God loves homosexuals, but does not approve of their actions.

Thanks again. I think that I made a mistake when I made this debate only three arguments long, because it seems that both of us could go longer than that. It is what it is, though, and we will have to make due:) Now to my final argument. "I do not doubt that the holy men of the Bible heard the voice of God or that they were influenced by the Holy Spirit, but the fact of the matter is, they were men. While God is infallible, man is not, yet unfortunately, the only way to record the word of God was to filter it through man. In a way, the Bible is the word of God as interpreted by man, and each man interpreted it differently. " I beg to differ. The Bible is the infallible Word of God, and though it was filtered through man, it is nonetheless infallible. You say also that the Bible is the Word of God as interpreted by man, but I believe that this is also incorrect. If the Bible was intended to be interpreted differantly by every man, then we would simply not have an unchanging God. In the Bible, God makes it clear that He never changes: Hebrews 13:8--- "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. " Hebrews 1:12--- "Like a cloak you will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail. " If God allowed each man to interperate it differantly, He would have to change for everyones differant beliefs, and it would make Him a liar when He speaks in these verses. Having said this, the verses that I quoted in Leviticus still stand as able to be read literally, and applicable today. In your next paragraph, you say that many of the sexual acts practiced by homosexuals were practiced first by heterosexuals, and this may be so, but I still believe that the Bible is clear on the fact that any sexual act is natural as long as it is performed on the oppisite sex within the bounds of marriage. The Romans passage that that I quoted still says that the men exchanged their NATURAL relations for UNNATURAL ones, and my argument that God created us to act naturally still stands. "However, I must ask, what is it that makes sex immoral or not? " Sex, when involving a man and a woman is not at all immoral. It is sodomy that is described as immoral. Like I said in my last argument, in 1 Tim. 1:9-10, sodomite make it onto the list of lawless. Why would sodomites make it onto the list of lawless if sodomy was not an immoral act? Why would homosexuals fail to enter the kingdom of God if homosexuality is not a sin (1 Cor. 6:9)? As for the Ladies of Llangolen, I do believe that their relationship was immoral. Yes, they may have been devoted to eachother, and yes, they may have loved eachother, but once again, the Bible describes this kind of love as unnatural. "It is even considered cancel out sin in a way" I think that you took this verse a little bit out of context. When the Bible says "Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs. ", it does not mean that love coveres sin, because the Bible is VERY clear on the fact that nothiong but the innocent blood of Jesus can take sin away. I believe that this verse is refering more to the "do not return evil for evil" idea. If this were to be refering to the actual covering of sin, it would creat an irreversable contradiction. "So if a relationship holds true to the virtue of love, how can it be wrong? " LEVITICUS 18:22--- " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. '" This says it is wrong in plain terms. If it is detestable to God, you cannot rest assured that He will simply let it go on account of love. 1 Cor. 6:9 says that homosexuality is a sin, and even if it does involve true love, love is not enough to cover a sin that keeps one from the kingdom of God. Thank you again for this very wnjoyable debate! I leardned a lot about your position, and learned a lot about mine as well! This has to be the most enjoyable debate that I have done so far. God bless! Renzzy