A wonderful response to biblical objections to homosexuality.

[Esquilax]

what are you talking about seriously? I was speaking to the reason why the city consul man would not stone a gay woman as a Christian. I have absolutely no idea how you got your above comment from what I wrote.

Well, if you can't stone 'em... what else is there? What directions can you take from the bible for how to deal with gays? None, because there aren't any. And as you mentioned John 8, I figured you'd be in favor of not casting any stones at all, of any stripe, given that you aren't without sin yourself.

when did you start on this point? Your initial rebuttal had nothing to do with this. Or is this what you last post was about? Is that why you last post created a strawman and made a left turn that had nothing to do with anything I have said?

Go back and read the OP. It's been my entire point, all along.

Other than that, I think we're rather arguing at cross purposes here: you're arguing that sex is a sin, I agree that that's in your religion. My point is that your own religion recommends no sanctions against this kind of sex, so there's no reason to bring up the bible as an argument against marriage equality.

[Drich]

Well, if you can't stone 'em... what else is there? What directions can you take from the bible for how to deal with gays? None, because there aren't any. And as you mentioned John 8, I figured you'd be in favor of not casting any stones at all, of any stripe, given that you aren't without sin yourself.

... Well actually that what atonement is technically.. It is finding ones sins status wiped clean. Meaning at my judgement I will be found to be without sin as Christ was without sin, because I had my sins transferred to Christ on the cross and his righteousness given to me in exchange.

Even so, I do know that I am still vurniable to sexual sin myself, and therefore would be stoned if I were to stone another for the same type of sin.. (Judge not LEST you be judge using the same measure you used to judge others.)

Even so that does not disqualify me nor anyone else in the simple identification of sin if we are looking to help the sinner all the way through finding atonement. Which after two years of this Q and A on this web site my willingness to do this should be beyond challenge.

when did you start on this point? Your initial rebuttal had nothing to do with this. Or is this what you last post was about? Is that why you last post created a strawman and made a left turn that had nothing to do with anything I have said?

Go back and read the OP. It's been my entire point, all along.

Other than that, I think we're rather arguing at cross purposes here: you're arguing that sex is a sin,

no, I am arguing sex all sex outside of a Sanctified marriage is a sin.

I agree that that's in your religion. My point is that your own religion recommends no sanctions against this kind of sex, so there's no reason to bring up the bible as an argument against marriage equality.

All sexual sin and un repentant sexual sinners share the same sanctions, and the same fate if they do not repent.. Do you want to know what those sanctions/fate is?

[Esquilax]

All sexual sin and un repentant sexual sinners share the same sanctions, and the same fate if they do not repent.. Do you want to know what those sanctions/fate is?

I get the feeling it's hell, but again, you're arguing for a metaphysical side I don't even think exists, and I'm arguing for the practical things that I've listed above.

I get it: sex outside of marriage is a sin to you. It's cool, you believe that. But that's not what this thread was made to discuss.