A re-examination of nothing

[savedandhappy1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imana
Well, from my own experience, I too have loved and have been emotionally and sexuality compatible with some men in the past (and they me as well) but a intimate relationship did not happen. Why? Because he was not the right one for me nor I him. So to me, you cannot depend upon your emotions and especially sexual compatibility (when btw, can be easily learned if marriage were to happen) to decide what's love and what's not. And to bring God into this like He just HAS to approve everything we think is good, otherwise He's a spiteful mean and selfish God? Please. If that were true, then honey, I'd be the happiest woman on earth!



Read and study Romans 1:21-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11. They will explain to you why homosexuality is sin. And our own logic has nothing to do with spirituality. Read Proverbs 3:5-6.

Because in case you didn't know, this is spritual battle everybody in this world is in, whether we like it or not. So it's not enough to just be adamite about what is sin and what isn't and leave it at that and be on about your business, but WHY it is and just how damaging it can be for those who submit to sin and also those who have to bear the burden of those who choose to sin.

Tha's why the bible is so important. It tells us WHY, among many other things.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well I haven't seen one iota of Scriptural proof that is interpreted correctly and by other Scriptures. It is ALL personal interpretation, which we are warned against.

Can you show me ANY "scriptural proof" that ISN'T based on someone's personal interpretation?

 

[davedjy]

Well I haven't seen one iota of Scriptural proof that is interpreted correctly and by other Scriptures. It is ALL personal interpretation, which we are warned against.

I don't get the point you are making...everything has an interpretation and a historical context. Everyone has to personally decide which interpretation they wish to follow, after having all the evidence before them. You love to use the argument that the majority of Christians believe homosexuality to be a sin, but if you ask the majority how many have seen pro-gay theology, the majority has and currently does say they haven't seen the other side of the argument.

1. You've been given the historical context of Romans 1 which is idolatrous pagan orgy sex practices, which include both heterosexual AND homosexual debauchery, yet you have chosen to ignore that context. That historical context has been proven. Verse 23 connects the dots about ACTUAL idolatry. The prevailing god was Aphrodite in Corinth. You still turn that passage to be about gays and lesbians, and believe that to condemn same sex relationships, EVEN though same sex relationships are not mentioned in Romans 1. That is YOUR interpretation. You follow it personally.

You've seen the proof that 1 Cor. 6:9, and the translation of arsenokoitai is a false translation, since using the word "homosexual" in the Bible is a breaking of Biblical exegesis. Why one might ask? because there isn't any viable translation of the word "homosexual" in the Hebrew or Greek. You choose to follow a false translation that is made up on a broken rule. You STILL choose to follow it. That is again, your choice. Humorous at best even if one was to follow that translation, because celibate homosexuals are not practicing anything, yet they are condemned by a false translation as well.

Leviticus...not a credible passage to be used among the Scholars, anyone wishing to condemn others based upon those verses, it's cherry picking at best. The Hebrew word "toevah" (translated "abomination" and "detestable act") is a cultic, not a moral, term. The English "abomination" means abhorrent, loathsome, unspeakably bad. Toevah means ritually unclean. Eating pork is toevah; having sex with a menstruating woman is toevah. The historical context of Leviticus is again, an idolatrous ritual of a pagan sex practice before a false god, a ceremonial ritual in the Canaanite religion. Against this practice, is the historical context of the passage. You still personally believe another interpretation of the passage, condemning same sex relationships/unions not mentioned in the passage.

Yes it most certainly does. It is an understood model that Jesus was talking about, for there is none other! My goodness, the gay agenda is thick.

Show me the verse that says specifically what I asked, otherwise you do not have proof. There isn't anything that says "there is no other model, this is the only one". Please give me the verse that says that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that two opposite sex genders must be involved for it to happen and/or be valid.


Using phrases like "gay agenda" do not lend credibility to your argument. I can just as easily say you have a religious anti-gay agenda. The only "gay agenda" I or anyone else in this forum can be proven to see, is fair and equal treatment for all God's people EXACTLY the way we were created.

 

[Floatingaxe]

We need more proof from you that you are living according to the model that God has set forth in Eden. You are challenging the standard. Come on--we are waiting. Otherwise your own credibility is a wipe-out. Being homosexual is not its own proof. It is an unnatural bent, and you need to prove otherwise according to God's holy word. Thanks.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

We need more proof from you that you are living according to the model that God has set forth in Eden. You are challenging the standard. Come on--we are waiting. Otherwise your own credibility is a wipe-out. Being homosexual is not its own proof. It is an unnatural bent, and you need to prove otherwise according to God's holy word. Thanks.

Are YOU living according to the model set forth in Eden?

Did you marry a sibling?

Homosexuality is entirely natural. Thats why it occurs in nature

 

[HaloHope]

Well, from my own experience, I too have loved and have been emotionally and sexuality compatible with some men in the past (and they me as well) but a intimate relationship did not happen. Why? Because he was not the right one for me nor I him. So to me, you cannot depend upon your emotions and especially sexual compatibility (when btw, can be easily learned if marriage were to happen) to decide what's love and what's not. And to bring God into this like He just HAS to approve everything we think is good, otherwise He's a spiteful mean and selfish God? Please. If that were true, then honey, I'd be the happiest woman on earth!

In my experience I have only felt emotionally and sexually compatible with one other person (the person I have just begun my third year with), love IS an emotion, and I believe it is a wonderful emotion blessed from God, I personally believe God brings couples together for a reason and if a relationship is good, healthy and strong it is only a product of him regardless of those who are involveds gender.

No God does not have to approve of everything we think is good, but loving someone and wanting to share your life with someone is basic human nature, and to expect a man or a woman to be alone just because they only feel that for the same-sex would quite frankly be monstrous. Again, fortunately I believe God is loving so once again I reach the conclusion homosexulaity = not a sin.

Read and study Romans 1:21-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11. They will explain to you why homosexuality is sin. And our own logic has nothing to do with spirituality. Read Proverbs 3:5-6.

Because in case you didn't know, this is spritual battle everybody in this world is in, whether we like it or not. So it's not enough to just be adamite about what is sin and what isn't and leave it at that and be on about your business, but WHY it is and just how damaging it can be for those who submit to sin and also those who have to bear the burden of those who choose to sin.

Tha's why the bible is so important. It tells us WHY, among many other things.

When I see those verses it clearly says to me about why using sex acts to worship false idols is wrong. I could be wrong in what I see, but even before I was aware it was a passage used against homosexuality I thought "oooh thats about idol worship". The problem I have with Corinthians and Romans is largely down to the fact it's Paul (a normal everyday guy) writing, not Jesus. I'm more concerned with what Jesus had to say. Even if I assume, the verses are about homosexuality as a whole they don't really even say why, they just say "it's icky", which isnt a valid reason. I happen to find hetrosexual sex decidedly icky, but it certainly dosen't mean I take issue with people having it.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Are YOU living according to the model set forth in Eden?

Did you marry a sibling?

I married a man. We are all siblings, when it comes down to it...all proceeds from Adam and Eve.

Homosexuality is entirely natural. Thats why it occurs in nature

It is utterly an aberration! Homosexuality doesn't occur in nature. The animal kingdom is not humanity. What they do is not at all homosexuality. They do not sin. They do not marry, or love or have morality. so, to diminish mankind in such a way is a preposterous route to go for argument...unless you want to devalue yourself and treat people plus yourself like an animal. It's certainly not God's design. He created animals and then himans separately--we have dominion over that creation. So to take on equal status with a lesser creation is wild! In that case I can maybe understand the fixation with aberrations.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Homosexuality is entirely natural. Thats why it occurs in nature

animals eat their young, therefore its perfectly natural also, right? And same-sex sex is not natural per romans 1

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

stuff you wrote

welcome back.

 

[Floatingaxe]

In my experience I have only felt emotionally and sexually compatible with one other person (the person I have just begun my third year with), love IS an emotion, and I believe it is a wonderful emotion blessed from God, I personally believe God brings couples together for a reason and if a relationship is good, healthy and strong it is only a product of him regardless of those who are involveds gender.

Lust is an emotion. Love is an act of the will. Homosexuals lust for each other and then choose to act in love for them, which is an exacerbation to the sin of lust. It anchors it and makes it a deep root that is hard to remove-. Once one comes to Christ and wants to renounce their sin, it becomes a problem. That is why there is such strong loathing by God for homosexuality and that is why we pay attention to His words about sin.

No God does not have to approve of everything we think is good, but loving someone and wanting to share your life with someone is basic human nature, and to expect a man or a woman to be alone just because they only feel that for the same-sex would quite frankly be monstrous. Again, fortunately I believe God is loving so once again I reach the conclusion homosexulaity = not a sin.

No--God honours a good choie by an individual who wants to honour God, honour his/her own body and not dishonour another! He is all anyone ever needs. The single life an be a wonderful life, when led to please Jesus Christ!

Your conclusion is based only on the flesh and not God's Word itself. It has no merit in that light, whatsoever.

When I see those verses it clearly says to me about why using sex acts to worship false idols is wrong. I could be wrong in what I see, but even before I was aware it was a passage used against homosexuality I thought "oooh thats about idol worship". The problem I have with Corinthians and Romans is largely down to the fact it's Paul (a normal everyday guy) writing, not Jesus. I'm more concerned with what Jesus had to say. Even if I assume, the verses are about homosexuality as a whole they don't really even say why, they just say "it's icky", which isnt a valid reason. I happen to find hetrosexual sex decidedly icky, but it certainly dosen't mean I take issue with people having it.

Saying, "it's icky", if you see that, should be good enough for you. Paul is qualified by Jesus Christ to speak for Him.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

No God does not have to approve of everything we think is good, but loving someone and wanting to share your life with someone is basic human nature, and to expect a man or a woman to be alone just because they only feel that for the same-sex would quite frankly be monstrous. Again, fortunately I believe God is loving so once again I reach the conclusion homosexulaity = not a sin.

You do not believe God would put someone through a trial like this? I don't see it as being out of the ordinary for some of His commands. He's put some of His most beloved to even greater trials, Christ being the lead example. We are eternally thinking here. The reason why it doesn't matter whether the world likes us or not, is because we are working towards eternal and not towards the things of this dying world.

When I see those verses it clearly says to me about why using sex acts to worship false idols is wrong. I could be wrong in what I see, but even before I was aware it was a passage used against homosexuality I thought "oooh thats about idol worship".

Ever consider that a person's own sexuality could be their idol?

The problem I have with Corinthians and Romans is largely down to the fact it's Paul (a normal everyday guy) writing, not Jesus. I'm more concerned with what Jesus had to say.

Well, its a fair assumption that Luke scribed much of Paul's writings, and Luke also wrote a gospel. Luke never met Jesus, yet you believe what His gospel says about Jesus don't you?

Even if I assume, the verses are about homosexuality as a whole they don't really even say why, they just say "it's icky", which isnt a valid reason. I happen to find hetrosexual sex decidedly icky, but it certainly dosen't mean I take issue with people having it.

God's standard is different than ours, obviously. And His rules are not based in secular humanist morals, so you can't expect perfect understanding of a God that we cannot even begin to fathom.

 

[Floatingaxe]

We need more proof from you that you are living according to the model that God has set forth in Eden. You are challenging the standard. Come on--we are waiting. Otherwise your own credibility is a wipe-out. Being homosexual is not its own proof. It is an unnatural bent, and you need to prove otherwise according to God's holy word. Thanks.

Waiting... nighty-night now.

 

[Phinehas2]

The problem I have with Corinthians and Romans is largely down to the fact it's Paul (a normal everyday guy) writing, not Jesus. I'm more concerned with what Jesus had to say.

this again denies the Bible while calling on it. Luke for example records Jesus words yet he didnt directly encounter Jesus, Luke records Jesus words from teh eyewitnesses and the community who did hear Jesus say these words. Paul on the other hand did encounter the risen Lord, and indeed did not receive his revelation from man but from Jesus Christ Himself.
So in fact Paul received his revelation from the risen Lord!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Waiting... nighty-night now.

and yet... no contribution yet in the custom made Literalist straight answer thread. who'da thunk it?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

this again denies the Bible while calling on it. Luke for example records Jesus words yet he didnt directly encounter Jesus, Luke records Jesus words from teh eyewitnesses and the community who did hear Jesus say these words. Paul on the other hand did encounter the risen Lord, and indeed did not receive his revelation from man but from Jesus Christ Himself.
So in fact Paul received his revelation from the risen Lord!

according to Paul...

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

according to Paul...

I don't think the point was coming across clearly to you. Most of Paul's writings were scribed by Luke, who also wrote a gospel. If you toss Paul's veracity out the window then you must throw out much of the rest of the NT as well.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

animals eat their young, therefore its perfectly natural also, right? And same-sex sex is not natural per romans 1

Romans 1 is wrong then.

Either that or your translation is.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Homosexuality doesn't occur in nature.

Yes it does.

The animal kingdom is not humanity.

Humans are members of the animal kingdom, and, even if they weren't, anything animals do is natural.

What they do is not at all homosexuality.

Is this yet another attempt at word definition? Same gendered organisms having sex is what homosexuality is. Yeah... animals do that.

It's certainly not God's design.

Apparently it is, otherwise it wouldn't work, would it?

He created animals and then himans separately--we have dominion over that creation.

You keep saying that. did you hear about the last guy who tried to preach to lions, expecting his God given dominion over the animals to protect him?http://www.metacafe.com/watch/241996/man_vs_lion/ (cool video clip, but maybe upsetting to anyone who thinks they literally have dominion over animals)

So to take on equal status with a lesser creation is wild!

Thats not what I'm doing in the slightest. I'm using the word "natural" correctly. If you don't like it, I suggest you take it up with the dictionary.

 

[davedjy]

We need more proof from you that you are living according to the model that God has set forth in Eden. You are challenging the standard. Come on--we are waiting. Otherwise your own credibility is a wipe-out. Being homosexual is not its own proof. It is an unnatural bent, and you need to prove otherwise according to God's holy word. Thanks.

1. As stated, there's no proof from you or anyone else in this thread that this is the universal standard for all. Not one shred of evidence that this wasn't just the standard in the beginning when the earth needed to be populated.

2. You don't hold any proof that I or any one else on this thread or forum are "challenging any standard", or that any such "one and only standard" exist.

3. If this post was aimed at mine, it doesn't address any point I made, and it isn't a proper rebuttal.

 

[Floatingaxe]

and yet... no contribution yet in the custom made Literalist straight answer thread. who'da thunk it?

Once again, ever the evasive one.