New work on why some people are gay:

Originally posted by Rank outsider

dude, the logic unassailable, i know, it left you speechless, it happens. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude, the logic unassailable, i know, it left you speechless, it happens. 🙂

No, I just thought that what you posted had been posted by TOO.

Here is an impeccable translation:

13“‘And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.

The reference to 'a man', rather than some specific sub-group, seems pretty clear.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
No, I just thought that what you posted had been posted by TOO.

Here is an impeccable translation:

13“‘And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.

The reference to 'a man', rather than some specific sub-group, seems pretty clear.

ok, but our position is quite different, he has no qualms about people practising
homosexuality, to us its a gross sin. He does not accept Paul's unequivocal counsel
and instead he merely attempts a defence based on omittance, that being that
Christ does not specifically mention the practice.

please note the verse, for it demonstrates that in order to be deemed a Christian, to
have a prospect of salvation, one must abandon the practice itself,

What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do
not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for
unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy
persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.
[/b]And yet that is what some of you were[/b]. But you have been washed clean,
but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, but our position is quite different, he has no qualms about people practising
homosexuality, to us its a gross sin. He does not accept Paul's unequivocal counsel
and instead he merely attempts a defence based on omittance, that being that
Christ does not specifically mention the practice.

please note the verse, for it demonstrates that ...[text shortened]... in the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

I assume therefore that JWs are happy for people to be gay, providing that they don't practice homosexual acts?

And what is your response to my comment that Leviticus 20:13 is addressed to men in general, rather that a particular group of men?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, but our position is quite different, he has no qualms about people practising
homosexuality, to us its a gross sin. He does not accept Paul's unequivocal counsel
and instead he merely attempts a defence based on omittance, that being that
Christ does not specifically mention the practice.

please note the verse, for it demonstrates that ...[text shortened]... in the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

ok, but our position is quite different, he has no qualms about people practising
homosexuality, to us its a gross sin. He does not accept Paul's unequivocal counsel
and instead he merely attempts a defence based on omittance, that being that
Christ does not specifically mention the practice.

Actually, not only doesn't Jesus speak against it, it doesn't go against either of His commandments upon which He said ALL the law and prophets hang. Even though Jesus repeatedly said that one must follow HIS word, you choose to follow the teachings of others

Also, you may have missed it, but you haven't responded to this post at the bottom of Page 2:

they are under duress to extend love to all persons irrespective of their practice, for
its the practice which is condemned not the individual, the hope being that they have
potential to change and may repent and make reparation to the Biblical standard.

In the past you've often used anti-gay slurs, made a number of discriminatory comments about gays, etc. Has your position changed? Or is that an indication of what you mean by "love"?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I assume therefore that JWs are happy for people to be gay, providing that they don't practice homosexual acts?

And what is your response to my comment that Leviticus 20:13 is addressed to men in general, rather that a particular group of men?

well its been my personal position that homosexuality is defined by the practice, not by
the potential for being gay, others have argued that his is not the case and yes its
addressed to men in general, its a generic phrase, although its clear that its used in this
context to the act of homosexuality.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]ok, but our position is quite different, he has no qualms about people practising
homosexuality, to us its a gross sin. He does not accept Paul's unequivocal counsel
and instead he merely attempts a defence based on omittance, that being that
Christ does not specifically mention the practice.

Actually, not only doesn't Jesus speak against Has your position changed? Or is that an indication of what you mean by "love"? [/quote][/b]

Its condemned in scripture, you have absolutely no defence to the fact, Christ's words
are only a small part of scripture your defence on its omittance is weak. Christ clearly
upheld the mandates of the mosaic law and instructed others to do the same, the same
mandates which stated that homosexuality was morally wrong, as has been
demonstrated to you on countless occasions, with absolutely no effect. Whether I
make fun of homosexuality, slur homosexuality or homosexuals has no bearing on this,
your attempts to make it personal by this inclusion is once again a reflection of the
weakness of your argument, the Bible condemns the practice throughout its pages, you
have no defence to this fact!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well its been my personal position that homosexuality is defined by the practice, not by
the potential for being gay, others have argued that his is not the case and yes its
addressed to men in general, its a generic phrase, although its clear that its used in this
context to the act of homosexuality.

So we appear to be in agreement that, in Leviticus 20:13, God gave an instruction to men generally not to indulge in homosexual acts, and also to put to death anyone caught doing so.

When did God change his mind about unequivocally demanding the use of the death penalty without fail on such occasions?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
So we appear to be in agreement that, in Leviticus 20:13, God gave an instruction to men generally not to indulge in homosexual acts, and also to put to death anyone caught doing so.

When did God change his mind about this?

homosexuality is condemned throughout scripture, why are you stating that a, 'change
of mind', took place? The only thing that changed was that it was no longer a capital
crime, as the Mosaic Law was annulled in practice.

(Colossians 2:13, 14) . . .He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the
handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in
opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
homosexuality is condemned throughout scripture, why are you stating that a, 'change
of mind', took place?

I have rephrased, as it was not clear. My mistake.

When did God change his mind about unequivocally demanding the death penalty for anyone caught indulging in homosexual acts?

And why? Did he originally get it wrong?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I have rephrased, as it was not clear.

When did God change his mind about unequivocally demanding the death penalty for anyone caught indulging in homosexual acts?

And why? Did he originally get it wrong?

Here is the scriptural reference,

(Colossians 2:13, 14) . . .He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the
handwritten document [Mosiac Law] against us, which consisted of decrees and which
was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture
stake.

Christ was the fulfillment the Law. The Law had served its purpose, it was intended
simply to make sin manifest and to be 'a tutor leading towards the Christ'. No it was
not wrong, it created an environment that it was specifically designed to make people
aware of their sinfulness and the need for atonement.

(Galatians 3:24, 25) . . .Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to
Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith.  But now that the faith has
arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Here is the scriptural reference,

(Colossians 2:13, 14) . . .He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the
handwritten document [Mosiac Law] against us, which consisted of decrees and which
was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by [b]nailing it to the torture
stake.

Christ was the fulfillment the La cifically designed for, to make
people aware of their sinfulness and the need for atonement.[/b]

You do not need to execute people to make sin manifest.

It seems odd to me that something which recommends the death penalty so frequently as Mosaic Law should be a 'tutor leading towards Christ' when Christ appears to teach something so alien, indeed incompatible, to this 'tutor'.

If you want to teach compassion and love of your fellow man, why would you construct a 'tutor' which is intolerant and violent? Would it not have been better to have Mosaic Law teach the concepts of compassion and tolerance?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Here is the scriptural reference,

(Colossians 2:13, 14) . . .He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the
handwritten document [Mosiac Law] against us, which consisted of decrees and which
was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by [b]nailing it to the torture
stake.

Christ was the fulfillment the La righteous due to faith.  But now that the faith has
arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.[/b]

Clearly, you do not think these passages mean that you should ignore Mosaic Law as a JW, as the JW website quotes extensively from it in support of its views.

So where is it stated that the death penalty for homosexual acts is not acceptable any more? In fact, I have read that the Watchtower makes it clear that the death penalty is acceptable and cites Mosaic Law as the reason for this.

So, if you accept the death penalty in principle remains acceptable in the eyes of God, and you have a clear statement from God that all those engaged in homosexual acts must be put to death, what leads you to the view that this element of Mosaic Law should not continue to this day?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Clearly, you do not think these passages mean that you should ignore Mosaic Law as a JW, as the JW website quotes extensively from it in support of its views.

So where is it stated that the death penalty for homosexual acts is not acceptable any more?

I could never be gay.





I have a very low threshold of pain.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its condemned in scripture, you have absolutely no defence to the fact, Christ's words
are only a small part of scripture your defence on its omittance is weak. Christ clearly
upheld the mandates of the mosaic law and instructed others to do the same, the same
mandates which stated that homosexuality was morally wrong, as has been
demonstrate ...[text shortened]... ment, the Bible condemns the practice throughout its pages, you
have no defence to this fact!

Whether I
make fun of homosexuality, slur homosexuality or homosexuals has no bearing on this,
your attempts to make it personal by this inclusion is once again a reflection of the
weakness of your argument, the Bible condemns the practice throughout its pages, you have no defence to this fact!

What I was calling in question was you claiming on one hand that "[Christians] are under duress to extend love to all persons irrespective of their practice", and repeatedly showing that you do nothing of the kind on the other. Do you believe that this type of blatant hypocrisy helps or hinders the reputation of the JW organization?

Christ clearly
upheld the mandates of the mosaic law and instructed others to do the same, the same
mandates which stated that homosexuality was morally wrong, as has been
demonstrated to you on countless occasions, with absolutely no effect.

Jesus commanded that one follow His word. Not Mosaic Law. Not the teachings of Paul. Your belief in the teaching of others does not change this fact.

Either you believe that Mosaic Law still applies today or you don't. Your other posts seem to indicate that you believe they don't. Which is it?