1 Corinthians

[davedjy]

No these scriptures are talking about the only physical relationship that we are to have, and that is with the opposite sex.

Been that way since creation, and is affirmed in both the OT and the NT.

It never says that is the only physical relationship allowable. You are adding personal commentary to the verses.

However, you have just validated the poster point that the bible only talks about martial relationships between a man and a woman and not about any other relationships outside the family then a husband and wife.

I have not validated any such point. This is the "homosexuality debate forum". Obviously the thread needs to tie in with homosexuality somehow. I have done the opposite, there isn't anything in these verses claiming the exclusivity between only males and females. There also isn't any proof these verses are aimed at gays and lesbians finding an opposite sex partner.

 

[savedandhappy1]

It never says that is the only physical relationship allowable. You are adding personal commentary to the verses.

No commentary needed, just common sense, discernment, and the opening of ones eyes.

I have not validated any such point. This is the "homosexuality debate forum". Obviously the thread needs to tie in with homosexuality somehow. I have done the opposite, there isn't anything in these verses claiming the exclusivity between only males and females. There also isn't any proof these verses are aimed at gays and lesbians finding an opposite sex partner.

Oh it is ties into homosexuality, by the very fact that the only mention in the bible is to condemn the act. While at the same time speaking only of the rules and guidelines for marriage between a man and a woman. Shot even divorce is only spoke of between a man and a woman. If you want to be a preacher, deacon, elder, etc. it is spoke of as the husband of one wife.

Everything is described and related to a man and a woman from the very first creation on.

So obviously if one was seeing through eyes that aren't turned over/gave up to.......................

 

[Brieuse]

No commentary needed, just common sense, discernment, and the opening of ones eyes.





Oh it is ties into homosexuality, by the very fact that the only mention in the bible is to condemn the act. While at the same time speaking only of the rules and guidelines for marriage between a man and a woman. Shot even divorce is only spoke of between a man and a woman. If you want to be a preacher, deacon, elder, etc. it is spoke of as the husband of one wife.

Everything is described and related to a man and a woman from the very first creation on.

So obviously if one was seeing through eyes that aren't turned over/gave up to.......................

So in other words there is not really a good reason to condemn homosexuality?

 

[davedjy]

No commentary needed, just common sense, discernment, and the opening of ones eyes.

I can say that against you anti-gay arguers as well, it really doesn't hold water as a credible debate point.

Oh it is ties into homosexuality, by the very fact that the only mention in the bible is to condemn the act. While at the same time speaking only of the rules and guidelines for marriage between a man and a woman. Shot even divorce is only spoke of between a man and a woman. If you want to be a preacher, deacon, elder, etc. it is spoke of as the husband of one wife.

As stated, not one Biblical Scholar can prove that all forms of homosexuality are condemned. You are arguing your debate point by something being omitted/not mentioned, which is commentary at best.

Everything is described and related to a man and a woman from the very first creation on.

Which again, doesn't disprove homosexuality.

So obviously if one was seeing through eyes that aren't turned over/gave up to.......................

"Common sense and discernment" would lead me to believe that the person stating this would have a judgmental religious spirit. The mere fact that anyone would believe gays and lesbians have been turned over, just proves all the more to me why I need to continue sharing my side of the beliefs in this forum.

Equating same sex love with someone that has been "turned over" doesn't make any spiritual OR common sense.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Davedjy,
You seem to have your own gay religion which is anti-Christian. Whilst we refer to the Bible and Christ's teaching you keep referring to gay and lesbain

can say that against you anti-gay arguers as well, it really doesn't hold water as a credible debate point.

Equating same sex love with someone that has been "turned over" doesn't make any spiritual OR common sense

Same-sex love? This goes back to my point that love isnt sex, God's love is gapeo and the NT only describes phileo and agapeo, these are not in terms of sex.
The gay thinking you have fallen for corrupts love as God intends, with sexual activity God does not intend.

 

[davedjy]

Dear Davedjy,
You seem to have your own gay religion which is anti-Christian. Whilst we refer to the Bible and Christ's teaching you keep referring to gay and lesbain

Calling my viewpoints as "Anti-Christian" or my "own gay religion" are not helping your debate points. I have ALREADY provided my interpretations of the passages, so I was not referring to that. I have also shown where Romans 1 talks about actual idolatry in verse 23 as the reason they were "turned over", which has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Same-sex love? This goes back to my point that love isnt sex, God's love is gapeo and the NT only describes phileo and agapeo, these are not in terms of sex.
The gay thinking you have fallen for corrupts love as God intends, with sexual activity God does not intend.

YOU are the ones isolating a sex act from a sexual orientation. You have not proven that God doesn't intend for homosexuality, nor have you proven why a person is only attracted to the same sex.

YES, a person can love another human being regardless of their gender, and whatever words you want to use to describe it cannot limit it. I DID NOT use the words "sex", YOU DID. Since all the anti-gay arguers can do is make homosexuality about sex, and not a complete orientation with romantic feelings and a relationship towards the same sex.

I see words like "common sense" thrown around here against us, when the reality is that a gay or lesbian person would not be fulfilled spiritually, emotionally, or sexually with a person of the opposite sex. So how could that possibly fit in with what "God intends"? There isn't any "common sense" there whatsoever.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Davedjy,

Calling my viewpoints as "Anti-Christian" or my "own gay religion" are not helping your debate points.

well neither is you calling other’s viewpoints anti-gay , especially when it is demonstrated they are anti-same-sex sex rather than anti-gay.

I have ALREADY provided my interpretations of the passages, so I was not referring to that. I have also shown where Romans 1 talks about actual idolatry in verse 23 as the reason they were "turned over", which has nothing to do with homosexuality.

And as I pointed out the whole passage is about ungodliness and wickedness and verse 21 says their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. What follows begins with idolatry, but I can't see how what follows, such as same-sex sex and greed and malice which God also gave them over to, are somehow only error if idolatrous, and consequently perfectly alright if not in association with idolatry. There is fault in your assumption that you have never addressed.

YOU are the ones isolating a sex act from a sexual orientation.

absolutely otherwise how could we isolate adultery from sex within a marriage for a heterosexual? You are the ones who have created thinking that is error.

You have not proven that God doesn't intend for homosexuality,

well yes we have by all the passages we have cited, you are the ones who haven’t even shown that God does let alone proven.
But my point wasn’t even that, and again you haven’t addressed it. Love in te NT isn’t sex.

YES, a person can love another human being regardless of their gender, and whatever words you want to use to describe it cannot limit it.

Of course they can I love my brother but I don’t have sex with Him. Jesus says we are to love all people, that doesn’t mean have sex with them.

I DID NOT use the words "sex", YOU DID. Since all the anti-gay arguers can do is make homosexuality about sex, and not a complete orientation with romantic feelings and a relationship towards the same sex.

But we aren’t anti-gay arguers, the dictionary definition of gay is same-sex attraction. It is you who is combining gay to mean attraction and activity and identity.

The reality is that a gay or lesbian person would not be fulfilled spiritually, emotionally, or sexually with a person of the opposite sex.

Well certainly not sexually, but the spiritual isnt sex. Perhaps that’s a key stumbling block for you, Jesus said that some are celibate for the Kingdom Matt 19. true worshippers of god must worship in spirit and truth.

So how could that possibly fit in with what "God intends"?

Its doesn’t that’s the whole point; you are looking at what you think God should want and not what God intends, you are using your reason above God’s
I would also challenge your statement about emotional fulfilment as well. Even for a married man, first comes Jesus in the marriage, then the wife and any children. All you seem to be doing is talking about personal fulfilment and self gratification. Apart form Jesus, my wife has replaced my previous best friend who was male.

 

[lincolngreen50]

So in other words there is not really a good reason to condemn homosexuality?

God said be fruitful and multiply.
If the World was how you wanted it populated by Homosexuals the race would die out.
So God saying be fruitful and multiply would be a lie then?
I think not,God is Perfect,we are imperfect.
That is why we have laws layed down by God.
These laws guide us to the right path.
Some on this board dont even believe in the Bible.
Therefore according to them the 10 commandments dont exist.
The laws of Leviticus dont exist then according to some on this board.
All our laws are based on Gods laws that is a fact.
Anyone who wishes to change this is working against Christ as in Anti Christ.

 

[savedandhappy1]

I can say that against you anti-gay arguers as well, it really doesn't hold water as a credible debate point.

Lets use some of the logic that you use for a moment. There is no mention of porn, on the computer, in the Bible, and it doesn't hurt anyone so since Jesus didn't find it important enough to mention it must be ok, right?

I could have put alot of words in place of porn, so don't make this about that and/or that I am saying homosexuality is porn, please.

As stated, not one Biblical Scholar can prove that all forms of homosexuality are condemned. You are arguing your debate point by something being omitted/not mentioned, which is commentary at best.

NOT one Biblical Scholar..................... lets see I listed 17-18, so that statement isn't really true is it Dave?

Which again, doesn't disprove homosexuality.

Answered above

"Common sense and discernment" would lead me to believe that the person stating this would have a judgmental religious spirit. The mere fact that anyone would believe gays and lesbians have been turned over, just proves all the more to me why I need to continue sharing my side of the beliefs in this forum.

Stating what the bible says happens to people when they exchange the truth of God for a lie, is standing on the truth which is what we as children of God are suppose to do.

So if we want to speak of a judgemental religious spirit well....................

So if someone comes up to you and tells you a lie, and you know they are lying, it would be a judgemental religious spirit in you if you told them that what they were doing was a sin?

If you can be a Christian in spite of your beliefs on this matter, what am I to do with the scriptures that tells us that if a brother/sister is sinning we are to draw them back into the fold? How can we show them their error's and lead them back to righteousness without stating what they are doing is a sin?

QUOTE=davedjy;40350986]
Equating same sex love with someone that has been "turned over" doesn't make any spiritual OR common sense.
[QUOTE]

Well that statement kind of proves my point.

You do know if a person is given over to the things that are spoke of in Romans 1, they wouldn't be able to see that this is what is happening, right?

 

[davedjy]

Lets use some of the logic that you use for a moment. There is no mention of porn, on the computer, in the Bible, and it doesn't hurt anyone so since Jesus didn't find it important enough to mention it must be ok, right?

Or perhaps with that ambiguous logic, one might be able to say that driving a car is harmful.

I could have put alot of words in place of porn, so don't make this about that and/or that I am saying homosexuality is porn, please.

I never did. Although it would be silly to equate a sexual orientation with porn, to start.

NOT one Biblical Scholar..................... lets see I listed 17-18, so that statement isn't really true is it Dave?

17-18 Biblical Scholars "religious opinions" or commentary do not equate Biblical or Scriptural fact. I stand by my original statement.

Stating what the bible says happens to people when they exchange the truth of God for a lie, is standing on the truth which is what we as children of God are suppose to do.

...or the lie of misinterpreting the passage to start.

So if someone comes up to you and tells you a lie, and you know they are lying, it would be a judgemental religious spirit in you if you told them that what they were doing was a sin?

Telling someone that you think they are sinning isn't the same as telling someone they have been "turned over", now is it?

If you can be a Christian in spite of your beliefs on this matter, what am I to do with the scriptures that tells us that if a brother/sister is sinning we are to draw them back into the fold? How can we show them their error's and lead them back to righteousness without stating what they are doing is a sin?

You can believe something is sin, but telling someone they have been "turned over", is crossing the line.

You do know if a person is given over to the things that are spoke of in Romans 1, they wouldn't be able to see that this is what is happening, right?

Yet, that passage does not have to do with homosexuality all by itself, it is the pagan sexual practice that is being condemned.

See verse 29:

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.


Equating the monstrous idolaters to gays and lesbians that respect their parents, and love Christ...that is just not using any common sense, whatsoever.

 

[davedjy]

Dear Davedjy,

well neither is you calling other’s viewpoints anti-gay , especially when it is demonstrated they are anti-same-sex sex rather than anti-gay.

I stand by my original statement, I will leave it to you pro-gay arguers to isolate a sex act from an orientation not mentioned in the Bible.



[

COLOR=navy] And as I pointed out the whole passage is about ungodliness and wickedness and verse 21 says their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. What follows begins with idolatry, but I can't see how what follows, such as same-sex sex and greed and malice which God also gave them over to, are somehow only error if idolatrous, and consequently perfectly alright if not in association with idolatry. There is fault in your assumption that you have never addressed. [/COLOR]
absolutely otherwise how could we isolate adultery from sex within a marriage for a heterosexual? You are the ones who have created thinking that is error. well yes we have by all the passages we have cited, you are the ones who haven’t even shown that God does let alone proven.

Uh no, the historical context is pagan idolatry orgy practices to a false god.

Of course they can I love my brother but I don’t have sex with Him. Jesus says we are to love all people, that doesn’t mean have sex with them.

Obviously, I have already mentioned that I believe in monogamous, life long partnerships. You wouldn't just have sex with any person, and I don't believe that to be correct.

But we aren’t anti-gay arguers, the dictionary definition of gay is same-sex attraction. It is you who is combining gay to mean attraction and activity and identity.

Gay/lesbian, same difference, as the orientation.

Well certainly not sexually, but the spiritual isnt sex. Perhaps that’s a key stumbling block for you, Jesus said that some are celibate for the Kingdom Matt 19. true worshippers of god must worship in spirit and truth.

I don't see any verse that speaks directly about gays "staying celibate for the Kingdom", but thank you for the added commentary.

Its doesn’t that’s the whole point; you are looking at what you think God should want and not what God intends, you are using your reason above God’s

What reason have I given? I never said there needs to be a reason. I believe gays and lesbians are born the way that we are supposed to be.

I would also challenge your statement about emotional fulfilment as well. Even for a married man, first comes Jesus in the marriage, then the wife and any children. All you seem to be doing is talking about personal fulfilment and self gratification. Apart form Jesus, my wife has replaced my previous best friend who was male.

That wasn't my point about Jesus comes first in the marriage, I never said that wasn't true, that wasn't the context, so why bring that up?

I never said anything about personal fulfillment or self gratification. I believe any marriage needs to be built on sacrifice, love and hard work. Not being selfish, and being giving is very important, but AGAIN, that wasn't my point.

 

[savedandhappy1]

So in other words there is not really a good reason to condemn homosexuality?

Don't know how you would get that from that post!

I would be thinking there is a good reason, because it there wasn't God wouldn't have condemn it.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Or perhaps with that ambiguous logic, one might be able to say that driving a car is harmful.

You haven't seen my sister drive or you wouldn't even use that example.

I never did. Although it would be silly to equate a sexual orientation with porn, to start.

I am not sure what you are saying I never did, but if it is that you never said Jesus didn't speak of it so it isn't important, well................ I could be wrong but am real sure you have.

I am equating sin with sin, you know apples to apples as compared to apples to oranges?

17-18 Biblical Scholars "religious opinions" or commentary do not equate Biblical or Scriptural fact. I stand by my original statement.

Well if you would have looked up the history on all of them as compared to just the one, well they are more than just someone who wrote a commentary.

Second you keep saying that most Biblical Scholars say __________________. Now you are saying they aren't anything? Boy talk about confusing. You even committed on one post what a great Bible Scholar your pastor is and how he says _____________.

You should go into politics you do that flip flop thing really well.

...or the lie of misinterpreting the passage to start

.

If you knew how much alot of us wished we were misinterpreting the passage............Since that isn't the case then I will continue to try and get the truth out so that more and more will be added to the Kingdom of the Lord.

Telling someone that you think they are sinning isn't the same as telling someone they have been "turned over", now is it?

Well, lets see we have tried to get several to understand they are sinning, and have been called haters, and bigots. So since logical explanations aren't logical to some, then wouldn't it make you think that they can't see the obvious because of how the scriptures say that if they continue in those things they will be "given up" to vile affections, uncleanness, etc.

So no, it is just another step in the process of trying to bring the truth to a lost and dying world.

You can believe something is sin, but telling someone they have been "turned over", is crossing the line.

Humm, I wonder what God was thinking inspiring Paul to say that then?

Yet, that passage does not have to do with homosexuality all by itself, it is the pagan sexual practice that is being condemned.
See verse 29:

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Not real sure how you say that verse 29 is only talking about pagan sexual practices, it isn't even talking about pagans.


[/QUOTE=davedjy;40378921]Equating the monstrous idolaters to gays and lesbians that respect their parents, and love Christ...that is just not using any common sense, whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

Colossians 3

Not Carnality but Christ

1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.
5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, 7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.
8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

Again you will have to tell God it isn't common sense, but we are told that His ways aren't are ways. Maybe thats why it doesn't make sense to some. When we try and use human/carnal logic against the righteous logic of the Lord.

 

[davedjy]

You haven't seen my sister drive or you wouldn't even use that example.

Well, true, some people shouldn't be driving though.

I am not sure what you are saying I never did, but if it is that you never said Jesus didn't speak of it so it isn't important, well................ I could be wrong but am real sure you have.

I don't remember ever saying that, but I obviously wouldn't use that as a complete debate point, which is why I use interpretations against the clobber passages.

I am equating sin with sin, you know apples to apples as compared to apples to oranges?

If all sin is the same (aples to apples), why use specific examples of sins, then? You clearly are trying to make a connection as a debate point.

Well if you would have looked up the history on all of them as compared to just the one, well they are more than just someone who wrote a commentary.

They are still using an interpretation, so it doesn't make it "fact".

Second you keep saying that most Biblical Scholars say __________________. Now you are saying they aren't anything? Boy talk about confusing. You even committed on one post what a great Bible Scholar your pastor is and how he says _____________.

I never said that "They aren't anything", I said that it is still religious opinion and not fact, just like all Bible Scholars on each side of the debate.

You should go into politics you do that flip flop thing really well.

You accuse me of saying that their "opinions aren't anything", when that is not what I said, so who is really doing "flip flopping"? Probably not intentionally, but you are twisting my words. I said that it still boils down to religious opinion, which is not the same as saying that their opinion isn't "anything".



.

Well, lets see we have tried to get several to understand they are sinning, and have been called haters, and bigots. So since logical explanations aren't logical to some, then wouldn't it make you think that they can't see the obvious because of how the scriptures say that if they continue in those things they will be "given up" to vile affections, uncleanness, etc.

That passage doesn't even make sense in that context, as it says they were filled with every type of wickedness.

Humm, I wonder what God was thinking inspiring Paul to say that then?

Malicious idolaters who were turned up for their idolatry and pagan sex practices.

Not real sure how you say that verse 29 is only talking about pagan sexual practices, it isn't even talking about pagans.

Verse 23 is about the pagan worship, which go es on to connect the dots for you.

Again you will have to tell God it isn't common sense, but we are told that His ways aren't are ways. Maybe thats why it doesn't make sense to some. When we try and use human/carnal logic against the righteous logic of the Lord.

Yet, I don't have a problem with God, I have a problem with your anti-gay doctrine. I will never settle on believing that God makes arbitrary rules. It's funny how "God's Ways aren't our ways" gets brought up when something cannot be adequately explained.

 

[dayhiker]

Seems to me to take 1 Cor.7 and say that that teaches that every man has to have a wife is to make the same mistake that they Pharisees made with Jesus when they felt that Moses taught that ever man that found some impurty in his wife must divorce her.

The verse quoted says let every man, not every man must. I just don't see its the churches responcibility to go out there and tell the single men they must get married. I don't see any church that I know who does that. I know many men and women my age would walk out of a church if the pastor stated tying to direct our lives like that.

Also since its my understanding that porneia meant to worship idols thru sex with the sacred prostitutes in the temples, Paul is saying if a man or woman goes to the temple for sex they should be getting a spouce for that. I persoanlly an not awear of brothers and sisters going to idol temples to worhip idol.

dayhiker

 

[savedandhappy1]

Seems to me to take 1 Cor.7 and say that that teaches that every man has to have a wife is to make the same mistake that they Pharisees made with Jesus when they felt that Moses taught that ever man that found some impurty in his wife must divorce her.

The verse quoted says let every man, not every man must. I just don't see its the churches responcibility to go out there and tell the single men they must get married. I don't see any church that I know who does that. I know many men and women my age would walk out of a church if the pastor stated tying to direct our lives like that.

Also since its my understanding that porneia meant to worship idols thru sex with the sacred prostitutes in the temples, Paul is saying if a man or woman goes to the temple for sex they should be getting a spouce for that. I persoanlly an not awear of brothers and sisters going to idol temples to worhip idol.

dayhiker

Not saying that every man must get married, because as I have said on many thread, but maybe not this one, we have to take the bible as a whole and in context.

We know that there are scriptures that tell us that some will not marry.

The point I think is that every man that does feel he is to marry is to marry a woman.

 

[savedandhappy1]

If all sin is the same (aples to apples), why use specific examples of sins, then? You clearly are trying to make a connection as a debate point.

The bible says all sin is the same, except for blaspheming the Holy Spirit. It tells us if we commit one sin we are quality of them all.

So you don't think that the examples of sins, pretty much covers everything?

They are still using an interpretation, so it doesn't make it "fact".

I never said that "They aren't anything", I said that it is still religious opinion and not fact, just like all Bible Scholars on each side of the debate.

So all those time you spoke of Bible Scholars saying this or that as proof that homosexuality isn't a sin are to be taken as fact, but not the Bible Scholars that say it is a sin?

Religious opinion, could I get your definition of religious please before commenting or asking whose opinion should we take? The Worlds? (APA, etc.)

=davedjy;40406791You accuse me of saying that their "opinions aren't anything", when that is not what I said, so who is really doing "flip flopping"? Probably not intentionally, but you are twisting my words. I said that it still boils down to religious opinion, which is not the same as saying that their opinion isn't "anything".

Ok, confused again, how is that flip flopping? The other part of this I answered above.
.

That passage doesn't even make sense in that context, as it says they were filled with every type of wickedness.

Malicious idolaters who were turned up for their idolatry and pagan sex practices.

Verse 23 is about the pagan worship, which go es on to connect the dots for you.

"Gave...over" (3860) (paradidomi from para = beside + didomi = to give so literally to give beside) a very strong Greek verb meaning to hand someone over to the power and authority of another. It is that act of God whereby He hands over the entire human race for judgment because of their sins.
God delivered us over to the power of our own lusts to impurity so that we might became "prisoners" that had to obey our own lusts. God "abandoning" of men on one hand reflects His righteous wrath in allowing them to follow their own desires but on the other hand so that they will see what life is like without God! In that sense, there is a redemptive purpose that stands behind the wrath of God. By letting mankind go its own way, God is not only punishing them. He is also allowing them to see the emptiness of life without Him. And what an awful picture this presents.

It makes perfect sense. It plainly says because of their idolatry they were given up to the desires of their hearts, which include the list of things that followed.

Maybe we should define idolatry, because frankly it is anything that is given more importance then God.

n. pl. i·dol·a·tries
1. Worship of idols.
2. Blind or excessive devotion to something.

Yep it connects the dots, just not the dots you think. It again, plainly says that they are given over to the desires of their hearts. Then it starts telling what those desires are. It continues on to say that if their desires, that they are given up to continue then the Lord will give them up to a reprobate mind. I believe I put all those explanation in the thread no one wanted to debate. Romans 1:2-25, but maybe not. Will have to go and check that to see.

[QUOT=davedjy;40406791]Yet, I don't have a problem with God, I have a problem with your anti-gay doctrine. I will never settle on believing that God makes arbitrary rules. It's funny how "God's Ways aren't our ways" gets brought up when something cannot be adequately explained.[/quote]

It has been adequately explained, which is why we are down to the reminding of the fact that "Gods Ways aren't Our Ways".

Not sure if we should be thinking that we don't have a problem with God,as an important issue. The thing that should be on our minds is if God has a problem with us. Don't see any arbitrary rules either, but I guess we have to call them something when God isn't who we want Him to be.

 

[davedjy]

The bible says all sin is the same, except for blaspheming the Holy Spirit. It tells us if we commit one sin we are quality of them all.

So you don't think that the examples of sins, pretty much covers everything?

As stated, if you think that all sin is the same, why are you using examples to start?

So all those time you spoke of Bible Scholars saying this or that as proof that homosexuality isn't a sin are to be taken as fact, but not the Bible Scholars that say it is a sin?

No, I never said that, again you are putting words in my mouth, as you claim I do to you. They are another opinion. However, they don't rely on a false translation, and the historical contexts of the passages linked with actual idolatry practices that co-inside w/the original language have lent me to side with them.

Religious opinion, could I get your definition of religious please before commenting or asking whose opinion should we take? The Worlds? (APA, etc.)

Scholars based upon the Bible. The APA was never quoted as a religious opinion.




.



[

FONT=Arial]"Gave...over" (3860) (paradidomi from para = beside + didomi = to give so literally to give beside) a very strong Greek verb meaning to hand someone over to the power and authority of another. It is that act of God whereby He hands over the entire human race for judgment because of their sins. [/FONT]
God delivered us over to the power of our own lusts to impurity so that we might became "prisoners" that had to obey our own lusts. God "abandoning" of men on one hand reflects His righteous wrath in allowing them to follow their own desires but on the other hand so that they will see what life is like without God! In that sense, there is a redemptive purpose that stands behind the wrath of God. By letting mankind go its own way, God is not only punishing them. He is also allowing them to see the emptiness of life without Him. And what an awful picture this presents.

It makes perfect sense. It plainly says because of their idolatry they were given up to the desires of their hearts, which include the list of things that followed.

Yes, which same sex sex is not the reason. As stated, those people went contrary to their natural instincts (phusis and phusikos), so they must've been straight.

Maybe we should define idolatry, because frankly it is anything that is given more importance then God.

n. pl. i·dol·a·tries
1. Worship of idols.
2. Blind or excessive devotion to something.

I'm talking about definition 1, which is the one defined in verse 23...worshiping images of birds, animals, and mortal man.

Yep it connects the dots, just not the dots you think. It again, plainly says that they are given over to the desires of their hearts. Then it starts telling what those desires are. It continues on to say that if their desires, that they are given up to continue then the Lord will give them up to a reprobate mind. I believe I put all those explanation in the thread no one wanted to debate. Romans 1:2-25, but maybe not. Will have to go and check that to see.

Maybe nobody wanted to debate it, because most of us have gone over Romans 1 a thousand times.

It has been adequately explained, which is why we are down to the reminding of the fact that "Gods Ways aren't Our Ways".

That phrase is still ambiguous, I can use that one against you for my viewpoint.

Not sure if we should be thinking that we don't have a problem with God,as an important issue. The thing that should be on our minds is if God has a problem with us. Don't see any arbitrary rules either, but I guess we have to call them something when God isn't who we want Him to be.

As stated, I don't have a problem with God, I have a problem with anti-gay doctrine, and your beliefs. I have not made God into what He isn't, perhaps I could say you are doing that by believing He sees homosexuality as a sin.

 

[savedandhappy1]

As stated, if you think that all sin is the same, why are you using examples to start?

I have no idea what you are trying to say, so I guess we should just drop it.

No, I never said that, again you are putting words in my mouth, as you claim I do to you. They are another opinion. However, they don't rely on a false translation, and the historical contexts of the passages linked with actual idolatry practices that co-inside w/the original language have lent me to side with them.

You're even going to deny the times you said your pastor was a Bible Scholor and he said this and that, and that homosexuality isn't a sin, etc.? No not putting words in your mouth, just amazed at how there must be someone else on here with your name.

You got to love how if it says homosexuality is a sin it is a false translation, etc., etc., and when I bring 18 different Bible Scholars interpretations that agree it is a sin it is just their opinion or a commentary, or a religious opinion.

Well your twin has used the Bible Scholar statements many times if they were saying it was ok to be homosexual, you really need to get him to change names.

Scholars based upon the Bible. The APA was never quoted as a religious opinion.

Ok I gave you 18 different Scholars views based on the Bible, and you said it is just their opinion. So what is the difference in your Bible Scholars and mine beside the fact that my show using the greek words, that the Bible is saying that homosexuality is a sin?

True it has been used as if it is more correct than the Bible.

Yes, which same sex sex is not the reason. As stated, those people went contrary to their natural instincts (phusis and phusikos), so they must've been straight.

No, those people went contrary to the way God created them to be. Just another example how the logical meaning is being not understood, which again takes us back to "gave them up".

I'm talking about definition 1, which is the one defined in verse 23...worshiping images of birds, animals, and mortal man.

Yep, verse 23 speaks of them worshiping imagesidols, and then we find how because of this God "gave them over",

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over (3SAAI) in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored (PPN) among them. ([FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NASB: Lockman[/FONT])[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Greek: Dioparedoken (3SAAI) autousotheosentaisepithumiaistonkardionautoneisakatharsiantouatimazesthai (PPN) tasomataautonenautois,
Amplified: Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin], ([FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Amplified Bible - Lockman[/FONT])
Barclay: So then God abandoned them to uncleanness in their hearts, passionate desires for pleasure, desires which made them dishonor their bodies among themselves (Westminster Press)
NCV: Because they did these things, God left them and let them go their sinful way, wanting only to do evil. As a result, they became full of sexual sin, using their bodies wrongly with each other. (NCV)
NLT: So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. (NLT - Tyndale House)
Phillips: They gave up God: and therefore God gave them up - to be the playthings of their own foul desires in dishonoring their own bodies. (Phillips: Touchstone)
Wuest: On which account God delivered them over in the passionate cravings of their hearts to bestial profligacy which had for its purpose the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves; (Erdmans)
Young's Literal: Wherefore also God did give them up, in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonour their bodies among themselves;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Ray Pritchard adds [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times]
Interestingly paradidomi was a judicial term used for handing over a prisoner to his sentence! When men forsake the one true God, He will abandon them (Jud 10:13; 2Ch 15:2; 24:20; Ps 81:11-12). He accomplishes this by removing His restraint and allowing their innate totally depraved sin nature to run its inevitable course of degradation & destruction. The result is that man so abandoned the truth that he became like a beast in his thinking and in his living.
"When men lose God, they always lose themselves."
It’s as if God has said,
"All right. If you want to turn away from me, I’ll let you go. I won’t try to stop you. But you’ll have to face the consequences of your own actions."
Hosea 4:17 expresses the judgmental aspects of God "giving us up," leaving us to our own sin:
"Ephraim is joined to idols; Let him alone"
We err when we think that it is God’s mercy or kindness that allows man to continue in sin; it is actually His wrath which allows us to go on destroying ourselves with sin.​

[/FONT]

As stated, I don't have a problem with God, I have a problem with anti-gay doctrine, and your beliefs. I have not made God into what He isn't, perhaps I could say you are doing that by believing He sees homosexuality as a sin.

And as already stated, it isn't important if you have a problem with Him, but if He has a problem with you.

You could say that, another question or statement could be what is it that you think that I am gaining by warning people that the Bible says homosexuality it a sin? Do people really think that we get so joy or kicks out of trying to show people that sin can cause a person to spend eternity in hell?

If you really think I am getting something out of this than....................