Does God actually find homosexual relations "abominable"?

[LightHorseman]

And you forget that God said to Abraham that not one good inhabitant remained in the cities of the plain.

As for your comment about "never mentioning homosexuality," I guess you don't consider Paul canon??

I'm not aware that Paul's opinions were particularly cogent in regards to God's decision to destroy S+G

 

[BreadAlone]

I'm not aware that Paul's opinions were particularly cogent in regards to God's decision to destroy S+G

Your right, it doesn't! Misread his post.

 

[LightHorseman]

Your right, it doesn't! Misread his post.

I do manage to be right every now and then.

 

[GenemZ]

The problem here is with "...lukewarm conceptually confused theology born out of the desire for some to want to live under the umbrella of Grace but judge everyone else through a Levitical Lens."

There is a time to judge on principle based upon Levitical law.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training
in righteousness."
​

All Scripture serves a purpose. Not just some.



The Levitical principles on civil law have not changed in God's eyes. Only how they are to be applied, has. Those worthy of death according to the Levitical law still remain worthy. Its just that we are no longer function under the Law. It was to be only law of the land in Israel, not for the entire world. But, the same principle of worthiness remains because God was not arbitrary in what he deemed worthy of death.

Romans 1:32
"Although they know God's righteous decree that those
who do such things deserve death, they not only continue
to do these very things but also approve of those
who practice them."

Jesus said that one can not serve two masters. <staff edit>

Ephesians 5:24-26
"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.


Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make
her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word."
​

Why would God not provide such a command directed for homosexuals? After all.. If God approves of loving homosexual couples? He would have.

There is not one single command given in the Word of God on how homosexuals should conduct themselves in marriage.

Notice how the command given in Ephesians 5:24-26, compares the man to Christ, and the woman to his church?
Homosexuality would render the church as being what? It would cease to exist in function.

God created both male and female in his image. When they function as a unit to reveal something of the nature of God. The homosexual couples I have known always had one acting more like a member of the opposite sex for some reason. I believe its because even they realize that there is a need for the innate differences between male and female to make a true relationship work. I am talking about relationships that are supposed to be monogamous. One of the two was always taking on characteristics and ways of the opposite sex.


.
​

​

 

[Nadiine]

So? Were there any words existing back then that were used specifically for "homosexuality?" I do not think that they even had a word "heterosexuality." Did they?

Descriptive terminology was often times used back then to describe realities. Realities that we have since invented unique words for. Words with a specific target in mind. They did not even have a specific word for the common experience called today "emotion." Instead, they used body parts to indicate various emotions.

Have to found specific words designated for homosexuality that was spoken back then? Where are these words that were not used in the Bible? Did they have specific Hebrew and Greek words exclusively used for homosexuality?
.

Words? Hey, Paul spells the sexual acts and the lust of that sex
out as worthy of death - - (ironically there was a death penalty
set on homosexuality),
and even spelling out the very act of lust towards the same
sex and exchanging the natural function of the opposite sexes for
same sex isn't enough for them.

If they had an exact word that meant what we use today for a
homosexual, you know there would be some lame excuse made up
like it's made up for every other instance an actual word was
found.

Even Jesus' definition of the recognized marital unit is discarded - they
not only have direct condemnations for it in both testaments, they have a
valid definition of marriage by Jesus Himself (who is the Creator of the male
& female so He should know why they were created that way), plus the spelling out
of the sexual relations specifically - -

But hey, that doesn't mean what it says.
Homosexuality is actually covered more than bestiality or incest
combined in all the bible, yet they'll easily concede that those
other 2 are STILL perversions.

Sorry but NOTHING is enough when people want to condone sin.
Amazing how people will make up excuses to justify what they want

 

[LightHorseman]

There is a time to judge on principle based upon Levitical law.

Correct. That time was 1BC and prior to that. Since then, we have this thing called "the new covenant". You might like to look into it.

All Scripture serves a purpose. Not just some.

Indeed it does. However, that does not mean that all scripture is intended to be taken absolutely literally, without question, as the only basis for legality and morality for ever and ever without regard to cultural context.

Jesus said that one can not serve two masters. Those who cling to their homosexuality hate God. Even if they attend church and act like they love God. They only love a god of their imagination. Not God.

What makes those who are homosexual any different to heterosexuals? Are you going to tell me that YOU don't "cling" to YOUR heterosexuality? Hmmm?

 

[LightHorseman]

Words? Hey, Paul spells the sexual acts and the lust of that sex
out as worthy of death - - (ironically there was a death penalty
set on homosexuality)

[citation needed]

and even spelling out the very act of lust towards the same
sex and exchanging the natural function of the opposite sexes for
same sex isn't enough for them.

Homosexuality IS natural.

But hey, why are you taking Paul's word as such a good indication of appropriate behaviour? You blatantly disregard what he has to say about other issues... indeed, issues he speaks about far more clearly and with far less room for differing interpretation than any stance he may have had on homosexuality. 1 Timothy 2:12 "11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. " And yet here you are, contradicting Paul's direct word at least as much as any homosexual. How do you explain that?

(For all those desperately reaching for the report tab... I don't for a moment have a problem with women teaching in church or expressing their opinions about matters religious, indeed, I welcome it. What I question is the apparent double standard of a woman who is more than happy to cite Paul to justify her condemnation of homosexuals, yet sees nothing wrong with going against others of Paul's teachings. It is the double standard I have a problem with, not a woman having an opinion)

 

[AngelusSax]

Jesus said that one can not serve two masters. Those who cling to their homosexuality hate God. Even if they attend church and act like they love God. They only love a god of their imagination. Not God.

Judgmental people love their judgments and the God they have invented, not God.

I could surmise you hate God with an unfathomable passion. But I won't. The God I know and love is big enough to love people who aren't exact cabon copies of extreme fundamentalists, and to save them as they are, requiring nothing in return.

Apparently not all people see God as big enough to love people other than them and their exact matches...

and even spelling out the very act of lust towards the same
sex and exchanging the natural function of the opposite sexes for
same sex isn't enough for them.

As a result of their turning away from God and worshipping created things. Certainly this does not apply to all homosexuals today. Nor are all heterosexual people believers in God.

If a homosexual does indeed need to repent of their sexuality, God will work that repentance in them in His time. God works repentence in all of us (our wills don't turn toward God apart from God's grace, our nature is to do the exact opposite).

Sorry but NOTHING is enough when people want to condone sin.
Amazing how people will make up excuses to justify what they want

As true as that statement is, it is also amazing the mental gymastics people will go through to justify their gleeful condemnation unto hell an entire sub-section of the human population because "well I don't do that particular sin, so I can say anything I want to about it". People are all too happy (yes, happy) to point out the condemnation of homosexuals, but if they are engaging in sins such as gossip (whether good talk or bad talk), or speaking in such a way as to tear down someone else, well those sins "aren't as bad".

We place a hierarchy into sins that just isn't there. We don't set out to do that, of course (how much you want to bet some will skip that line and take things I've said out of context to try and twist my words and intent...), but we do that. Notice the word "we". I include myself in this. I get caught in the trap of "I sin, but not as bad as them, so I feel good about myself". That, in and of itself, is sin.

I recognize I am an unworthy wretch. But God loves me because God loves me. The fact that I am heterosexual is inconsequential to that, and He has shown me that.

 

[GenemZ]

Judgmental people love their judgments and the God they have invented, not God.

Thank you, Mr. Nice Guy vampire. (which is oxymoronic to the core)

1 Corinthians 2:13-15
"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human
wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual
truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not
accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they
are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them,
because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man
makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not
subject to any man's judgment."
​

Is that all a big lie to you? Christians are on earth to be God's witnesses to God's judgment of sin and evil. Yet, we are not subject to any man's judgment. Why is that?

John 3:7-8
"You should not be surprised at my saying,
'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it
pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell
where it comes from or where it is going.
So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
​

In other words..

The unbeliever (or, the perpetually carnal Christian) can hear the words of the spiritual believer. But, without walking in the Spirit? They end up saying.."Where the heck is this guy coming from!?" I know by what you express that you are out of the loop to know this is truth experientially.

I could surmise you hate God with an unfathomable passion. But I won't. The God I know and love is big enough to love people who aren't exact cabon copies of extreme fundamentalists, and to save them as they are, requiring nothing in return.

Extreme fundamentalists?

Ironically, its your own hatred expressed by what you confess towards who God really is. A God who will not compromising with evil. Hating his immutable holiness in regards to such matters. It has blinded you with hatred.

You need to find someone who can remove those from you.






1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived;
neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves,
nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."​

Homosexual activity was very common in Rome when that was written. So? It would be hard to assume that they did not make the list.

I ask you. Why do you think believers in the church were needing to be warned, Do not be deceived?

Because back then there were those who sympathized with those mentioned on the list. They had sympathy for those who were living a life that was ungodly and to be condemned by God.

Isaiah 55:8
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD."

​

Its you who hate God. Yet, you keep trying to ram down our throats your re-invention of God. Your version of God. Your god who places sentimentality above righteousness and holiness. A righteousness and holiness that can not be compromised.

Man was created in God's image. Homosexuality is a gross distortion of that image. Its you who hate God. Deeply. You resent God as a vampire would.




In Christ, GeneZ




.

 

[max1120]

Nadine

Forgive me but do we still call it "Christianity" or did I miss the memo when they changed the name to "Paulianity"? It is suprising how whenever cornered with the FACTS like the correct meaning of the hebrew word "To'ebah" off some people run to Paul. "Oh yes right here Paul says" ...its as if Jesus, the Old Testament Prophets, and the REAL APOSTLES don't matter, its all about Paul..lol. Why is this I wonder? Could it be that Paul agrees with you? He has an obession with sex, a hatred of women, a warped view of sexuality, and to top it off is clearly on ego trip trying to tell the REAL APOSTLES how to govern the church. Paul goes around calling himself an Apostle as do his followers, yet curiously no one other than those EVER calls him an Apostle. Even in 2 Peter ( a book whoes author is not known and was among most disputed not by me but by the church fathers as I have shown evidence of in earlier post) refers to him as "our brother". Being there brother showed fellowship, but not equality, think about the terms. Even though I dispute 2 Peter as "authoritative because we can not affirm its authorship, even that book does not give Paul the level of importance you are attempting to ascribe to him. Paul WAS NOT JESUS and he was NEVER an APOSTLE.

Pauline Christianity is a currption of Christianity as was taught by Christ and the REAL APOSTLES.

 

[AngelusSax]

Forgive me but do we still call it "Christianity" or did I miss the memo when they changed the name to "Paulianity". It is suprising how whenever cornered with the FACTS like the correct meaning of the hebrew word "To'ebah" off some people run to Paul. "Oh yes right here Paul says" ...its as if Jesus, the Old Testament Prophets, and the REAL APOSTLES don't matter, its all about Paul..lol. Why is this I wonder? Could it be that Paul agrees with you? He has an obession with sex, a hatred of women, a warped view of sexuality, and to top it off is clearly on ego trip trying to tell the REAL APOSTLES how to govern the church. Paul goes around calling himself an Apostle as do his followers, yet curiously no one other than those EVER calls him an Apostle. Even in 2 Peter ( a book whoes author is not known and was among most disputed not by me but by the church fathers as I have shown evidence of in earlier post) refers to him as "our brother". Being there brother showed fellowship, but not equality, think about the terms. Even though I dispute 2 Peter as "authoritative because we can not affirm its authorship, even that book does not give Paul the level of importance you are attempting to ascribe to him. Paul WAS NOT JESUS and he was NEVER an APOSTLE.

Pauline Christianity is a currption of Christianity as was taught by Christ and the REAL APOSTLES.

Sorry, I gotta step in here and probably shock Nadiine and genez and others:

Paul indeed was an apostle. Not in the sense of having been with Jesus from the beginning, but he was nevertheless called to be an apostle. God was showing, through him, that God could change even the hardest of legalistic hearts, and that God's ways aren't ours, etc. The other apostles listened to Paul and regarded him as worthy of listening to.

And Paul did not have a hatred of women. I would recommend reading some books such as "Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology on Women in Ministry" by Stanley Grenz and Denise Kjesbo. They show what, from their studies, Paul was saying, and how it has been misinterpreted over the years (though they do a good job of protraying both sides of that issue without degrading that which they disagree with).

Paul was inspired. Probably wasn't in a trance writing like a puppet, but was inspired nonetheless. Paul wasn't Jesus, but he still became the apostle to the gentiles. And since I am a gentile, that makes him an apostle to me too.

 

[timlamb]

I am here to give something to think about.

Many actions are sin and to sin in the act of violating the natural use of the body is to misuse the temple given by God for the Spirit to dwell in. But I believe something becomes an abomination before God when it involves an act that is an intentional violation of the creation.

I have seen the scriptures given boldly to drunks and druggies and adulterers, and liars, and they might scoff but they can maintain respect for the messenger of the word. They might tell you to shut up and leave them alone or curse God, but the one thing you never see is pride.

I just attended a "Gay Pride" parade and held a banner stating that homosex is a sin, and well, the nice ones only flipped me off. There was such an attack on God and the Word that I never thought it could be possible.

When you read Romans 1 you find that God gave them over to their lusts because of their denial. So they begin by denying the true and living God and His word, then commit these acts of defiling the body. A kid experimenting or a drunk being seduced in physical pleasure, that is not abominable. It is the intent to change the intended use of creation and denial of God and His authority that bring about the act of abomination.

I think that would fit better with the intended message of the old Testament. Scripture does say the act is a sin punishable by death and I won't argue that, but the part that makes it an abomination is more than the physical act.

I have never seen anyone so set in their sin as a homosexual challenged by scripture, and when they are cometogether to support eachother in their sin they get down right vile. There is no reasoning with a self justified Gay, they are in a delusional denial of truth.

 

[max1120]

AngelusSax

Sorry my temper gets away with me at times and I become rather blunt. My contention is that Pauline Christianity is a sect which puts more importance on Paul's epistiles, than it does to any other portion of the bible. Futher I believe the undue influnce of the Bishops of Rome in the early days of the church were to influnced by Paul.

With due respect I have a few questions for you, perhaps you could give me your perspective on the matter so that I can better understand your position.

1. How do you arrive at the position that Paul was an Apostle? It appears that the only people who called Paul an Apostle were (a) Paul himself, he says it about 20 times in his works, (2) Apollos, Paul he is discribed to us in scripture as a deciple of Paul's, and (3) Luke, who also like Apollos was a just a follower of Paul's. Other than Paul's followers there appears no where in scripture an "athoritative" statement that Paul was anything even close to an "Apostle". In fact Paul is not even mentioned in Mathew, Mark, or John. Paul mentions Mark but Mark does mention Paul. This is very striking. It is also clear from scripture that NONE of the Apostles refer to Paul nor any of his followers as an "Apostle" ever anywhere in the bible.

2.If Paul were an Apostle, why do all of the others not refer to him as an Apostle? For example we see multiple examples of the various Apostles (Mark, John, James and Peter for example) refer to one anohter as "Apostles". In fact Paul is not even mentioned in Why do they not refer to Paul in a similar way?

3. Paul seems to be a trouble maker and he appears very bent on "control" he has lost of disagreements even beyond the Jeruselem twelve (Apostles). For example Baranabas. When Barnabas does not do things Paul's way..off Paul goes ( Acts 16:36-41) and does not seem to need barnabas any furhter.

3. Paul was quite hostle toward the Apostles. This is borne out in several places in the NT. For example Paul is openly hostile toward Mark (The Apostle who was John Mark the author of Mark's Gospel). He had similar hostle realations with James (Acts 21:21). He also had major difficulties with Peter when the later visted Paul in Antioch. In fact there is quite a bit of tension between Paul and the Jeruselem twelve. The closest anything the bible comes to an indorsement of Paul by the twelve is found in 2 Peter. The book of 2 Peter was quite contravresial among the early church fathers as I have pointed out in my earlier post and almost did not make into the cannon. It was not accepted unil almost 400 AD. Also the author of 2 Peter is highly disputed by scholars. Some have suspected that 2 Peter was actually authored by Paul which could explain the praise lauded upon him by Peter in the book.

4. Paul contradicts all of the Apostles regarding the number of times Christ appeared after the crucifixion. I believe Pual is the only person in the bible to make the claim that Christ appeared to 500 witnesses after the resurrection. That is a pretty huge thing to just leave out, why would not at least one of the Apostles seen fit to include it? What about Mary Magnaline who Paul and Luke his follower just edits out all together. Paul seems only able to claim visions and dreams in his head.

5. Paul appears only to be able to claim visions in dreams and voices in his head without a single Apostle who was with Jesus to confirm them. Paul's only claim to fame (his vision on the road to Domascus) is not confirmed by a single independent source. So we really have to just Paul to rely upon for the validity of his claims. None of his followers were even present.

6. Lets face it Paul did have issues with women: (1) "let women learn in silence" (1 Timothy 2:11). "Man was not created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Chorinthians 11:9). He also blames everything in the garden of eden on women through eve (1 Timothy 2:14). He basically blames all of mans ills on women and says that they have a lower role in society and that men are to rule over women. You need to look no further than Paul's view of Eve to understand why Paul has the low view of women he seems to have in his epstiles.

7. Paul is obsessed with sex. He attacks sexuality and epecially homosexuality more than any other writer in the new testament. He seems to endorse celibacy over marriage and even goes so far as to tell his followers not to marry in expectation of the soon return of Christ.

From the way I see it there is no really compelling reason to accept Paul as an Apostle nor his epistles as authorative. However I am open to hearing your views and any information or proof you may care to presen to the contrary.

I will leave these for now, but there are others, but I would like to hear your views on these first.

Max

 

[max1120]

Timlamb

I understand what you are saying and I am sorry that you felt mistreated by the people at the gay pride parade. However I do sympathize with their feelings on this matter. They are angry because you present them with something that says they should be put to death simply because of whom they chose to have sex with. That is pretty cruel and cannot be supported by sane, rational, people with any shred of a conscience. It is barbaric. Even if you are not actually considering killing them for having homosexual sex, you are suggesting that it is/was ok for it to be done. Clearly this is highly offensive, insinsitive and completly barbbaric. I will not excuse their behavior toward you, but I can understand it. This is the problem with street preachers, those who run about with signs at gay pride pardes trying to say things as you had printed on your sign. I appears antagonistic to them. If you showed up at my St Patricks day BBQ and condemed all the drunken Irishmen, you most likely would not be very welcome. So I can understand how these people felt and why they acted as they did.

 

[LightHorseman]

Nadine

Forgive me but do we still call it "Christianity" or did I miss the memo when they changed the name to "Paulianity"? It is suprising how whenever cornered with the FACTS like the correct meaning of the hebrew word "To'ebah" off some people run to Paul. "Oh yes right here Paul says" ...its as if Jesus, the Old Testament Prophets, and the REAL APOSTLES don't matter, its all about Paul..lol. Why is this I wonder? Could it be that Paul agrees with you? He has an obession with sex, a hatred of women, a warped view of sexuality, and to top it off is clearly on ego trip trying to tell the REAL APOSTLES how to govern the church. Paul goes around calling himself an Apostle as do his followers, yet curiously no one other than those EVER calls him an Apostle. Even in 2 Peter ( a book whoes author is not known and was among most disputed not by me but by the church fathers as I have shown evidence of in earlier post) refers to him as "our brother". Being there brother showed fellowship, but not equality, think about the terms. Even though I dispute 2 Peter as "authoritative because we can not affirm its authorship, even that book does not give Paul the level of importance you are attempting to ascribe to him. Paul WAS NOT JESUS and he was NEVER an APOSTLE.

Pauline Christianity is a currption of Christianity as was taught by Christ and the REAL APOSTLES.

Possibly phrased a little harsher than I would have said it, but essentially well said. I do think a lot of people put more stock in Paul than in Jesus, as Paul gives them permission to condemn and villify, which is much more fun than Jesus' message of hope, love and forgiveness.

The only real question I think is, are the "Paulian" Christians aware they are doing it, and are they capable of shifting their focus away from Paul's message and back to Jesus?

 

[timlamb]

Timlamb

I understand what you are saying and I am sorry that you felt mistreated by the people at the gay pride parade. However I do sympathize with their feelings on this matter. They are angry because you present them with something that says they should be put to death simply because of whom they chose to have sex with. That is pretty cruel and cannot be supported by sane, rational, people with any shred of a conscience. It is barbaric. Even if you are not actually considering killing them for having homosexual sex, you are suggesting that it is/was ok for it to be done. Clearly this is highly offensive, insinsitive and completly barbbaric. I will not excuse their behavior toward you, but I can understand it. This is the problem with street preachers, those who run about with signs at gay pride pardes trying to say things as you had printed on your sign. I appears antagonistic to them. If you showed up at my St Patricks day BBQ and condemed all the drunken Irishmen, you most likely would not be very welcome. So I can understand how these people felt and why they acted as they did.

I understand completely your point, flat out harrassment will be met with contempt. We were pleading for their souls and they taunted and behaved in vile and corrupt ways. Exposing themselves to have their picture taking in front of the hateful condemning signs that said "repent". would you still defend your drunken irishmen if they were boligerant and crude and mocked God in their drunkenness. These people defend homosexuality like it was a holy state, the applaud the christian and deviant alike as long as they are supporting Gay "Pride".

Talk of barbarism, this resembled more of a sexual free-for-all, an orgy, completely immoral, and I mean lacking any sign of moral influance. Nothing was too far, except to call it sin and call for repentance, for that they all agreed, hell was to good for us.

I never use the old testament, I stand on Romans 1.

 

[timlamb]

I completely understand also about your issues with Pauline dispensationallists. They are completly mistaken in their beliefs. But I find nothing in Pauls writing to discount his standing as the apostle to the gentiles. Remember someone took Judas' place after the Death of Christ and is counted as one of the twelve.

 

[max1120]

TimLamb

Fist of all Paul:

It almost appears as though Paul nearly eclipses Christ in Pauline Christianity. Paul at best was a "teacher" at worst..well I will leave it at teacher to avoid sounding to harsh.

As for Paul being an Apostle that replaces Judas Iscariot, Paul was not chosen to replace Judas. Look in Acts and you will see what I am talking about. Read Acts 1:1-26. The remaining Apostles selected Mathias as the replacement for Judas after Judas had betrayed Christ. There is no place in scripture where the Apostles gave the title of Apostle to Paul.

Ignoring the Old Testament is not a good practice. Are going to suggest that God just changed his word? Was God just kidding for the first few billiions of years, then came along and say, "never mind what I said in the old testament". Further the New Testament gives witness to the validity of the old testament. One without the other is like a one armed man trying to juggle.

As far as your feelings regarding how you were treated by the people attending the gay pride festivities, again I am sorry that you felt mistreated and I do think that they would have been better served had they treated you with greater kindness. If it had been my drunken Irish friends we would have invited you over for some ale, if you declined I would have handed you some bbq and then asked you be nice or leave. But you would have been treated kindly as long as you acted kindly to us. Now you may not see your sign as all that big a deal and I may not either but look at the matter from their point of view. Throughout history that sort of judgmental tone has thrown at them and it has cost them dearly and in some cases cost them their lives. When people go around quoting Romans 1 again this comes from Paul who is pretty well established as the author of Romans. Since he is not credited as an Apostle he is not to be taken as authorative. Christ selected the twelve and then he intrusted them to pass forward through Apostolic succession the office to their successors. Paul was not among these successors nor was he among the origional twelve Apostles.

I have had some bad experiences myself with street preachers who verbally assaulted my girlfriend to whom I am engaged. They called her every name in the book and I was not shy with my reply. So I am not very fond of the group in general but I realize not everyone is the same.

My suggestion is select another venue in which to try minister people other than at the gay pride or similar festivities. Better yet, befriend them on a one on one basis, get to know them as human beings. Do not judge them and accept them for who they are as people. Put aside your feelings about thier sexual preferences and practices. Once you see them as real people, with real lives, who eat, sleep, love, hate, work, play, and pay taxes just like you and me, then decided for yourself if you really think they are depraved people who need to be put to death as Paul suggest in Romans 1:32. Paul was obsessed with sex and his views on sex and sexuality overtook him. He condemed vertually all forms of sexuality save for the most modest. He was quite judgemental and it was with this same spirt of Judgementalness that many have assaulted gays throught the history of christianity. So try to understand them, give them compassion and treat them as people not gay people, not people you think need saving, but just people and I am sure most will treat you with the same respect in return.

Max

 

[max1120]

Lighthorseman,

Don't hold your breath. I bet if we unearthed documets showing Paul was dismissed by the Jeruselem twelve, guess what they would still say Paul was an Apostle. They choose to believe it regarless of the evidence shown to the contrary. This group of albeit well meaning Christians wants to make Paul into some sort of Super Apostle, but nothing could be farther from the truth since he was never an Apostle to start with. But that is all wasted breath on them as they just want to believe no matter the evidence to the contrary in front of their eyes.

Thank you for your support.

 

[GenemZ]

Don't hold your breath. I bet if we unearthed documets showing Paul was dismissed by the Jeruselem twelve, guess what they would still say Paul was an Apostle. They choose to believe it regarless of the evidence shown to the contrary. This group of albeit well meaning Christians wants to make Paul into some sort of Super Apostle, but nothing could be farther from the truth since he was never an Apostle to start with. But that is all wasted breath on them as they just want to believe no matter the evidence to the contrary in front of their eyes.

2 Peter 3:15-16
"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation,
just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the
wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in
all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.
His letters contain some things that are hard
to understand, which ignorant and unstable people
distort, as they do the other Scriptures,
to their own destruction."
​

Peter gave full endorsement of Paul's ministry. Not only that, Peter equated Paul's letters to be included in with other Scriptures. Peter said ignorant and unstable men distorted Paul's letters just like they distort THE OTHER Scriptures.

Enjoy your fun. You are nothing new.

NASB...
"As also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things,
in which are some things hard to understand, which the
untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest
of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."


​

Amplified Bible...
"Speaking of this as he does in all of his letters.
There are some things in those [epistles of Paul]
that are difficult to understand, which the
ignorant and unstable twist and misconstrue to
their own utter destruction, just as [they distort
and misinterpret] the rest of the Scriptures."
​

Wycliffe New Testament...
"As and in all his epistles he speaketh in them of these
things; in which be some hard things to understand,
which unwise and unstable men deprave [As and in all
epistles he speaking in them of these things; in which be
some hard things in understanding, the which unwise,
or untaught, and unstable men deprave], as also they
do other scriptures, to their own perdition."
​

.