AIS intersex people prove that God does not condemn gay marriage

I apologized in my second post for not being more clear on whether or not we are talking about the God of the Bible or not. I have never met you and do not know what you know and what you do not know. Communication is not an exact science. You keep choosing to rehash the subject. As I said, it you want to drop the debate, then do it. As for Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, we must understand that the Bible was not written in English, but was written in Hebrew and we must have the Hebrew translation. Leviticus 18:22 (Hebrew translation) You shall not lie with a male [on] the bedding of a woman it is a despised thing. (The women"s portion of the tent was separated by a curtain from the men"s half, and it was strictly off limits. A male stranger who entered a woman"s quarters could be punished with death. Sisera hid in Jael"s tent, but paid for it with his life (Judg. 4:18-21)." Leviticus KJV 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (KJV) Leviticus 18:22 ESV You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. As you can see, as we go from Hebrew through the translations and bible rewrites, to the present time (I've only stated a few examples but its a lot more complicated then this) it's original meaning like many statements in Leviticus sound none relevant in modern society, if 18:22 stayed with its original translation nobody would pay any attention to it. Its been translated like this purely to boost bible sales. Newer bible sales have become more and more homophobic to boost sales. Homosexual global population is around 10% lesbians 6%. By hurting the minority the bible publication have boosted sales for the overhaul majority 90% straight male. he plural Hebrew word mish-che-ve (the bedding of) appears only 3 times in the Hebrew OT. The three places are at: Gen. 49:4, Lev. 18:22 & Lev. 20:13. The "bedding" or "bed" in tents consisted of the mattress which was stuffed with straw or feathers or animal skins spread out. So, looking at the meaning of the original text, we get a little closer with "Likewise male shall not lie bed wife is hated it". Fixing the grammar just a touch can give us a better translation of "Likewise, (you) shall not lie down with a man in (your) wife's bed. It is hated." This actually makes sense in the context of the entire chapter, which also prohibits incest of various forms, and other sections of Leviticus that prohibit adultery. Many Christians don't realize that some men today will pretend that homosexual sex isn't adultery because it's not "real sex"; I wouldn't be surprised if this was going on in the days of Moses as well. And of course, it makes sense that the Bible would prohibit same-sex adultery. What doesn't make sense is why the Bible would prohibit two males from having sex (under any circumstances) and not prohibit two females. Furthermore, those two verses in particular were in the Old Testament. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that the entire law is summed up into one commandment; "Love your neighbor as yourself." Galatians 5:14. Either that verse is true or it is not. Eating pork, wearing clothing that contains more than one type of fabric are ALL forbidden. Eating shellfish (Lev 11:9-12), a woman wearing a man's cloak (Deut 22:5) and the Hebrews breaking bread with the Egyptians (Gen 43:32) are ALL abominations too. We are not under the law anymore, but under grace, so unless you follow ALL the laws of the Old Testament, then please don't quote it to me. Furthermore, I have already shown we are not under the law of Moses anymore in Galatians 5:14, Romans 10:4, and Hebrews 8:13. My opponent has yet to give a rebuttal to these verses. As for Jude 1:7, "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." If you read the first sentence in Genesis 19, it says what that "strange flesh" or "unnatural desire" actually was; "1Now the two ANGELS came to Sodom..." The "strange flesh" were "angels", not men. Furthermore, Genesis 19:3-5, "3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom"both young and old"surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." This passage clearly deals with homosexual RAPE. No one is defending rape and I would agree that rape is a sin, since it is not "loving your neighbor as yourself". Christians love to point to this passage and say that since these men wanted to rape these men in a homosexual way, homosexuality, therefore is wrong. That biased argument does not work, simply for the fact that if it were WOMEN these men wanted to rape, we would not say that heterosexuality is wrong, would we? I don't know what Bible you are reading from, but there not a word for "homosexual" in Greek nor Hebrew at the time the books of the Bible were written. there was not Greek word for "homosexual" at the time that verse was written. The word translated for "homosexuals" there in Greek was "arsenkoites" a compound word meaning "arsen" (male-plural) "koites" (bed). The fact of the matter is that no one knows for sure what Paul meant by that word when he used it. It was the first recorded use of that word. Since no one knows for certain, you cannot site it as "proof" of your position. You can't take compound words at face value. "Honeymoon" and "armchair" cannot be interpreted literally. Some scholars believe that it had to do with a male prostitution ring and not necessarily a homosexual one either. So you have NOT "proven" anything at this point. In fact the word, the word "homosexual" first appeared in the New Revised Standard (RSV) Bible in 1946. http://carm.org...... The accurate translation of 1 Cor 6:9-10 is, "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, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."" The word "effeminate" is the Greek word, "malakos" meaning, "lazy, soft, cowardly, or weak." Now for Romans 1, First of all, you can't "give up" something you never had in the first place. If I ask you for a million dollars, you can't "give it up" to me if you never had it, right? The use of the woman for gay men, is not NATURAL. Second of all, no one that I know of is defending LUST. Obviously these men were straight because they left the women in the name of LUST. That of course would be wrong. There was lust, promiscuity, and adultery going on in this passage. It is clearly not "loving your neighbor". We would never read a passage in the Bible about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and condemn all heterosexual marriages, would we? Now before you try to say that verse says that homosexuality goes against "NATURE": 1 Cor 11:113-15 says "Does not the very NATURE of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..." Nature had to do with custom, not biology. Unless of course you believe that NATURE controls the length of a man's hair! It is the same Greek word for "nature/natural" in Greek translated in 1 Cor 11 as it is in Romans . "phusis " We are to interpret Scripture with other Scripture. A word cannot mean one thing in one verse and something else in another. Just because I UNDERSTAND what the Bible says, does not mean that I BELIEVE it is infallible or does not contradict itself. That is why 1Cor 7:2, contradicts the fact that AIS people exist! If God told us that each man should have his own wife, what sex should AIS people choose? God was addressing everyone in the Bible, right? This proves my point and you have yet to give a rebuttal for it. Was God lying? Good question. I'm asking YOU how you reconcile your position on homosexuality, the Bible, and AIS people together without contradicting the Bible. That was the point of this debate. I have not contradicted myself at all. I never claimed the Torah was not a reliable source; I simply told you to quote it exactly. That is only fair. I can't pull any verse out of the Bible and expect you to trust ME without telling you where I got it. I stand by my claim that God claims to be "just" and that God's law DID change. I offered evidence of such as well. My opponent called the Bible "God's Word". I see no evidence of such a claim and once again, no evidence was offered to defend that position. Since the law changed because the Bible says it did, my opponent has no argument. My stance has not changed at all. Let me be perfectly clear about this; I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God and I intend to prove that you can't hold the view that you do on homosexuality, AIS people, and the Bible, without contradicting yourself. My opponent wants to know what my definition of a "just God' is. I would say, "A God that practices justice or fairness" The Bible says, "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34) That means that all men are equal in his sight, therefore, He is "fair". Psalm 89:14, "JUSTICE and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face." Please offer evidence for the following, for you have yet to do so: 1)If your argument is based on position that God made male and female and they are only supposed to choose the opposite as a mate, who should intersex people choose? 2) What scriptural evidence do you have to support that they should remain celibate? 3) Explain or offer scriptural evidence of why a "just" God would make one set of rules for on person and not another when they were born a certain way.