Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God has never made any statement about homosexuality. All God has ever said is he wants us to love and accept each other. This is completely compatible with homosexuality.
You are agreeing with anti-gay doctrine, and not God, for the record, and everyone reading this thread can see as fact, THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.
Using phrases like "Clear on the issue", and "in the end you will discover that", are AGAIN, not examples of credible debate points.There is no confusion on my part. The truth is, there is no debate. The word of God is clear on this issue, but homosxuals continue to wriggle and squirm and pick apart Scripture like no other group in history to get it to say what they are wrongly convinced of.
God will never agree with the homosexual rebellion. In the end you will discover that. Yes, your argument is with the Almighty God, who is holy and calls us to live holy lives. Homosexuals will not comply with that.
Floatingaxe said:but homosxuals continue to wriggle and squirm and pick apart Scripture like no other group in history to get it to say what they are wrongly convinced of.
Appreciate you taking the time to follow up... and now I can't find it either
But to recap, (and correct me if I'm wrong) weren't you saying that the meat and drink laws are repealed because there is a specific Bible verse that repeals them, right?
If this is the case, why do we not observe so many other OT Bible laws that do not have a repealing passage?If you are open to the possibility that "rape" is an incorrect translation of a word in the original, are you open to the possibility that "homosexual" might be an incorrect translation?
savedandhappy1 said:It isn't the only scripture though, and so even taking out 1 Cor. 6 doesn't cancel out Romans, Timothy, Jude, etc. When we take the Bible as a whole then I can't deny what it says about homosexuality.
...yet the humorous nature of this post suggests that you can actually:
1) Prove that ONLY the homosexuals themselves are the ones who use these highly credible interpretations (which is highly false).
2) Prove that the Pro-gay theology is false, which you haven't demonstrated in the least way
Your article states this, however, this does not mean that it is a fact. It still does not address going against one's own instincts and inclinations.
The point is, the customs of the time were brought into account. Do you believe a man with long hair is shameful or that it is unnatural? Paul never said that a homosexual will not inherit the kingdom of God, and I guess it bears repeating to an unknown translation that you are referring to of a different passage (Arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9). Paul's understanding of nature was based on Stoic philosophy, and it isn't the one we use now. Paul always associated the word "nature" with cultural heritage and religious teachings, which is why I made the comparison.
Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm
It has plenty of bearing, even though you may wish to ignore it. Customs, and historical context must be taken into account, as well as the perspective of the original author. You and some of the other anti-gay arguers like to cling to a false translation, which at the least has been proven to be unknown, THAT is confusion.
Timothy uses the same word that 1 Cor. 6:9, does, so yes, that would be a dual cancellation.
Jude is not even a credible debate passage against homosexuality. It was used in the past, but there are problems with addressing that as a passage against homosexuality (such as it being about the angelic visitors that came to earth, hence the term "strange flesh").
I sincerely disagree. I see no way in which a loving, monogomous homosexual relationship is in any way incompatible with Christ's teachings.As I started to say in post 108. To make homosexuality alright we pretty well have to discredit the whole Bible.
Huh? You use highly INCREDIBLE interpretations, which have no merit and have been manipulated to say what you want them to say. Highly suspect of truth. True.
It is proven in Scripture. No need to create deeper holes for yourselves by looking for more and more words that will childishly change what God means. That you refuse to hear God's own voice reveals a lot. There is nothing a born again Christian can say that can reveal any more truth than God's word. As you appear deafened to His voice, all we can do is pray that the Holy Spirit hasn't yet been quenched and left you.
Gays and lesbians have not been given over to a reprobate mind, and that isn't what Paul was saying. Those people were given over to a reprobate mind for their idolatry to graven images of birds, reptiles and mortal man (Romans 1:23).Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Not speaking about 1 Cor. 6, and have explained in post to OllieFranz and I believe you, (so I'm sure you have read it already) that even if 1 Cor. 6 is taken out of the Bible, there are still plenty of scriptures that speak of homosexuality.
The problem is, it's irrelevant without seeing the big picture about what Romans 1 is REALLY about, which isn't homosexuality. It is about people who were malicious idolaters that God gave up to complete depravity for worshiping graven images. They were turned over to complete spiritual ruin.Maybe you should read OllieFranz information on, Law by Plato, and then maybe you will see there are simularities to the use of the Greek words that are used for nature/natural by Paul. So it isn't a big leap to believe that Paul would have used words that the people he was writing to would have understood, but you don't have to believe it.
Already examined, and already posted why I don't believe it is referring to what you believe.Again, Romans 1 doesn't use the clobber words you are so centered on. It plainly says man.................you know what it says not going to re-state it or re-post it.
Never said any Scripture was null and void, just your interpretation there of is questionable and open to debate, just like mine is.Romans 1 isn't mistranslated and I have reseached alot on the scriptures just like alot of others have here. You can say 1 Cor. is a false translation all you want, that doesn't make the other scriptures null and void even if it is.
I never said that so many Scriptures have been proven mistranslated, only 1 Cor. 6:9.If so many of the scriptures have been proven mis-translated and/or proven that Jesus never said then frankly we are all in trouble, because that sure makes any scriptures that say how a person needs to be saved and what it takes to get saved so uncertain. So uncertain that we all need to live in fear of our very own salvation.
I don't see how that could possibly be the case. Now that you mention that, it is no wonder you believe what you do about homosexuality. If that were true we wouldn't have credible pro-gay theologians, and we do.As I started to say in post 108. To make homosexuality alright we pretty well have to discredit the whole Bible.
You aren't even debating if you are saying that my argument is that these passages are "wrong". What I'm saying is 1 Tim and 1 Cor. use the same false translation, and humorously, they don't always translate out the same way. Did I say Jude was "wrong", NO! I said Jude is not referring to homosexuality. I never said that Romans was wrong, I said that your interpretation of it is wrong.Let's see 1 Cor is wrong, 1 Tim. is wrong, Jude is wrong, Romans is wrong, and most of what Jesus is credited with saying in the 4 gospels has been proven wrong. Hmmmmmmm that pretty well takes care of 7-8 books of the Bible we can throw out, because how can we trust any part of those books now?
You've created a straw man argument, I never said that the Bible was wrong, just your interpretation of these passages is. The only 2 passages of Scripture I said were mistranslated were 1 Tim and 1 Cor. 6:9, since they use the same Greek word.So much is said in them about salvation, so now we can't be sure about that, and can we even believe the birth, life, death and resurrection stories? Did God even send His son? Does God even love us? How will we ever know since we have taken away so many books that help teach us about our Lord and Saviour?
I sincerely disagree. I see no way in which a loving, monogomous homosexual relationship is in any way incompatible with Christ's teachings.
It MAY (depending how you feel about the translation) be incompatible with a part of Leviticus and a part of Paul's letters to the Corinthians, but:
A. Thats hardly the whole Bible
B. There are rational reasons to accept that these passages are not relevant to us today.
because a literal, non interpretive reading of the Bible would have us all disowning our parents, and selling all our posessions and giving the money to the poorMore poetic nonsense. Why is it necessary to discover "what a passage means"? Why doesn't it just say what it means? Why is interpretation necessary? Why is the book written in such a way that lends itself to contrary private interpretations? Why is not an unbiased, objective interpretation obvious?
since you are such a Biblical literalist... when are you going to sell all your posessions, give the money to the poor, so you can follow Christ as he commanded?The arguments presented with all the fancy lingo mean NOTHING. They are fabrications and manipulations, and any normal Christian, from newbie to mature, can see through the lies.
since you are such a Biblical literalist... when are you going to sell all your posessions, give the money to the poor, so you can follow Christ as he commanded?
sorry... so, is "sell all you own and come follow me" the correct, literal translation, or not?You need to be educated in the word. Your puerile interpretations need grounding, and that requires faith, and relationship with Jesus Christ through His Holy Spirit. Spend time with God rather than mocking His kids.
sorry... so, is "sell all you own and come follow me" the correct, literal translation, or not?
because a literal, non interpretive reading of the Bible would have us all disowning our parents, and selling all our posessions and giving the money to the poor
Gays and lesbians have not been given over to a reprobate mind, and that isn't what Paul was saying. Those people were given over to a reprobate mind for their idolatry to graven images of birds, reptiles and mortal man (Romans 1:23).
You've created a straw man argument, I never said that the Bible was wrong, just your interpretation of these passages is. The only 2 passages of Scripture I said were mistranslated were 1 Tim and 1 Cor. 6:9, since they use the same Greek word.
I deleted the rest of your quote, since you don't seem to really grasp the concepts that are presented to you. Instead of realizing your interpretation could be flawed, you think what I'm really saying is that the Bible is filled with erroneous information, which is not what I said.
savedandhappy1 said:Everyday in DoH I read posts that say this scripture is mis-interpretated or we don't really know the meaning of this word or that word. So far I have heard that Romans isn't right and neither is 1 Cor. or 1 Timothy. So since Paul wrote these books logic would say that none of Paul's writings can be trusted. If they can be trusted we then hear that Paul was a bully for saying homosexuality is a sin, just another attempt at discrediting Paul, which then discredits a good part of the NT.
Then I hear that most of what Jesus's is quoted as saying has been proved to be a lie, so that takes care of the four gospels. Looking at the above statements/beliefs we have pretty well gotten rid of or discredited most of the New Testament.
I won't even post all the statements made to discredit the OT, or to discredit anyone who believes what the OT says. It would just make an already long post longer, but I do have to ask if I am the only one who sees how this can't be anything but an attempt by the great deceiver to cause confusion and doubts?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?