A re-examination of nothing

[Phinehas2]

I thought as Genesis 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 all stating God's purpose is man and woman are continually being disputed, it would be good to discuss the 0 verses that countenance same-sex unions.
So where are they?

Also as Genesis 19, Judges 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1 condemns same-sex sex I thought it would be good to discuss the 0 verses that countenance same-sex sex.

 

[tulc]

Aren't they right there next to the ones condemning slavery and supporting democracy?
tulc(could of sworn I just saw them)

 

[FaithLikeARock]

How do I count the ways.

Just because you present an example doesn't mean it's the only way something can work. The prophets that wrote the Bible don't want to do this "And thus sayeth the Lord that a man shall leave his family and go with his wife, or a man shall leave his family and go with his husband, or a woman shall leave her family and go with her wife". Honestly. God doesn't openly condemn polygamy. SURELY this means polygamy is okay. (Answer: No it's not. Don't make broad assumptions. It makes the English language cry.)

Sodom wasn't destroyed because of homosexuality. No evidence confirms this in fact most evidence points against it. Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality, forcible rape, etc. The idea that all the men of Sodom had wives, had sex with women, but were actually homosexual is ridiculous. If it proves anything, it proves that having sex outside of your SEXUALITY is a sin when you recognize yourself as straight or homosexual, respectively.

Judges 19, again, rape. (Really. The way you guys talk about rape and homosexuality, I'm starting to think you believe straight rape is a-okay. The fact you believe rape is ALWAYS sexually based, which it's almost never is not, proves how ignorant you are about the subject. And as a victim in that field I can not tolerate it. Go educate yourselves a bit.)

Leviticus is Old Covenant law. Most of Leviticus isn't based on sin but created because of the promise to Abraham and the scarcity of native Jews. Since homosexuality doesn't reproduce, it was not allowed. The severity of the punishment doesn't mean anything since honestly, all of the punishments are rather exaggerated. In order to say anything from Leviticus applies, you have to assume it all does. Leviticus is a whole book. What separates tradition and law doesn't matter because it was all decreed by God, and God never said He changed His mind. But He probably doesn't enforce it because we have plenty of people in the world (almost too many in fact) and our safety procedures are far more advanced.

Sexual sin doesn't mean homosexuality. It means sexual sin. Sexual sin can be almost anything.

I don't even get how 1 Timothy 1 applies.

Romans. Here's a good one. First of all, reminding you that Paul wasn't any more faithful or chosen than you or I. He was not a prophet and he never met Christ face to face, only through voice from heaven. He was not "divinely favored" and there is no proof that he received anything more than inspiration, and inspiration directly from the spirit can be so easily misinterpreted when one goes at it with a closed-mine. Also many historians believe he may have been blind so many of his words may have been through a scribe, which means we have to question if they're really Paul's words. Last, because of the complexity of Greek, many words are difficult to translate into English and can ALSO be misinterpreted to mean something other than what we assume it does.

2 Peter 2 doesn't apply (unless you mean anyone who promotes homosexuality is a false teacher. More like, anyone who doesn't' agree with my theology is a false teacher. People have always interpreted, since Christ, the meaning of Scripture. I doubt those Rabbis went spouting that they were absolutely right. And they studied it forward and backward. Have you memorized the entire Old Testament? And New Testament?) Or it mentioned Sodom and I missed it.

Jude mentions Sodom but I already told you that Sodom's sin wasn't homosexuality but rape. Rape is a sexual perversion because it perverses beauty into power.

Now I'm going to educate you guys a bit before you offend any more women who are victims of rape. RAPE IS NOT ABOUT SEXUAL PLEASURE. Rape is about over powering. People who rape for sexual pleasure don't do it out of sexuality. It's a fetish. Over powering and being dominant is what they desire no matter who it's with. Sometimes they are selective, but many men who rape men don't do it because they're homosexual but because men are more difficult to over power than women are (generally speaking). So get it through your heads and stop belittling something that haunts people their entire lives! It's sickening!

Also, God never promotes eating certain foods but He does condemn it in Leviticus. Obviously this means we can't eat? Grow up Phinehas and learn the Bible isn't the guide to everything. If God just wanted us to read the Bible and know how to live life down to the decimal point He wouldn't give us brains and He wouldn't offer His spirit. Some things you have to look at and decide for yourself. God shouldn't HAVE to give you a list of things that says: here's what you can do and here's what you can't in full detail. You're not a baby, you can figure it out on your own. If God wanted that He would've done it, or better yet, never given us free will because obviously we can't handle it because we CAN'T think for ourselves.

 

[MercyBurst]

Aren't they right there next to the ones condemning slavery and supporting democracy?
tulc(could of sworn I just saw them)

That's a broken sterotype, as in, Fred Phelps is a democrat that eliminated Jim Crowe laws. He's an admirable civil rights champion that received an award from the NAACP.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

That's a broken sterotype, as in, Fred Phelps is a democrat that eliminated Jim Crowe laws. He's an admirable civil rights champion that received an award from the NAACP.

Here's my point: so what? Someones political party doesn't determine who they are.But then, you like to assume and stereotype based on a single characteristic don't you? Hitler could've given to every charity and be a good church going man but it wouldn't mean anything.

 

[OllieFranz]

How do I count the ways.

Just because you present an example doesn't mean it's the only way something can work. The prophets that wrote the Bible don't want to do this "And thus sayeth the Lord that a man shall leave his family and go with his wife, or a man shall leave his family and go with his husband, or a woman shall leave her family and go with her wife". Honestly. God doesn't openly condemn polygamy. SURELY this means polygamy is okay. (Answer: No it's not. Don't make broad assumptions. It makes the English language cry.)

Sodom wasn't destroyed because of homosexuality. No evidence confirms this in fact most evidence points against it. Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality, forcible rape, etc. The idea that all the men of Sodom had wives, had sex with women, but were actually homosexual is ridiculous. If it proves anything, it proves that having sex outside of your SEXUALITY is a sin when you recognize yourself as straight or homosexual, respectively.

Judges 19, again, rape. (Really. The way you guys talk about rape and homosexuality, I'm starting to think you believe straight rape is a-okay. The fact you believe rape is ALWAYS sexually based, which it's almost never is not, proves how ignorant you are about the subject. And as a victim in that field I can not tolerate it. Go educate yourselves a bit.)

Leviticus is Old Covenant law. Most of Leviticus isn't based on sin but created because of the promise to Abraham and the scarcity of native Jews. Since homosexuality doesn't reproduce, it was not allowed. The severity of the punishment doesn't mean anything since honestly, all of the punishments are rather exaggerated. In order to say anything from Leviticus applies, you have to assume it all does. Leviticus is a whole book. What separates tradition and law doesn't matter because it was all decreed by God, and God never said He changed His mind. But He probably doesn't enforce it because we have plenty of people in the world (almost too many in fact) and our safety procedures are far more advanced.

Sexual sin doesn't mean homosexuality. It means sexual sin. Sexual sin can be almost anything.

I don't even get how 1 Timothy 1 applies.

Romans. Here's a good one. First of all, reminding you that Paul wasn't any more faithful or chosen than you or I. He was not a prophet and he never met Christ face to face, only through voice from heaven. He was not "divinely favored" and there is no proof that he received anything more than inspiration, and inspiration directly from the spirit can be so easily misinterpreted when one goes at it with a closed-mine. Also many historians believe he may have been blind so many of his words may have been through a scribe, which means we have to question if they're really Paul's words. Last, because of the complexity of Greek, many words are difficult to translate into English and can ALSO be misinterpreted to mean something other than what we assume it does.

2 Peter 2 doesn't apply (unless you mean anyone who promotes homosexuality is a false teacher. More like, anyone who doesn't' agree with my theology is a false teacher. People have always interpreted, since Christ, the meaning of Scripture. I doubt those Rabbis went spouting that they were absolutely right. And they studied it forward and backward. Have you memorized the entire Old Testament? And New Testament?) Or it mentioned Sodom and I missed it.

Jude mentions Sodom but I already told you that Sodom's sin wasn't homosexuality but rape. Rape is a sexual perversion because it perverses beauty into power.

Now I'm going to educate you guys a bit before you offend any more women who are victims of rape. RAPE IS NOT ABOUT SEXUAL PLEASURE. Rape is about over powering. People who rape for sexual pleasure don't do it out of sexuality. It's a fetish. Over powering and being dominant is what they desire no matter who it's with. Sometimes they are selective, but many men who rape men don't do it because they're homosexual but because men are more difficult to over power than women are (generally speaking). So get it through your heads and stop belittling something that haunts people their entire lives! It's sickening!

Also, God never promotes eating certain foods but He does condemn it in Leviticus. Obviously this means we can't eat? Grow up Phinehas and learn the Bible isn't the guide to everything. If God just wanted us to read the Bible and know how to live life down to the decimal point He wouldn't give us brains and He wouldn't offer His spirit. Some things you have to look at and decide for yourself. God shouldn't HAVE to give you a list of things that says: here's what you can do and here's what you can't in full detail. You're not a baby, you can figure it out on your own. If God wanted that He would've done it, or better yet, never given us free will because obviously we can't handle it because we CAN'T think for ourselves.

I've been working up a repsnse to the OP all day. I may still post it tomorrow. But Faith, I must say this says things about the subject that I simply would never have been able to say. I applaud you, and I especially applaud the courage it took for you to identify yourself as a victim of rape. I'll keep you in my prayers.

 

[OllieFranz]

I thought as Genesis 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 all stating God's purpose is man and woman are continually being disputed, it would be good to discuss the 0 verses that countenance same-sex unions.
So where are they?

[BIBLE]Genesis 2:24[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Matthew 19:5-6[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Mark 10:6-9[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Ephesians 5:31[/BIBLE]

These verses give one purpose of marriage. That two people choose to entwine their lives together and become one. God creates Eve for Adam, and he creates for all of us whom he has called to marriage a perfect mate. There is nothing in this purpose that requires that mate to be the opposite sex. Since God intended that Adam and Eve should "be fruitful and replenish the earth," he created them as a heterosexual couple. But why would we expect the perfect mate of a gay man to be a woman, or that of a lebian to be a man?

The Ephesians verse is part of a longer passage on marriage which is often taken to mean that the husband is to be "master" of the wife, who must submit. But that passage begins with exhortation that we submit ourselves " one to another in the fear of God." (Eph 5:21) And the command to the wife is paralled by a command to the husband that they are to cherish their wives as they do their own bodies. In both cases, Paul is saying that one is not to consider one's own wishes above what is good for the spouse, but to act in the best interesets of the one flesh we have become.

Paul makes these parallel obligations even clearer in 1 Cor 7. In neither context does he mention any obligations that can't be given to, or accepted from, a same-sex spouse.

So there are no verses about the purpose of marriage or the obligations of spouses one to another which restrict marriage to cross-sex unions.

As for passages that "countenance" same-sex relationships:

The Bible accepts as legitimate marriages any covenant, contract, agreement to join the lives of two people into one. The contract is sealed with the consummation of the relationship.

The relationship between David and Jonathan was stronger than the relationship between David and Michal. The two are clearly paralleled in many verses in 1 Samuel. We don't call David's relationship with Jonathan a marriage because the Bible does not give any evidence that they consummated it. On the other hand, it does not give any evidence they did not.

Some also see a relationship between Jehu and Jehonadab (2 Kings 10), although there may not be enough written about either to make a strong case.

Also as Genesis 19, Judges 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1 condemns same-sex sex I thought it would be good to discuss the 0 verses that countenance same-sex sex.

We have discussed how the Leviticus ban (also reflected in Paul's term arsenokoites) may be more restrictive than you claim, and is no longer mandatory.

Faith has already pointed out that the sin described in Genesis 19 and Judges 19 is rape (and also murder in Judges). Funny how you always leave out all the passages that talk about raped women. And strangely, you also leave out the rape of David's ambassadors to Hanun king of Ammon, which clearly shows that the rape was premeditated and passionless and was intended as a show of power and domination.

Yes, all of the Old Testament verses that speak clearly of sex or rape between members of the same sex speak only of sins. But all of the passages that speak clearly of sex or rape between members of opposite sexes also speak only of sins. Blessed sex between loving spouses is only hinted at or inferred from the resultant pregnancies.

Instead, the Bible praises the relationship, not the sex. Just as it praises the relationship between Jonathan and David, who kept to his covenant and raised Jonathan's son as his own.

So if your standard is that there are verses condemning sexual actions but none directly supporting them, then by your standard, all sex, whether same-sex or cross-sex, whether within or without a loving marriage, is sin. This is in direct contradiction to most of the Bible, especially Genesis 1:28 and 1 Cor 7.

 

[tulc]

That's a broken sterotype, as in, Fred Phelps is a democrat that eliminated Jim Crowe laws. He's an admirable civil rights champion that received an award from the NAACP.

...did you post this in the wrong thread?
tulc(I'd like "answers to questions not asked" for 500 Alex!)

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

+rep for the thread title, it made me chuckle.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

How do I count the ways.

Just because you present an example doesn't mean it's the only way something can work. The prophets that wrote the Bible don't want to do this "And thus sayeth the Lord that a man shall leave his family and go with his wife, or a man shall leave his family and go with his husband, or a woman shall leave her family and go with her wife". Honestly. God doesn't openly condemn polygamy. SURELY this means polygamy is okay. (Answer: No it's not. Don't make broad assumptions. It makes the English language cry.)

is it not a broad assumption to think that God intended man to be with man?

Sodom wasn't destroyed because of homosexuality. No evidence confirms this in fact most evidence points against it.

Homosexual action was not involved? The descriptions of sodom speak of the unbridled amount of sin going on in there. It could be sexual deviance or perversion perhaps, who knows. It's interesting that Lot offers up his daughters in the stead of the angels, and they are rejected. I don't think an entire town was homosexual, no. But then again, its not like open homosexuality was "in" back then either. It's a safe bet to assume that most if not all homosexual men still married women and had children in order to carry on their title/wealth/etc. From my understanding of the way the bible depicts homosexual actions, it is seen as a perversion of sexuality rather than as a completely different orientation. Whether that is due to the societal impact during the time vs. now I cannot say.

If it proves anything, it proves that having sex outside of your SEXUALITY is a sin when you recognize yourself as straight or homosexual, respectively.

So its a sin for a pedophile to have sex with anyone except children? It's part of their sexual nature is it not?

Judges 19, again, rape. (Really. The way you guys talk about rape and homosexuality, I'm starting to think you believe straight rape is a-okay. The fact you believe rape is ALWAYS sexually based, which it's almost never is not, proves how ignorant you are about the subject. And as a victim in that field I can not tolerate it. Go educate yourselves a bit.)

If you are trying to get a point across, you could perhaps be a little more understanding that not everyone is from where you are from. Not everyone knows all the aspects that you use the term 'rape' in. I think in general most people think of sexual rape when the word comes up.

Leviticus is Old Covenant law. Most of Leviticus isn't based on sin but created because of the promise to Abraham and the scarcity of native Jews. Since homosexuality doesn't reproduce, it was not allowed.

I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion.

The severity of the punishment doesn't mean anything since honestly, all of the punishments are rather exaggerated.

In this society, sure, in ancient society, not really. Back then everything was a matter of life and death. There weren't prison systems either so expect judgements to be swift.

In order to say anything from Leviticus applies, you have to assume it all does. Leviticus is a whole book.

not necessarily

What separates tradition and law doesn't matter because it was all decreed by God, and God never said He changed His mind.

Of course God never changes His mind. Some things are not applicable to us because we are not ancient israelites. If we were, then it would. Let me guess, since we dont sacrifice rams anymore we can throw the book out, right?

But He probably doesn't enforce it because we have plenty of people in the world (almost too many in fact) and our safety procedures are far more advanced.

so you agree that same-sex sex is against God?

God enforces all of His laws. Don't you realize even the smallest sins will be judged? I think you are putting words in God's mouth here, unless you can provide some sort of scriptural backing.

Sexual sin doesn't mean homosexuality. It means sexual sin. Sexual sin can be almost anything.

sexual sin is exactly that, a sin involving sex.

Romans. Here's a good one. First of all, reminding you that Paul wasn't any more faithful or chosen than you or I. He was not a prophet and he never met Christ face to face, only through voice from heaven. He was not "divinely favored" and there is no proof that he received anything more than inspiration, and inspiration directly from the spirit can be so easily misinterpreted when one goes at it with a closed-mine.

Woah. Okay, so you disagree with the biblical description of Paul, then? It's easy to cast doubt upon one of the main writers of the NT in order to tear apart the rest, isnt it? Luke never met Jesus in the flesh either, btw.

Also many historians believe he may have been blind so many of his words may have been through a scribe, which means we have to question if they're really Paul's words.

You think the prophets actually handwrote every piece of scripture themselves?? Not likely.

Christ never once wrote anything except in the sand, yet we believe the testimony written about Him.

Last, because of the complexity of Greek, many words are difficult to translate into English and can ALSO be misinterpreted to mean something other than what we assume it does.

In romans? There is no argument about translational difficulties there. It's pretty clear cut what it says, the difficulty is on your end.

Jude mentions Sodom but I already told you that Sodom's sin wasn't homosexuality but rape. Rape is a sexual perversion because it perverses beauty into power.

It is a sexual perversion because it perverses that which was given to us as a means to reproduce.

Now I'm going to educate you guys a bit before you offend any more women who are victims of rape. RAPE IS NOT ABOUT SEXUAL PLEASURE. Rape is about over powering. People who rape for sexual pleasure don't do it out of sexuality. It's a fetish. Over powering and being dominant is what they desire no matter who it's with. Sometimes they are selective, but many men who rape men don't do it because they're homosexual but because men are more difficult to over power than women are (generally speaking). So get it through your heads and stop belittling something that haunts people their entire lives! It's sickening!

So sexual drive is not a factor at all? Then why have sex at all, why not just overpower someone by forcible means and stop there? I cannot fathom that one man would rape another just to show dominance, seems very animalistic to me. Whats next, poo flinging?

Also, God never promotes eating certain foods but He does condemn it in Leviticus. Obviously this means we can't eat?

He told the israelites what was clean and unclean.

Grow up Phinehas and learn the Bible isn't the guide to everything.

don't knock the man because of your own lack of belief.

If God just wanted us to read the Bible and know how to live life down to the decimal point He wouldn't give us brains and He wouldn't offer His spirit.

How does one know exactly WHAT spirit is leading them, without biblical help? There are several spirits, without discernment you have a spiritual free for all.

Some things you have to look at and decide for yourself. God shouldn't HAVE to give you a list of things that says: here's what you can do and here's what you can't in full detail. You're not a baby, you can figure it out on your own. If God wanted that He would've done it, or better yet, never given us free will because obviously we can't handle it because we CAN'T think for ourselves.

It's easy, you can approach every situation and apply the 2 greatest commandments, those given by Christ Himself.

God gave us free will so we can choose whether or not to give Him control.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear FaithLikeARock,

How do I count the ways.

you cant count then as you haven’t provided one example of same-sex union or sex.
What you have done however is merely dispute the evidence that clearly shows both are error.
So your response is immediately completely the opposite of what was asked in the OP.
Yet I will respond.

Just because you present an example doesn't mean it's the only way something can work.

Nor does it mean it isn ‘t, but examples were presented and the examples in this case show that it is the only way this can work.

The prophets that wrote the Bible don't want to do this "And thus sayeth the Lord that a man shall leave his family and go with his wife, or a man shall leave his family and go with his husband, or a woman shall leave her family and go with her wife". Honestly. God doesn't openly condemn polygamy.

Sorry but Jesus said to them that God told them this. You obviously don’t believe Jesus is God or was speaking God’s word. NB. Poligamy isnt same-sex sex either so that’s irrelevant.

Sodom wasn't destroyed because of homosexuality.

Well the men wanted sex with the men, are you trying to say same-sex sex isnt same–sex sex or just denying what the Bible says?

No evidence confirms this in fact most evidence points against it. Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality, forcible rape, etc.

Nowhere does the Bible mention rape at Sodom but the sins, plural are mentioned, and Ezeikeil and Matthew mentions hospitality. Perhaps you could explain to someone who says inhospitality isnt mentioned but same-sex is when we can all see both are mentioned?

The idea that all the men of Sodom had wives, had sex with women, but were actually homosexual is ridiculous.

Absolutely, that your idea and it is ridiculous as there is no mention of homosexual or heterosexual in the Bible, no mention that they were heterosexual either. You obviously see the Bible in terms of sexual desires.

Judges 19, again, rape.

Ah no, Judges sex and rape, look ..
“and they knew her, and abused her” the words are ‘yada’ to know carnally and ‘`alal’ to abuse.

The fact you believe rape is ALWAYS sexually based, which it's almost never is not, proves how ignorant you are about the subject. And as a victim in that field I can not tolerate it. Go educate yourselves a bit.)

Having shown you your error perhaps you won’t be so arrogant next time in make false assumptions about what I am thinking especially responding opposite to what the OP asked.

Leviticus is Old Covenant law.

So is ‘love your neighbour as yourself’. .. Leviticus 19:18 “" 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”

So don’t you do that?

So you don’t love your neighbour as yourself, you said it. The answer of course is both these are New Covenant as well ie. Matthew 19 and Romans 13 for love your neighbour and Matt 19, Eph 5, 1 Cor 5-7 Romans 1 for man/woman union and same-sex prohibition. Of course the New Covenant is faithful man/woman as God’s original purpose.

I

don't even get how 1 Timothy 1 applies. [/quote] You don’t appear to get how any of it applies.

Romans. Here's a good one.

I don’t need a testimony of your disbelief about Paul, that’s just disbelief. You have take this attitude against Paul because he brings God’s word condemning same-sex sex. There is no other gospel than the one the NT writer bring, Luke specifically endorses Paul and so does Peter, none dispute anything Paul writes, you do though.
Romans 1 is clear men with men instead of with women is error.

2 Peter 2 doesn't apply

Yes it does its my evidence, you come up with some that support same-sex sex.

(unless you mean anyone who promotes homosexuality is a false teacher.

they most definitely are.

More like, anyone who doesn't' agree with my theology is a false teacher.

Your statement is one of disbelief, theology is the study of God, if you don’t refer to or believe the Bible perhaps you have a different god.

Jude mentions Sodom but I already told you that Sodom's sin wasn't homosexuality but rape. Rape is a sexual perversion because it perverses beauty into power.

Well you have told me a lot of things that are wrong but you haven’t told me anything to support same-sex unions. But Lot offered his daughter instead of the wicked act, so even according to your argument heterosexual rape is ok but homosexual rape is wicked.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Olliefranz,

You have done the same thing as FaithLikeARock, we discussed those passages in all the other threads, her I just want to emphasize the fact that even in disbelief and rejection of what the Bible says you still have nothing to support same-sex sexual unions.

These verses give one purpose of marriage.

No they give God’s purpose, it does say one of God’s purposes. Your assumption is baseless.

That two people choose to entwine their lives together and become one.

Well yes but it says man and woman, the question to you is where does the Bible say man and man is God’s purpose, it doesn’t, so how can you have your idea contrary to God’s stated purpose?

The relationship between David and Jonathan was stronger than the relationship between David and Michal. The two are clearly paralleled in many verses in 1 Samuel. We don't call David's relationship with Jonathan a marriage because the Bible does not give any evidence that they consummated it. On the other hand, it does not give any evidence they did not.

Well it can’t be marriage as the Bible gives marriage as man and woman. Michal was David’s wife. So was Bathsheba. In your gay thinking David must have been bisexual. The relationship of David and Jonathan cant have been sexual because we know what they considered sin. The sin David committed was taking Uriah’s wife and murder, David had wives. Indeed as David loved Jonathan as himself 1 Samuel 18 and Jesus teaches love your neighbour as yourself, we should all be in same-sex relationships according to gay thinking so no wonder you see the potential in jehu and Jehonadab.
So yes thanks for some evidence, but its all assumption with no actual mention of sexual relationship or activity at all.

 

[MercyBurst]

...did you post this in the wrong thread?
tulc(I'd like "answers to questions not asked" for 500 Alex!)

Actually, I addressed your broken gay-promoting sterotype that says conservative Christians are always on the wrong side of civil rights. Fred Phelps fought against Jim Crowe laws.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

is it not a broad assumption to think that God intended man to be with man?
Homosexual action was not involved? The descriptions of sodom speak of the unbridled amount of sin going on in there. It could be sexual deviance or perversion perhaps, who knows. It's interesting that Lot offers up his daughters in the stead of the angels, and they are rejected. I don't think an entire town was homosexual, no. But then again, its not like open homosexuality was "in" back then either. It's a safe bet to assume that most if not all homosexual men still married women and had children in order to carry on their title/wealth/etc. From my understanding of the way the bible depicts homosexual actions, it is seen as a perversion of sexuality rather than as a completely different orientation. Whether that is due to the societal impact during the time vs. now I cannot say.

So its a sin for a pedophile to have sex with anyone except children? It's part of their sexual nature is it not?


If you are trying to get a point across, you could perhaps be a little more understanding that not everyone is from where you are from. Not everyone knows all the aspects that you use the term 'rape' in. I think in general most people think of sexual rape when the word comes up.

I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion. In this society, sure, in ancient society, not really. Back then everything was a matter of life and death. There weren't prison systems either so expect judgements to be swift.
not necessarily
Of course God never changes His mind. Some things are not applicable to us because we are not ancient israelites. If we were, then it would. Let me guess, since we dont sacrifice rams anymore we can throw the book out, right?

so you agree that same-sex sex is against God?

God enforces all of His laws. Don't you realize even the smallest sins will be judged? I think you are putting words in God's mouth here, unless you can provide some sort of scriptural backing.

sexual sin is exactly that, a sin involving sex.


Woah. Okay, so you disagree with the biblical description of Paul, then? It's easy to cast doubt upon one of the main writers of the NT in order to tear apart the rest, isnt it? Luke never met Jesus in the flesh either, btw.

You think the prophets actually handwrote every piece of scripture themselves?? Not likely.

Christ never once wrote anything except in the sand, yet we believe the testimony written about Him.

In romans? There is no argument about translational difficulties there. It's pretty clear cut what it says, the difficulty is on your end.



It is a sexual perversion because it perverses that which was given to us as a means to reproduce.

So sexual drive is not a factor at all? Then why have sex at all, why not just overpower someone by forcible means and stop there? I cannot fathom that one man would rape another just to show dominance, seems very animalistic to me. Whats next, poo flinging?

He told the israelites what was clean and unclean. don't knock the man because of your own lack of belief.

How does one know exactly WHAT spirit is leading them, without biblical help? There are several spirits, without discernment you have a spiritual free for all.



It's easy, you can approach every situation and apply the 2 greatest commandments, those given by Christ Himself.

God gave us free will so we can choose whether or not to give Him control.

I can pretty much answer all of your complaints in two words:

COMMON. SENSE.

And the fact that I'm not a big fan of Luke either. Obviously, since he included the birth of Christ which wasn't all that important and now we have Christmas. I almost don't celebrate religious Christmas because really, it shouldn't exist. It's just a distraction from Easter which IS an important Christian holiday. Christmas is modern and not emphasized in the Bible. Besides, there is no proof to say Luke didn't meet Christ. The Bible is clear in Acts that Paul became a Christian long after Christ's resurrection and so never knew Him personally.

 

[Floatingaxe]

is it not a broad assumption to think that God intended man to be with man?
Homosexual action was not involved? The descriptions of sodom speak of the unbridled amount of sin going on in there. It could be sexual deviance or perversion perhaps, who knows. It's interesting that Lot offers up his daughters in the stead of the angels, and they are rejected. I don't think an entire town was homosexual, no. But then again, its not like open homosexuality was "in" back then either. It's a safe bet to assume that most if not all homosexual men still married women and had children in order to carry on their title/wealth/etc. From my understanding of the way the bible depicts homosexual actions, it is seen as a perversion of sexuality rather than as a completely different orientation. Whether that is due to the societal impact during the time vs. now I cannot say.

So its a sin for a pedophile to have sex with anyone except children? It's part of their sexual nature is it not?


If you are trying to get a point across, you could perhaps be a little more understanding that not everyone is from where you are from. Not everyone knows all the aspects that you use the term 'rape' in. I think in general most people think of sexual rape when the word comes up.

I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion. In this society, sure, in ancient society, not really. Back then everything was a matter of life and death. There weren't prison systems either so expect judgements to be swift.
not necessarily
Of course God never changes His mind. Some things are not applicable to us because we are not ancient israelites. If we were, then it would. Let me guess, since we dont sacrifice rams anymore we can throw the book out, right?

so you agree that same-sex sex is against God?

God enforces all of His laws. Don't you realize even the smallest sins will be judged? I think you are putting words in God's mouth here, unless you can provide some sort of scriptural backing.

sexual sin is exactly that, a sin involving sex.


Woah. Okay, so you disagree with the biblical description of Paul, then? It's easy to cast doubt upon one of the main writers of the NT in order to tear apart the rest, isnt it? Luke never met Jesus in the flesh either, btw.

You think the prophets actually handwrote every piece of scripture themselves?? Not likely.

Christ never once wrote anything except in the sand, yet we believe the testimony written about Him.

In romans? There is no argument about translational difficulties there. It's pretty clear cut what it says, the difficulty is on your end.



It is a sexual perversion because it perverses that which was given to us as a means to reproduce.

So sexual drive is not a factor at all? Then why have sex at all, why not just overpower someone by forcible means and stop there? I cannot fathom that one man would rape another just to show dominance, seems very animalistic to me. Whats next, poo flinging?

He told the israelites what was clean and unclean. don't knock the man because of your own lack of belief.

How does one know exactly WHAT spirit is leading them, without biblical help? There are several spirits, without discernment you have a spiritual free for all.



It's easy, you can approach every situation and apply the 2 greatest commandments, those given by Christ Himself.

God gave us free will so we can choose whether or not to give Him control.

Love this, reps to you!

 

[savedandhappy1]

I can pretty much answer all of your complaints in two words:

COMMON. SENSE.

Common Sense? Would that be the common sense that sees how well a man and womans bodies fit together as they look into each others eyes and become one flesh?

Or would that be the one where two men don't face each other and.......................or two woman that have to use other things to get the desired effect that God planned?

Even without the bible you are right common sense confirms just what the bible says. That God created them male and female and told them to go forth and multiple. And also, as Jesus tells us how a man will leave his parents and take a wife and they will become one flesh.

Wow, a man and woman become one flesh just like what it looks like when they are fit together the way they were designed.

 

[tulc]

Actually, I addressed your broken gay-promoting sterotype that says conservative Christians are always on the wrong side of civil rights. Fred Phelps fought against Jim Crowe laws.

uhmmm...no that wasn't anywhere near what I was saying.
tulc(more about coffee then taking shots)

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I can pretty much answer all of your complaints in two words:

COMMON. SENSE.

Lol. Common sense tells us that a god-man could not have the capacity to die for our sins, how do you feel about that?

And the fact that I'm not a big fan of Luke either. Obviously, since he included the birth of Christ which wasn't all that important and now we have Christmas.

uh.

I almost don't celebrate religious Christmas because really, it shouldn't exist.

truth be told, its not even Jesus' b-day anyway. It's nice to observe it, though. Plus the spirit is nice as well.

It's just a distraction from Easter which IS an important Christian holiday.

Actually, Easter is a derivative of an ancient pagan holiday. Perhaps you are thinking of the Christian passover.

Christmas is modern and not emphasized in the Bible.

The birth of Christ isn't emphasized? It's even prophesied in the OT, what more do you want?

Besides, there is no proof to say Luke didn't meet Christ.

Because luke was paul's contemporary for one, and it is common knowledge that luke did more of a historical account of Christ and not an actual show n tell.

The Bible is clear in Acts that Paul became a Christian long after Christ's resurrection and so never knew Him personally.

Yes, paul never met Jesus the man, but the book of acts claims that He was converted personally by Christ from persecuter to apostle.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Lol. Common sense tells us that a god-man could not have the capacity to die for our sins, how do you feel about that?
uh.

truth be told, its not even Jesus' b-day anyway. It's nice to observe it, though. Plus the spirit is nice as well.

Actually, Easter is a derivative of an ancient pagan holiday. Perhaps you are thinking of the Christian passover.

The birth of Christ isn't emphasized? It's even prophesied in the OT, what more do you want?

Because luke was paul's contemporary for one, and it is common knowledge that luke did more of a historical account of Christ and not an actual show n tell.

Yes, paul never met Jesus the man, but the book of acts claims that He was converted personally by Christ from persecuter to apostle.

No, that's what skeptic realism tells us. Common sense doesn't debunk the unimaginable. Common sense tells us that if you touch a hot thing it'll burn you and if you jump off a cliff chances are you'll not be climbing back up.

Common sense says that when a person comes ramming in demanding to have sex with a complete stranger we call that rape.

Common sense and thousands of studies say that the reason for rape is almost never sexual, therefore no matter who the rapists are, they aren't doing it for typical pleasure.

Common sense tells us that sex ISN'T the main part of a relationship.

Common sense tells us that homosexuality happens in animals so why would God allow animals who don't necessarily have free will to do something that humans are forbidden from doing.

Common sense tells us that two men or two women are fully capable of romantic love for each other because couples like these exist. It's unfortunate that they have to suffer ridicule and then when they leave each other for the sake of saving each other from ridicule the fundies just go "SEE THEY DIDN'T REALLY LOVE EACH OTHER" when really it was just because they didn't want to be the reason the person the love is ruined by defamation.

The birth of Christ was NOT meant to be emphasized and is the most unclear, mistranslated story in the Bible. I'll gladly prove it too by asking you questions and seeing how you answer. Where was Jesus born (not the city but the building He was born in), in whose presence was He born, when did the wise men arrive, how many were there and why did Mary give birth in a manger? Chances are, you might get one right. And don't call it irrelevant because it serves to prove my point.

The Book of Acts claims he saw the light of Christ through a vision. Your point? Did Jesus tell him on that spot everything to write in his letters? No. Just because Paul saw the light in the most literal sense STILL doesn't mean he was divinely favored. Just means Christ really had to work to get through his hard skull.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Looks to me like common sense flew out the window.

Mankind has a dearth of common sense since the Fall. We are stupid and evil at best. We need a Saviour. His name is Jesus. Only through Him may we have a semblance of common sense.

In Christ I live and move and have my being...

Acts 17:28
For in him we live and move and exist. As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring'.