wash away its sin.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#75296 Oct 18, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
4.
Matthew 19:4-6 (NJB)
He answered,‘Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female
5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?
6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.' Jesus.
Doesn't matter how you or I interpret the passage. If you read the context, Jesus is interpreting it for us, and he interprets it as you attributed to me with the exception of 'requirement'. You add the demand for 'every person'.
Exactly. Not a requirement for every person. Some are straight. Some are gay. Thanks for pointing that out.
KiMare wrote:
<I am fired up about divorce. However, this forum is about homosexuality. Which is where you quote the serpent in the Garden and insinuate, did God really say 'man leave and cleave to a wife', or was it spouse...
Here is the Greek word and how it is interpreted;
Transliterated Word: gunê
Root: a prim. word;
Definition: a woman:--
List of English Words and Number of Times Used
bride (1),
wife (71),
wife's (1),
wives (11),
woman (96),
woman's (1),
women (33).
New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
Scripture addresses all the issues you seek to divert with, they just are not included in marriage, with the exception of woman.
"You like to take vague wording and make it mean things that have never been implied. If specific words are not there, what gives any human the right to adlib what SHOULD be there?" I didn't do that, you did.
You did. it came from your own hand and you deny it. Typical kmart vagina twirl.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#75298 Oct 18, 2012
RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such an arrogant male chauvenist moron.
Marriage is a social construct. You can throw in all the fancy diverse gender human fruit one flesh evolution bridging the gap mumbo jumbo you want but it doesn't change the fact that marriage is an agreement. A contract. A social construct.
Any 2 idiots can bump uglies and make a baby, that doesn't make what they have a marriage.
Yes, marriage was all about property. Heirs, inheritance, dowry, ownership of a woman. Why was the word "obey" ever put into marriage vows for a woman? Why is it HUSBAND and wife and not the other way around? Why were women not allowed to own property, work, vote? Why did widows without children have to go back to their OWN parents or brothers back in the day? Because women were thought to be USELESS heir incubating PROPERTY owned and controlled by the whims of their husbands.
Beautiful and sacred, that heterosexual traditional marriage.
"Christianity has had a bottom line distinction. Jesus is the only way, truth and life. The UCC has rejected that."
Let's see you prove THAT one!
Jesus is our ultimate example and the one we turn our questions to. You know better kmart, I'm disappointed in you.
"The union of diverse genders doesn't produce a vastly different result than duplicate?"
Um. No. Not at all.
If you're talking about children, specifically, still no, because not all people make babies. And gay people still have the option to reproduce.
"Duplicate."
you make it sound like we are carbon copies of each other. Sorry, not true. Your "diverse" genders aren't that "diverse" either. There are only 2.
A a couple black kids and a couple Mexican kids in a class doesn't make a diverse classroom, does it?
And it really disturbs me that you refer to BABIES as human fruit.
It likes human fruit.
It puts the lotion on its skin
or else it gets the hose again
it eats your babies and wears you skin
to wash away its sin.
I am also a old jack ass, a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian, AND a lesbian, just like you!

How romantic! A "social contract"!

Golly gee, gays have raised the bar with their imitation, haven't they???

I agree! "Any 2 idiots can bump uglies and make a baby, that doesn't make what they have a marriage."

What does, is a responsible male and female who make a life-long vow (not contract) of love and loyalty that establishes the best place for the fruit of their love.

Gay love doesn't produce children, does it? Gay love has to go outside to heterosexual love and 'borrow' a child.

As to marriage, why are you limiting it to Christian marriage? That hasn't been around nearly as long as countless other religions and cultures. Who happen to have many of the same customs for some strange reason... Ever read about Romeo and Juliet? Maybe not, she was a brunette...

Notice the difference between the verse, Jesus is 'the way, the truth and the life', and "Jesus is our ultimate example and the one we turn our questions to."?

One picture exposing the vast distinction in marriage is describing it as the union of Mars and Venus. Gays can only claim the duplication of Uranus and Uranus.

Okay, if you don't like duplicate, I'll use redumbant... But remember, our culture is about diversity. Gay unions are too gender bigoted qualify for marriage.

You have gone from misinterpreting Scripture to misapplying Jame Gumb?
iTS greeeeat

Angier, NC

#75299 Oct 18, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I am also a old jack ass, a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian, AND a lesbian, just like you!
How romantic! A "social contract"!
Golly gee, gays have raised the bar with their imitation, haven't they???
I agree! "Any 2 idiots can bump uglies and make a baby, that doesn't make what they have a marriage."
What does, is a responsible male and female who make a life-long vow (not contract) of love and loyalty that establishes the best place for the fruit of their love.
Gay love doesn't produce children, does it? Gay love has to go outside to heterosexual love and 'borrow' a child.
As to marriage, why are you limiting it to Christian marriage? That hasn't been around nearly as long as countless other religions and cultures. Who happen to have many of the same customs for some strange reason... Ever read about Romeo and Juliet? Maybe not, she was a brunette...
Notice the difference between the verse, Jesus is 'the way, the truth and the life', and "Jesus is our ultimate example and the one we turn our questions to."?
One picture exposing the vast distinction in marriage is describing it as the union of Mars and Venus. Gays can only claim the duplication of Uranus and Uranus.
Okay, if you don't like duplicate, I'll use redumbant... But remember, our culture is about diversity. Gay unions are too gender bigoted qualify for marriage.
You have gone from misinterpreting Scripture to misapplying Jame Gumb?
Stop trying to twist everything that the homosexual with experience testifies about, opposed to what you THINK you know about about homosexuality and homosexual relationships. Your not an expert nor have you walked in our shoes so stop trying to ACT like you know more about homosexuality than the homosexual themselves. Now Mr. Know it all, I suggest you try to learn something from what each and every gay person has said and stop trying to talk like you know everything! Shut your big mouth, open your ears, and LISTEN before you snap back with your stupidity because it's only making YOU look like the idiot. It's sad when us homosexuals even get support from heterosexuals (your people) which should make you feel damn near ashamed of yourself because even though they are not gay they know better than you do the differences between right and wrong and the discrimination and bigotry you try to push. Not only that, you know deep down inside, it's bigotry that drives you to say all the stupid shit that you do against homosexuals. Learn from the educated heterosexuals and stop being brainwashed by your own foolish crowd of haters.
iTS greeeeat

Angier, NC

#75300 Oct 18, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So a mother-in-law widow converts to lesbianism with a daughter-in-law widow who ALSO converts to lesbianism?
You are asserting that orientation can be changed?
But wait, THEN, the lesbian mother-in-law convinces the lesbian daughter-in-law to RECONVERT to heterosexuality to marry a man!?
Clearly UCC theology AND sweet stupidity.
Smirk.
One day you gonna wake up and realize how stupid you made yourself look over all these bigoted, discriminating posts and maybe then will you open your beady little eyes..

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#75301 Oct 18, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The Greek New Testament is why we call him Jesus.
Then the new testament is in error , the mans name was NOT Jesus.
And also that is only a partial truth it is not Jesus in Greek but in the translation to English,
There is no “ J “ in ancient Greek.“ the J came later.
Even the original king James had no J the letter CAME INTO wide spread use in the 1600’s.
There's No “J” in Hebrew, Greek or Latin

Maybe it does not seem all that important I mean a rose by any other names smells as sweet However the Jews are real big on names in most highest reverence the name of God.
Of course they do not believe him to be God but still many Christians do and in addition to this many things are done in his name,
In the name of Jesus this or that or we pray in the name of Jesus and to go beyond this
Jesus is the name above every other name; King of kings and Lord of lords.
There are many reference to his name and the importance of it .
And that is not even his name.
It is real pretty though I will give it that.:)

Do not misunderstand me personally i think it is fine to call him Jesus .

:)

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#75302 Oct 18, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you back-tracking from your assertion that homosexuality and Same Sex Sexual Behavior in animals is natural?
Then you try to make the words 'natural' and 'normal' totally meaningless. Why? If your second post is true, it makes your first post using 'natural' totally meaningless. Kind of silly, isn't it?
However, I agreed with you, and even gave examples and reasons why.
Now you back track and even try to change the subject.
Sure seems like a slimy squirm to me...
One correction (of many possible); changes, wars and cities made by men are not natural, they are man-made.
Homosexuality is a natural genetic defect. It also is abnormal because it only compromises 4%(including bi and trans)of sexual orientation. A vast difference from the 96% who represent heterosexual orientation. In fact, instead, a clear indication of a genetic defect.
Then, you still must include that it is a evolutionary dead-end.
And then, anal sex is not natural or normal. It is a violation of design. As a result, it is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
As to your diversionary question, I know my dog is disobedient, but when my wife asks the Schnauzer if she is a Christian, the dog raises it's paw. Kind of like most Christians, and like them, our dog gets lots of mercy and grace.
Natural and normal are meaningless and only have meaning because we say they do., because we perceive and classify them as such.,

Everything is quite natural why would something man has made or devised not be natural science and physics are used in the invention and innovation and the results are natural ,
Man is a part of nature , when a tiger acts as it does all that results is natural a part of nature as WE see it and yet when man acts upon his nature it is somehow unnatural , yeah right.

Even sin is natural - true not an actual part of the original creation but at the fall of Eden it became natural as with rebellion that preceded it by Lucifer and his fallen angels .

Lucifer is natural and everything that is , is natural .
Abnormal , well we tend to say what differs is abnormal be it inferior or superior or just different but in the full scope of all creation ( nature ) it plays it’s role.

With the presence of man all that he does and invents and yes the city’s and technologies as well would only be unnatural in the absence of man.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#75303 Oct 19, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The Hebrew Bible doesn't use English words.
Speed Bump on 18th wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes that is why we call him Jesus .:)
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The Greek New Testament is why we call him Jesus.
Speed Bump on 18th wrote:
<quoted text>
Then the new testament is in error , the mans name was NOT Jesus.
And also that is only a partial truth it is not Jesus in Greek but in the translation to English,
There is no “ J “ in ancient Greek.“ the J came later.
Even the original king James had no J the letter CAME INTO wide spread use in the 1600’s.
There's No “J” in Hebrew, Greek or Latin
Maybe it does not seem all that important I mean a rose by any other names smells as sweet However the Jews are real big on names in most highest reverence the name of God.
Of course they do not believe him to be God but still many Christians do and in addition to this many things are done in his name,
In the name of Jesus this or that or we pray in the name of Jesus and to go beyond this
Jesus is the name above every other name; King of kings and Lord of lords.
There are many reference to his name and the importance of it .
And that is not even his name.
It is real pretty though I will give it that.:)
Do not misunderstand me personally i think it is fine to call him Jesus .
:)
You are deliberately confusing translation with the progression of language.

This is why we have the 'New King James Bible' to replace our old King James Bible which had already been updated for language.

Remember this verse;

"For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."?

However, the real question is, why would you want to confuse that issue?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#75304 Oct 19, 2012
Speed Bump on 18th wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural and normal are meaningless and only have meaning because we say they do., because we perceive and classify them as such.,
Everything is quite natural why would something man has made or devised not be natural science and physics are used in the invention and innovation and the results are natural ,
Man is a part of nature , when a tiger acts as it does all that results is natural a part of nature as WE see it and yet when man acts upon his nature it is somehow unnatural , yeah right.
Even sin is natural - true not an actual part of the original creation but at the fall of Eden it became natural as with rebellion that preceded it by Lucifer and his fallen angels .
Lucifer is natural and everything that is , is natural .
Abnormal , well we tend to say what differs is abnormal be it inferior or superior or just different but in the full scope of all creation ( nature ) it plays it’s role.
With the presence of man all that he does and invents and yes the city’s and technologies as well would only be unnatural in the absence of man.
Your confusion is that you equate humanity and animals.

Man has the ability to act apart from nature and even in conflict with their nature.

Your distortion is that words such as nature and normal are really meaningless. This is deliberate, so you can justify immorality.

Words describe reality. Changing, distorting or diluting the meaning of a word does not change reality.

Homosexuality is a natural abnormality. That is a scientific fact.

Anal sex is a abnormal behavior. That is a moral reality.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min RoSesz 641,576
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 10 min Ex Lesbian 38,160
Does anyone like watching people masterbate? (May '14) 11 min bin there 60
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 11 min LAWEST100 44,376
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 20 min WasteWater 280,883
Play "end of the word" part 2 31 min WasteWater 1,725
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 33 min WasteWater 18,697
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 33 min Insults Are Easier 969,966
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr LAWEST100 618,393
More from around the web