Right-wing provocateur Charlie Kirk shot

[Magical Realist]

In crayon: if_you_can_love_without_sex_it_proves_that_the_act_is_not_necessary.

Prove it. Give me list of people who are in a romantic love relationship and who do not express that sexually.

Who said they don't? @_@
The bandwagon fallacy is not a moral/ethical argument.

They just don't because it makes no sense. Is a person guilty of murder just by thinking of murdering someone? Is a person having sex just by thinking of having sex? Do you grasp the fundamental difference between thought and action or are you a complete imbecile?

Again...
Sinful, yes. Damning, no. There is only one unforgivable sin. It isn't homosexuality.

The condition being no longer being gay and living like a self-hating celibate. That's a bridge too far for most people. And expecting people to not live out their inborn sexual orientation is completely unrealistic. Just like that other Bible doctrine of not having sex outside of marriage. Wonder what happened to that? lol

Without shame and judgement (even if only your own judgement that you need to change) there is zero reason to change.

Precisely. There is no reason to change one's orientation because there is no judgement or shame in it. It is a totally natural instinct and is now universally accepted in our society. Except of course among gay-hating Christians and homophobes. But nobody really cares what those morons think anymore.

[Syne]

In crayon: if_you_can_love_without_sex_it_proves_that_the_act_is_not_necessary.

Prove it. Give me list of people who are in a romantic love relationship and who do not express that sexually.

You already did... if you claim you have the capacity for love while being asexual.

Who said they don't? @_@
The bandwagon fallacy is not a moral/ethical argument.

They just don't because it makes no sense. Is a person guilty of murder just by thinking of murdering someone? Is a person having sex just by thinking of having sex? Do you grasp the fundamental difference between thought and action or are you a complete imbecile?

You're conflating morality and law. They are not the same.

Again...
Sinful, yes. Damning, no. There is only one unforgivable sin. It isn't homosexuality.

The condition being no longer being gay and living like a self-hating celibate. That's a bridge too far for most people. And expecting people to not live out their inborn sexual orientation is completely unrealistic. Just like that other Bible doctrine of not having sex outside of marriage. Wonder what happened to that? lol

Again, for the third time...
Sinful, yes. Damning, no.
You do know that there are Christian homosexuals, right?

Without shame and judgement (even if only your own judgement that you need to change) there is zero reason to change.

Precisely. There is no reason to change one's orientation because there is no judgement or shame in it. It is a totally natural instinct and is now universally accepted in our society. Except of course among gay-hating Christians and homophobes. But nobody really cares what those morons think anymore.

Bandwagon fallacy. 9_9

[Magical Realist]

You already did... if you claim you have the capacity for love while being asexual.

Nope..I'm not in a romantic love relationship. Hence I am not having sex. Having the capacity to love is not the same as actually being in love.

You're conflating morality and law. They are not the same.

No I'm not. Thinking of something does not make anyone morally guilty of actually doing that thing. This is simple undeniable common sense.

gain, for the third time...
Sinful, yes. Damning, no.

Nope...living out one's LGBT sexual orientation is viewed by Christians as choosing to live in sin and being excluded from the pearly gates. It's all in their Wholey Babble:

“Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers,
male prostitutes, sodomites,
thieves, the greedy, drunkards,
revilers, robbers
—
none of these will inherit
the kingdom of God.”
— 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Interesting how Paul's hate list included people who have sex out of marriage, people of other religions, revilers, and even people who get drunk. One wonders why he so specifically singled out male prostitutes. Many believe Paul was a closet case, often cryptically referring to the "thorn in his side".

[Syne]

You already did... if you claim you have the capacity for love while being asexual.

Nope..I'm not in a romantic love relationship. Hence I am not having sex. Having the capacity to love is not the same as actually being in love.

Again, are you asexual or not. If you are, that would mean you're not interested in sex, regardless of being in love.
If you're not, it just means you're not having sex because you're an incel.

You're conflating morality and law. They are not the same.

No I'm not. Thinking of something does not make anyone morally guilty of actually doing that thing. This is simple undeniable common sense.

Yes, you are. You just don't understand what simple words mean.
You're equating moral guilt with action, instead of realizing the two are not the same thing.

gain, for the third time...
Sinful, yes. Damning, no.

Nope...living out one's LGBT sexual orientation is viewed by Christians as choosing to live in sin and being excluded from the pearly gates. It's all in their Wholey Babble:

“Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers,
male prostitutes, sodomites,
thieves, the greedy, drunkards,
revilers, robbers
—
none of these will inherit
the kingdom of God.”
— 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Interesting how Paul's hate list included people who have sex out of marriage, people of other religions, revilers, and even people who get drunk. One wonders why he so specifically singled out male prostitutes. Many believe Paul was a closet case, often cryptically referring to the "thorn in his side".

If you'd only bother to play devil's advocate with Google for two seconds:

No, "inheriting the Kingdom of God" is not the same as simply "being saved" in a general sense
; while salvation is a prerequisite for entering the Kingdom, inheriting the Kingdom implies a deeper, more rewarding, or authoritative position within it, often attained through faithful discipleship after being saved. Some theologians view salvation as the entry point or gift by faith, and inheriting the Kingdom as a reward for a life of active faith and obedience to Christ's Lordship.
- Google AI

Inheriting the kingdom of God is not the same as being saved. 9_9

[Magical Realist]

Again, are you asexual or not. If you are, that would mean you're not interested in sex, regardless of being in love.

No it doesn't moron. It only means I am not interested in having sex, not that I don't have sexual desires. I can be turned on by viewing images online. You're the only misogynous asshole here that fits the profile of incel. Hence your constant need to despise and demean women, which fits right in with being resentful that they pay no attention to you.

Yes, you are. You just don't understand what simple words mean.
You're equating moral guilt with action, instead of realizing the two are not the same thing.

Duh. Yeah, people are only morally guilty of an action when they commit it. Thinking about it isn't immoral because nothing is done.

Some theologians view salvation as the entry point or gift by faith, and inheriting the Kingdom as a reward for a life of active faith and obedience to Christ's Lordship.

Yep...says it right there. "A REWARD for an active life of faith and obedience." That's what going to heaven is. Hence "kingdom of HEAVEN".. Take a Bible course sometime.

"Now the text in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 becomes clear. It speaks of those who were not saved and, therefore, who would not inherit the Kingdom of God (location being beside the point here). Then it speaks of some of the Corinthian Christians who used to be in that 'prohibited' list of people who would not inherit, but "ye are washed, ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Once a believer in Jesus is spiritually alive, having been spiritually 'washed' (cleansed), sanctified and justified, they are children of God - part of the family of God - and thus heirs of the Kingdom. Their portion in the Kingdom is secured because the testator (Christ) had died in order to effect the covenant for the Kingdom. They are legal inheritors due to the will of God who has 'named' them as his spiritual children. Alas, all the unrepentant sinners listed in verses 9 and 10 are not spiritual children of God, and so they are not heirs - they have no share in the spiritual inheritance due the children of God. They are not 'named' as heirs and inheritors of the Kingdom."

[Syne]

Again, are you asexual or not. If you are, that would mean you're not interested in sex, regardless of being in love.

No it doesn't moron. It only means I am not interested in having sex, not that I don't have sexual desires. I can be turned on by viewing images online.

Same difference, since we are talking about the action of sex. IOW, again, it proves my point that sex is not necessary for love.

Yes, you are. You just don't understand what simple words mean.
You're equating moral guilt with action, instead of realizing the two are not the same thing.

Duh. Yeah, people are only morally guilty of an action when they commit it. Thinking about it isn't immoral because nothing is done.

Well, thanks for admitting you conflate the two.

Some theologians view salvation as the entry point or gift by faith, and inheriting the Kingdom as a reward for a life of active faith and obedience to Christ's Lordship.

Yep...says it right there. "A REWARD for an active life of faith and obedience." That's what going to heaven is. Hence "kingdom of HEAVEN".. Take a Bible course sometime.

"Now the text in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 becomes clear. It speaks of those who were not saved and, therefore, who would not inherit the Kingdom of God (location being beside the point here). Then it speaks of some of the Corinthian Christians who used to be in that 'prohibited' list of people who would not inherit, but "ye are washed, ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Once a believer in Jesus is spiritually alive, having been spiritually 'washed' (cleansed), sanctified and justified, they are children of God - part of the family of God - and thus heirs of the Kingdom. Their portion in the Kingdom is secured because the testator (Christ) had died in order to effect the covenant for the Kingdom. They are legal inheritors due to the will of God who has 'named' them as his spiritual children. Alas, all the unrepentant sinners listed in verses 9 and 10 are not spiritual children of God, and so they are not heirs - they have no share in the spiritual inheritance due the children of God. They are not 'named' as heirs and inheritors of the Kingdom."

Yes, "an active life of faith and obedience." Unless you believe that salvation come strictly though good works, the grace of being saved get you into heaven without an "active life of faith and obedience."
Notice how you didn't give the source, so we can't check the specific tenets espoused.

[Magical Realist]

Same difference, since we are talking about the action of sex. IOW, again, it proves my point that sex is not necessary for love.

Not relevant as I am not and never have been in love. You need to show actual cases of people who are in love but who abstain from having sex. If there are any they are certainly very rare. And expecting LGBTs to be that way just because Christians say they should is utter bullshit.

Well, thanks for admitting you conflate the two.

It's the whole definition of guilt--of being responsible for doing something bad. There is no guilt if you've done nothing bad.

Yes, "an active life of faith and obedience." Unless you believe that salvation come strictly though good works, the grace of being saved get you into heaven without an "active life of faith and obedience.

Irrelevant. The verse lays out who will not receive the reward of heaven. That's what we are debating. And one of those was homosexuals or sodomites. Hence the Christian belief that being gay excludes you from eternal life. It's right there in the Bible. And it's also immortalized in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Syne]

Same difference, since we are talking about the action of sex. IOW, again, it proves my point that sex is not necessary for love.

Not relevant as I am not and never have been in love.

So... incel. Got it.

You need to show actual cases of people who are in love but who abstain from having sex. If there are any they are certainly very rare. And expecting LGBTs to be that way just because Christians say they should is utter bullshit.

Again, no one ever said they had to abstain. Most Christians don't care what two consenting adults do in their own home. They'd just prefer to never have to know about it.

Well, thanks for admitting you conflate the two.

It's the whole definition of guilt--of being responsible for doing something bad. There is no guilt if you've done nothing bad.

Guilty or The Guilty may refer to:
Guilt (emotion), an experience that occurs when a person believes they have violated a moral standard
Law
Culpability, the degree to which an agent can be held responsible for action or inaction
Guilt (law), a finding of legal culpability
Guilty plea, a formal admission of legal culpability
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilty

Notice how the emotion is differentiated from the law. The emotion has to do with the belief that one has violated a moral standard.
Depending on one's beliefs, this can include impure, hateful, etc. thoughts, because thoughts can show what's in the heart, and what's in the heart can become action if left unchecked.
I can understand how that would be a foreign concept to you.

Yes, "an active life of faith and obedience." Unless you believe that salvation come strictly though good works, the grace of being saved get you into heaven without an "active life of faith and obedience.

Irrelevant. The verse lays out who will not receive the reward of heaven. That's what we are debating. And one of those was homosexuals or sodomites. Hence the Christian belief that being gay excludes you from eternal life. It's right there in the Bible. And it's also immortalized in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Again, "inherit the kingdom of God" (earning honor in heaven) is not the same as "being saved" (simply going to heaven).
I notice you couldn't/wouldn't provide the source of you conflating the two.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for unrepentant wickedness.

[Magical Realist]

Again, no one ever said they had to abstain. Most Christians don't care what two consenting adults do in their own home. They'd just prefer to never have to know about it.

Bullshit they don't. Where have you been the last 10 posts? Christians preach that gay sex/love is perverted sin deserving of God's judgement. That's caring what consenting adults do any where. Which tells me they have too much time on their hands.

Notice how the emotion is differentiated from the law. The emotion has to do with the belief that one has violated a moral standard.

I never said feeling guilty. I said being actually guilty, which only happens when you commit an immoral action, and not when you just think about it.

Again, "inherit the kingdom of God" (earning honor in heaven) is not the same as "being saved" (simply going to heaven).

Nope...inheriting the kingdom of heaven is receiving the reward of heaven. Just like inheriting money is receiving money. It has nothing to do with "earning honor in heaven." lol

[Syne]

Again, no one ever said they had to abstain. Most Christians don't care what two consenting adults do in their own home. They'd just prefer to never have to know about it.

Bullshit they don't. Where have you been the last 10 posts? Christians preach that gay sex/love is perverted sin deserving of God's judgement. That's caring what consenting adults do any where. Which tells me they have too much time on their hands.

They also say gambling is a sin, but no one really cares if adults ruin themselves financially... so long as they don't turn to crime as a result. They wish it didn't happen, but no one's losing any sleep over it. Same for gays in the privacy of their own homes. By and large, no one's trying to bang down doors to yell "gotcha!" or trying to reinstitute anti-sodomy laws.

Notice how the emotion is differentiated from the law. The emotion has to do with the belief that one has violated a moral standard.

I never said feeling guilty. I said being actually guilty, which only happens when you commit an immoral action, and not when you just think about it.

No, you're just taking about things others can hold you guilty for.
Are you claiming the feeling of guilt is any less real for the person than someone accusing them of something?

Again, "inherit the kingdom of God" (earning honor in heaven) is not the same as "being saved" (simply going to heaven).

Nope...inheriting the kingdom of heaven is receiving the reward of heaven. Just like inheriting money is receiving money. It has nothing to do with "earning honor in heaven." lol

No, you're just Biblically illiterate.
Again:

"Being saved" refers to the initial act of God's grace by which a person receives forgiveness for their sins and the gift of eternal life, enabling them to enter the Kingdom of God. "Inheriting the Kingdom of God" goes further, suggesting a reward for faithful discipleship and transformation into Christ-likeness, allowing for co-ownership or greater responsibility within the Kingdom, not just a free entrance. Therefore, one is saved to enter the Kingdom, but a believer's walk of faith determines if they will inherit a greater portion or ownership within it.

In Christianity, the "reward" of heaven isn't material but consists of a deepened, eternal relationship with God, characterized by perfection, peace, joy, and wisdom. Believers can earn various "heavenly crowns" through their obedience and love for God during life, such as the Crown of Life for faithfulness in hardship or the Crown of Rejoicing for soul-winning. Salvation is a gift by grace, but the rewards are based on works, providing motivation for living a holy life and offering a greater appreciation for God's plan
- Google AI

If Google knows this, where do you think it came from? @_@