An Interesting Question

BAFRIEND · Apr 1, 2007

gwdboi said:
I stand corrected in terms of Plato's view, yet even so it proves nothing.

Plato thought homosexual love eventually could be transformed into something transcendentally spirtual (The Symposium)... that is where we get the term "Platonic" to describe kinds of non-physical relationships....

Aristophanes proposed that we origanlly were all made up of three genders... male, female, and hermaphroditic.. The God Zeus got [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed and split us all into single genders so that attraction is the attempt to find our lost half... Love is more than for sex... it is the search for the lost self.

BAFRIEND · Apr 1, 2007

gwdboi said:
Truth= I am gay and there is nothing I can do about it. Studies show that I was born gay, that is, there is a genetic factor in sexual orientation. God created me, God does not make mistakes. I was not made gay by accident but by the hand of God. God is not nor can He create sin thusly homosexuality is not a sin.

The only scientific proof for anyone being "gay" I am aware of only applied to 2% of males claiming to be gay. What about the other 98% ?
Some people are born without arms or are born retarded... it falls under natures law. Nature's law that is under the bondage of orinal sin.

UberLutheran · Apr 1, 2007

Time4AChange said:
Using your logic right here, then u must believe that we are not born as sinners, right? And according to you, if we are all perfect...then what's the need for Jesus Christ? what's the need to repent?...i mean, after all we're perfect. According to your thinking, sin doesnt even exist....since we're not born as sinners.

He never said anything like that at all or even remotely close to that?

Why do so many fundamentalists insist on putting words in peoples' mouths, the holding them accountable for things they never said AT ALL?

BAFRIEND · Apr 2, 2007

UberLutheran said:
He never said anything like that at all or even remotely close to that?

Why do so many fundamentalists insist on putting words in peoples' mouths, the holding them accountable for things they never said AT ALL?

I see his viewpoint. It is a valid take. I do not think this constitutes putting words in other peoples' mouths. I thought along the same lines when I read it.

Der Alte · Apr 2, 2007

gwdboi said:
Nice try. Lets take a literal look at the verses.

Nice try yourself, I posted the literal verses. You ignored the literal verses, and cut/pasted some hogwash from some gay website, without giving credit. IOW you stole the argument and posted it here as if it was your own work, and you evidently dont even understand what it says.

gwdboi said:
Firstly this verse is a part of the Levitical holiness code that details what is prohibited for priests and what is considered ceremonially unclean. . . . [* * * irrelevant pro-gay, non-scholarly diatribe, with ZERO, credible, verifiable historical evidence, omitted * * *]

Firstly, Lev 20:134 does NOT, detail what is prohibited for priests and what is considered ceremonially unclean. . . It is part of statutes given to ALL Israel.

Lev 20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, . .
. . .
7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.

gwdboi said:
Now, the largest problem with these verses is the translation of the two Greek words: arsenokoitai and malakoi. . . . [* * * more irrelevant pro-gay, non-scholarly diatribe, with ZERO, credible, verifiable historical evidence, omitted * * * ]

Now, the largest problem with this argument is, Paul used the same word in 1 Cor 6:9, about 90 AD, that the Greek speaking Hebrew scholars used in Lev 20:13, in the LXX, about 250 BC. Paul was addressing Corinthian Christians who knew absolutely nothing about any holiness code. That fact alone destroys this phony argument. REAL Greek scholars established the meaning of [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size]/arsenokoites around 250 BC, when they translated the phrase, If a man also lie with mankind as aresenokoites. All the vain, frantic twisting and manipulation of the text cannot change that historical fact, and it had gone unchallenged, for more than 2200 years, until gays started trying to change, i.e. pervert, scripture, within the past several decades.

Lev 20:13 [size=+1]ואישׁ אשׁר ישׁכב את־זכר משׁכבי אשׁה[/size] [size=+1]תועבה עשׂו שׁניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם׃[/size]

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

LXX [ca. 250 BC] Lev 20:13 [size=+1]και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος, βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν, ενοχοι εισιν.[/size]

TR 1 Cor 6:9 [ca. 90 AD] [size=+1]η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται.[/size]

1 Cor 6:9 [ca. 90 AD] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor [[size=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/size]] abusers of themselves with mankind

In addition to this historical scripture outline, I posted a link to a previous post where I quoted the early church fathers and the Jewish Talmud showing that from the time of Moses, about 1200 BC, through the early church, about 200 AD, more than 1400 years, neither the Jews nor the Christians ever stated or implied that the injunctions against homosexuality, in Leviticus, or in the writings of Paul, was restricted to the O.T. holiness code and/or temple prostitution, in either the O.T. or the N.T.

Here is the link again. Please, at least, have the integrity to read it, if you are going to try to argue against it. I could repost all the evidence here, but it would only be ignored, as it has been by EVERY single person promoting homosexuality here.

Previous Post: Irrefutable historical evidence from the Talmud and early church condemning homosexuality!

This verse has never been more true than it is right here in this sub-forum.

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

For anyone interested in the TRUTH. The false argument that koites only means bed has been posted numerous times. The meaning of koites according to the LSJ classical Greek lexicon.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

[size=+1]Κοιτη, η, κειμαι[/size] koit-ê , hê, keimai

A. = koitos 1, once in Hom., Od.19.341 (v.l. oikôi); bedstead, IG12.330.16, al., Wilcken Chr.244.3 (iii B.C.), etc.; esp. marriage-bed, A.Supp.804 (lyr.), S.Tr.17; ou gar ek mias k. eblaston Id.Fr.546 ; tas aplêstou k. eros E.Med.152 (lyr.), etc.; anandrou koitas lektron ib.436 (lyr.); also petrinê koitê, of a cave, S.Ph.160 (anap.); teiromenan noserai k. on a sick-bed, E.Hipp.132 (lyr.); koitan d' echei nerthen, of one dead, S.OC1706 (lyr.); k. sklêra Pl.Lg.942d , Aret.CA1.1: pl., ennuchoi k. Pi.P.11.25 ; numphidioi k. E. Alc.249 (lyr.): metaph., of the sea, en mesêmbrinais koitais . . heudoi pesôn A.Ag.566 ; of the bed of a river, Procop.Aed.5.5, Phlp.in Ph. 586.21, Lyd.Mens.4.10.

2. lair of a wild beast, nest of a bird, etc., E.Ion 155 (lyr.); chelidonôn Aët.16.15 ; k. poieisthai, of the spider, Arist.HA623a12; of the fish exôkoitos, Thphr.Fr.171.1.

3. quarters, tôn phulakitôn BGU1007.14 (iii B.C.), cf. PTeb.179 (ii B.C.); v. infr. VI.

4. pen, fold for cattle, PLips.118.15 (ii A.D.).

II. act of going to bed, tês koitês hôrê bed-time, Hdt.1.10, 5.20; trapezêi kai koitêi dekesthai to entertain 'at bed and board', ibid.; tên skênên eis k. dieluon for going to bed, X.Cyr.2.3.1 (but keisthai koitan to lie still in death, A.Ag.1494 (lyr.)).

III. lodging, entertainment, PTeb. 122.1 (i B.C.), al.

IV. of sexual connexion, k. didonai LXX Nu.5.20 , cf. Le.18.20; k. spermatos ib.15.16; k. echein ek . . to become pregnant by a man, Ep.Rom.9.10; in bad sense, lasciviousness, ib. 13.13 (pl.).

V. parcel, lot of land, PAmh.2.88.9 (ii A.D.), PRyl. 168.9 (ii A.D.).

VI. chest, case, or basket, Pherecr.122, Eup.76, IG 22.120.37,40, Men.129.2, PPetr.2p.10 (iii B.C., unless in signf. 1.3), Luc.Ep.Sat.21; hai mustikai k. Plu.Phoc.28 .

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform?lang=Greek

Other verses, in Lev., which show that koites meant more than bed as early as 250 BC.

LXX [250 BC] Lev 5:20 [size=+1]ει δε συ παραβεβηκας υπ' ανδρος ουσα η μεμιανσαι και εδωκεν τις την κοιτην αυτου εν σοι πλην του ανδρος σου[/size]

Lev 5:20 But if being a married woman thou hast transgressed, or been polluted, and any one has lain with thee, beside thy husband:

LXX [250 BC] Lev 18:20 [size=+1]και προς την γυναικα του πλησιον σου ου δωσεις κοιτην σπερματος σου εκμιανθηναι προς αυτην[/size]

Lev 18:20 And thou shalt not lie with, thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

Lev LXX [250 BC] 15:16 [size=+1]και ανθρωπος ω εαν εξελθη εξ αυτου κοιτη σπερματος και λουσεται υδατι παν το σωμα αυτου και ακαθαρτος εσται εως εσπερας[/size]

Lev 15:16 And the man whose seed of copulation shall happen to go forth from him, shall then wash his whole body, and shall be unclean until evening.

Der Alte · Apr 2, 2007

gwdboi said:
I would like to see your source to which you refer when you say that Plato said that homosexuality is unnatural. Sources that I've read say the opposite.

gwdboi said:
I stand corrected in terms of Plato's view, yet even so it proves nothing.

Talk about DISSIMULATION with a huge capital "D", dood quotes any old homosexual website online as "proof" of his arguments, asks for a historical source, thinking it can't be produced, and when irrefutable historical evidence is presented, he blows it off with "it proves nothing."

Daza said:
This was only towards the end of his life and runs against various prior teachings in his Symposium, in which he espouses the notion that societies benefit from homo-erotic love. Time for a re-read perhaps?
Daza

Yeah, uh-huh, right. The pastoral epistles of Paul, you remember them, the letters to the Corinthians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Ephesians, etc. were also towards the end of his [Paul's] life and runs against various prior teachings i.e. his persecution of the church before his Damascus road experience.

If, as you say, Plato's "Laws" was written later in life, then it is abundantly clear his views had changed dramatically and what he may have "espoused" earlier in life was no longer valid. That is about like trying to prove that Paul hated Christians by his actions before the Damascus road experience. Time for some logic perhaps?

Time for some evidence perhaps? Do you have anything resembling documentation, substantiation, evidence for these wild claims or are we supposed to believe it just cuz you said it? And words spoken by fictional characters, in a work of fiction, are not necessarily proof of the authors views.

inyourarmsalways · Apr 2, 2007

Der Alter said:
Nice try yourself, I posted the literal verses. You ignored the literal verses, and cut/pasted some hogwash from some gay website, without giving credit. IOW you stole the argument and posted it here as if it was your own work, and you evidently dont even understand what it says.

Firstly, Lev 20:134 does NOT, detail what is prohibited for priests and what is considered ceremonially unclean. . . It is part of statutes given to ALL Israel.

Lev 20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, . .
. . .
7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.

Now, the largest problem with this argument is, Paul used the same word in 1 Cor 6:9, about 90 AD, that the Greek speaking Hebrew scholars used in Lev 20:13, in the LXX, about 250 BC. Paul was addressing Corinthian Christians who knew absolutely nothing about any holiness code. That fact alone destroys this phony argument. REAL Greek scholars established the meaning of [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size]/arsenokoites around 250 BC, when they translated the phrase, If a man also lie with mankind as aresenokoites. All the vain, frantic twisting and manipulation of the text cannot change that historical fact, and it had gone unchallenged, for more than 2200 years, until gays started trying to change, i.e. pervert, scripture, within the past several decades.

Lev 20:13 [size=+1]ואישׁ אשׁר ישׁכב את־זכר משׁכבי אשׁה[/size] [size=+1]תועבה עשׂו שׁניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם׃[/size]

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

LXX [ca. 250 BC] Lev 20:13 [size=+1]και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος, βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν, ενοχοι εισιν.[/size]

TR 1 Cor 6:9 [ca. 90 AD] [size=+1]η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται.[/size]

1 Cor 6:9 [ca. 90 AD] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor [[size=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/size]] abusers of themselves with mankind
In addition to this historical scripture outline, I posted a link to a previous post where I quoted the early church fathers and the Jewish Talmud showing that from the time of Moses, about 1200 BC, through the early church, about 200 AD, more than 1400 years, neither the Jews nor the Christians ever stated or implied that the injunctions against homosexuality, in Leviticus, or in the writings of Paul, was restricted to the O.T. holiness code and/or temple prostitution, in either the O.T. or the N.T.

Here is the link again. Please, at least, have the integrity to read it, if you are going to try to argue against it. I could repost all the evidence here, but it would only be ignored, as it has been by EVERY single person promoting homosexuality here.

Previous Post: Irrefutable historical evidence from the Talmud and early church condemning homosexuality!

This verse has never been more true than it is right here in this sub-forum.

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
For anyone interested in the TRUTH. The false argument that koites only means bed has been posted numerous times. The meaning of koites according to the LSJ classical Greek lexicon.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

[size=+1]Κοιτη, η, κειμαι[/size] koit-ê , hê, keimai

A. = koitos 1, once in Hom., Od.19.341 (v.l. oikôi); bedstead, IG12.330.16, al., Wilcken Chr.244.3 (iii B.C.), etc.; esp. marriage-bed, A.Supp.804 (lyr.), S.Tr.17; ou gar ek mias k. eblaston Id.Fr.546 ; tas aplêstou k. eros E.Med.152 (lyr.), etc.; anandrou koitas lektron ib.436 (lyr.); also petrinê koitê, of a cave, S.Ph.160 (anap.); teiromenan noserai k. on a sick-bed, E.Hipp.132 (lyr.); koitan d' echei nerthen, of one dead, S.OC1706 (lyr.); k. sklêra Pl.Lg.942d , Aret.CA1.1: pl., ennuchoi k. Pi.P.11.25 ; numphidioi k. E. Alc.249 (lyr.): metaph., of the sea, en mesêmbrinais koitais . . heudoi pesôn A.Ag.566 ; of the bed of a river, Procop.Aed.5.5, Phlp.in Ph. 586.21, Lyd.Mens.4.10.

2. lair of a wild beast, nest of a bird, etc., E.Ion 155 (lyr.); chelidonôn Aët.16.15 ; k. poieisthai, of the spider, Arist.HA623a12; of the fish exôkoitos, Thphr.Fr.171.1.

3. quarters, tôn phulakitôn BGU1007.14 (iii B.C.), cf. PTeb.179 (ii B.C.); v. infr. VI.

4. pen, fold for cattle, PLips.118.15 (ii A.D.).

II. act of going to bed, tês koitês hôrê bed-time, Hdt.1.10, 5.20; trapezêi kai koitêi dekesthai to entertain 'at bed and board', ibid.; tên skênên eis k. dieluon for going to bed, X.Cyr.2.3.1 (but keisthai koitan to lie still in death, A.Ag.1494 (lyr.)).

III. lodging, entertainment, PTeb. 122.1 (i B.C.), al.

IV. of sexual connexion, k. didonai LXX Nu.5.20 , cf. Le.18.20; k. spermatos ib.15.16; k. echein ek . . to become pregnant by a man, Ep.Rom.9.10; in bad sense, lasciviousness, ib. 13.13 (pl.).

V. parcel, lot of land, PAmh.2.88.9 (ii A.D.), PRyl. 168.9 (ii A.D.).

VI. chest, case, or basket, Pherecr.122, Eup.76, IG 22.120.37,40, Men.129.2, PPetr.2p.10 (iii B.C., unless in signf. 1.3), Luc.Ep.Sat.21; hai mustikai k. Plu.Phoc.28 .

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform?lang=Greek

Other verses, in Lev., which show that koites meant more than bed as early as 250 BC.

LXX [250 BC] Lev 5:20 [size=+1]ει δε συ παραβεβηκας υπ' ανδρος ουσα η μεμιανσαι και εδωκεν τις την κοιτην αυτου εν σοι πλην του ανδρος σου[/size]

Lev 5:20 But if being a married woman thou hast transgressed, or been polluted, and any one has lain with thee, beside thy husband:

LXX [250 BC] Lev 18:20 [size=+1]και προς την γυναικα του πλησιον σου ου δωσεις κοιτην σπερματος σου εκμιανθηναι προς αυτην[/size]

Lev 18:20 And thou shalt not lie with, thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

Lev LXX [250 BC] 15:16 [size=+1]και ανθρωπος ω εαν εξελθη εξ αυτου κοιτη σπερματος και λουσεται υδατι παν το σωμα αυτου και ακαθαρτος εσται εως εσπερας[/size]

Lev 15:16 And the man whose seed of copulation shall happen to go forth from him, shall then wash his whole body, and shall be unclean until evening.

Where is the verse for lesbians? The other verses all include both sexes in them. By the way, that was a ceremonial/ritual impurity violation, look up the word tow'ebah on a TRUE Biblical Concordance site like blueletterbible.org

Der Alte · Apr 2, 2007

inyourarmsalways said:
Where is the verse for lesbians? The other verses all include both sexes in them.

Logical fallacy, argument from ignorance. Where is the verse for grandfather? There must not have been any grandfathers in the O.T. times because the word never occurs in scripture. Neither does aunt, cousin, or niece. There is a lot of talk about planting, cultivating, and harvesting but the words, farm or farming never occur.

Unless the context demands it or it is explicitly stated, otherwise, the masculine can and does include the feminine.

inyourarmsalways said:
By the way, that was a ceremonial/ritual impurity violation, look up the word tow'ebah on a TRUE Biblical Concordance site like blueletterbible.org

Lev 20:13 is not a ceremonial ritual bushwah. It is among STATUTES given by God to all Israel.

Lev 20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel,
. . .
Lev 20:8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.

While a concordance is good it only identifies the root word and not the voice, state, mood, etc. I would rather consult the historical interpretation by REAL Jewish scholars.

For example, the words bar, bear, cart, lead, house, what do they mean? Are they verbs or nouns? Is the first definition listed in the dictionary always the correct definition? The Jews who actually spoke Hebrew NEVER made the distinction that homosexuals try to force into the scripture.

Jewish Encyclopedia-ABOMINATION:

Rendering in the English versions of different Biblical terms denoting that which is loathed or detested on religious grounds and which, therefore, is utterly offensive to the Deity. These terms differ greatly in the degree of the abhorrence implied and should be distinguished in translation, as follows:

(1)

(to'ebah): Abomination of the highest degree; originally that which offends the religious sense of a people. Thus (Gen. xliii. 32): "The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians." The reason is that the Hebrews, as foreigners, were considered an inferior caste. According to Herodotus, ii. 41, no Egyptian would kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or even taste meat cut with a carving-knife belonging to a Greek. But especially as shepherds the Hebrews were "an abomination unto the Egyptians" (Gen. xlvi. 34). The eating of unclean animals is a religious offense called to'ebah: "Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing" (Deut. xiv. 3). This is the introduction to the laws prohibiting the use of unclean animals (see Clean and Unclean Animals). Still more offensive to the God of Israel is the practise of idolatry. The idol itself is called an Abomination: "for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house and thus become a thing set apart [tabooed=ḥerem] like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it and utterly abhor it; for it is a thing set apart [tabooed]" (Deut. vii. 25, 26, Heb.): "Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord" (Deut. xxvii. 15). Often the word to'ebah is used for idol or heathen deity; for instance, in Isa. xliv. 19; Deut. xxxii. 16; II Kings, xxiii. 13, and especially Ex. viii. 22 (26, A. V.), it is to be taken in this sense. When Pharaoh had told the Israelites to offer sacrifices to their God in Egypt, Moses replied: "How may we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians [that is, the kind of animals worshiped by them] before their eyes, and they not stone us?" (see Ibn Ezra, ad loc.).

All idolatrous practise is an Abomination because of its defiling character: "Every abomination to the Lord which he hateth have they done unto their gods" (Deut. xii. 31; compare Deut. xiii. 15, xvii. 4, xx. 18). Also magic and divination are an Abomination (Deut. xviii. 12). Sexual transgression is particularly denounced as an Abomination (to'ebah) (Deut. xxii. 5, xxiii. 19 [18, A. V.], xxiv. 4); especially incest and unnatural offenses (Lev. xviii. and xx.): "For all these abominations have the men of the land done who were before you, and the land became defiled; lest the land vomit you out also when ye defile it" (Lev. xviii. 27, 28, Heb.; compare also Ezek. viii. 15 and elsewhere).

But the word to'ebah also assumes a higher spiritual meaning and is applied also to moral iniquities: "Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. . . For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the Lord thy God" (Deut. xxv. 14-16). In the same strain we are taught that "lying lips" (Prov. xii. 22), "the perverse" (ib. iii. 32, R.V.) the "proud in heart" (ib. xvi. 5), "the way of the wicked" (ib. xv. 9), "thoughts of evil" (ib. xv. 26, Heb.), and "he that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the righteous" (ib. xvii. 15) are an Abomination. "These six things doth the Lord hate, yea, seven things are an abomination to him: haughty eyes; a lying tongue; hands that shed innocent blood; a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations; feet that be swift in running to mischief; a false witness that uttereth lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren" (ib. vi. 16-19, Heb.). In another direction the prohibition of an abominable thing is given an ethical meaning: "Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God an ox or a sheep wherein is a blemish, for that is an abomination unto the Lord thy God" (Deut. xvii. 1, Heb.). Here the physical character of the sacrifice is offensive. But prophet and sage declare that any sacrifice without purity of motive is an Abomination: "Bring no more an oblation of falsehoodan incense of abomination it is to me" (Isa. i. 13, Heb.; compare Jer. vii. 10). "The sacrifice of the wicked" (Prov. xv. 8, xxi. 27) and the prayer of "him that turneth his ear from hearing the law" (Prov. xxviii. 9, Heb.) are an Abomination.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=352&letter=A

gwdboi · Apr 2, 2007

Time4AChange said:
Not if you're going to be a Christian....do you realize that "one's self" is a sinner. Seeing as we were all born sinners, if we were to all "be ourselves", u think we'd please God?

All these questions that keep poppin up in this section are ALL answered in the Bible. All the threads being made, if ppl would just submit to the Word of God, they'd have their answers...The Bible states as Christians, we are servants of God, we're not own...we're bought with a price. It also says if ANY man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things are past away, behold all things become new. It also says "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless i live, YET NOT I, CHRIST LIVETH IN ME. <-----All those Scriptures, and many more prove that as Christians, the old us is dead...we are not our own anymore, we can't "be ourselves" (which is sinners) we be like Christ.

Therefore, if we're going to be born again Christians, we're not our own anymore....That concept of who in control is the root of this whole homosexual debate.

and Romans 1:27 says And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

How doesn't the Bible speak about homosexuality as you stated in your OP?

If you're going to adhere to your above statements then you might as well say that having blue eyes or red hair is a sin too.

gwdboi · Apr 2, 2007

Der Alter said:
Nice try yourself, I posted the literal verses. You ignored the literal verses, and cut/pasted some hogwash from some gay website, without giving credit. IOW you stole the argument and posted it here as if it was your own work, and you evidently dont even understand what it says.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION THAT WAS MY OWN WORK THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Firstly, Lev 20:134 does NOT, detail what is prohibited for priests and what is considered ceremonially unclean. . . It is part of statutes given to ALL Israel.
Lev 20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, . .
. . .
7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
Now, the largest problem with this argument is, Paul used the same word in 1 Cor 6:9, about 90 AD, that the Greek speaking Hebrew scholars used in Lev 20:13, in the LXX, about 250 BC. Paul was addressing Corinthian Christians who knew absolutely nothing about any holiness code. That fact alone destroys this phony argument. REAL Greek scholars established the meaning of [SIZE=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/SIZE]/arsenokoites around 250 BC, when they translated the phrase, If a man also lie with mankind as aresenokoites. All the vain, frantic twisting and manipulation of the text cannot change that historical fact, and it had gone unchallenged, for more than 2200 years, until gays started trying to change, i.e. pervert, scripture, within the past several decades.

aresenokoites more true meaning is male prostitute and not "a man who lies with mankind"

Lev 20:13

Click to expand...

[SIZE=+1]ואישׁ אשׁר ישׁכב את־זכר משׁכבי אשׁה[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]תועבה עשׂו שׁניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם׃[/SIZE]

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

LXX [ca. 250 BC] Lev 20:13 [SIZE=+1]και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος, βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν, ενοχοι εισιν.[/SIZE]

TR 1 Cor 6:9 [ca. 90 AD] [SIZE=+1]η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται.[/SIZE]

1 Cor 6:9 [ca. 90 AD] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor [[SIZE=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/SIZE]] abusers of themselves with mankind

Abusers of themselves with mankind? This does not refer to a loving committed gay relationship. I'm sure that if you would expand your mind enough you would be able to see that.

In addition to this historical scripture outline, I posted a link to a previous post where I quoted the early church fathers and the Jewish Talmud showing that from the time of Moses, about 1200 BC, through the early church, about 200 AD, more than 1400 years, neither the Jews nor the Christians ever stated or implied that the injunctions against homosexuality, in Leviticus, or in the writings of Paul, was restricted to the O.T. holiness code and/or temple prostitution, in either the O.T. or the N.T.

Here is the link again. Please, at least, have the integrity to read it, if you are going to try to argue against it. I could repost all the evidence here, but it would only be ignored, as it has been by EVERY single person promoting homosexuality here.

Previous Post: Irrefutable historical evidence from the Talmud and early church condemning homosexuality!

This verse has never been more true than it is right here in this sub-forum.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
For anyone interested in the TRUTH. The false argument that koites only means bed has been posted numerous times. The meaning of koites according to the LSJ classical Greek lexicon.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

[SIZE=+1]Κοιτη, η, κειμαι[/SIZE] koit-ê , hê, keimai

A. = koitos 1, once in Hom., Od.19.341 (v.l. oikôi); bedstead, IG12.330.16, al., Wilcken Chr.244.3 (iii B.C.), etc.; esp. marriage-bed, A.Supp.804 (lyr.), S.Tr.17; ou gar ek mias k. eblaston Id.Fr.546 ; tas aplêstou k. eros E.Med.152 (lyr.), etc.; anandrou koitas lektron ib.436 (lyr.); also petrinê koitê, of a cave, S.Ph.160 (anap.); teiromenan noserai k. on a sick-bed, E.Hipp.132 (lyr.); koitan d' echei nerthen, of one dead, S.OC1706 (lyr.); k. sklêra Pl.Lg.942d , Aret.CA1.1: pl., ennuchoi k. Pi.P.11.25 ; numphidioi k. E. Alc.249 (lyr.): metaph., of the sea, en mesêmbrinais koitais . . heudoi pesôn A.Ag.566 ; of the bed of a river, Procop.Aed.5.5, Phlp.in Ph. 586.21, Lyd.Mens.4.10.

2. lair of a wild beast, nest of a bird, etc., E.Ion 155 (lyr.); chelidonôn Aët.16.15 ; k. poieisthai, of the spider, Arist.HA623a12; of the fish exôkoitos, Thphr.Fr.171.1.

3. quarters, tôn phulakitôn BGU1007.14 (iii B.C.), cf. PTeb.179 (ii B.C.); v. infr. VI.

4. pen, fold for cattle, PLips.118.15 (ii A.D.).

II. act of going to bed, tês koitês hôrê bed-time, Hdt.1.10, 5.20; trapezêi kai koitêi dekesthai to entertain 'at bed and board', ibid.; tên skênên eis k. dieluon for going to bed, X.Cyr.2.3.1 (but keisthai koitan to lie still in death, A.Ag.1494 (lyr.)).

III. lodging, entertainment, PTeb. 122.1 (i B.C.), al.

IV. of sexual connexion, k. didonai LXX Nu.5.20 , cf. Le.18.20; k. spermatos ib.15.16; k. echein ek . . to become pregnant by a man, Ep.Rom.9.10; in bad sense, lasciviousness, ib. 13.13 (pl.).

V. parcel, lot of land, PAmh.2.88.9 (ii A.D.), PRyl. 168.9 (ii A.D.).

VI. chest, case, or basket, Pherecr.122, Eup.76, IG 22.120.37,40, Men.129.2, PPetr.2p.10 (iii B.C., unless in signf. 1.3), Luc.Ep.Sat.21; hai mustikai k. Plu.Phoc.28 .

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform?lang=Greek

Other verses, in Lev., which show that koites meant more than bed as early as 250 BC.
LXX [250 BC] Lev 5:20 [SIZE=+1]ει δε συ παραβεβηκας υπ' ανδρος ουσα η μεμιανσαι και εδωκεν τις την κοιτην αυτου εν σοι πλην του ανδρος σου[/SIZE]

Lev 5:20 But if being a married woman thou hast transgressed, or been polluted, and any one has lain with thee, beside thy husband:

LXX [250 BC] Lev 18:20 [SIZE=+1]και προς την γυναικα του πλησιον σου ου δωσεις κοιτην σπερματος σου εκμιανθηναι προς αυτην[/SIZE]

Lev 18:20 And thou shalt not lie with, thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

Lev LXX [250 BC] 15:16 [SIZE=+1]και ανθρωπος ω εαν εξελθη εξ αυτου κοιτη σπερματος και λουσεται υδατι παν το σωμα αυτου και ακαθαρτος εσται εως εσπερας[/SIZE]

Lev 15:16 And the man whose seed of copulation shall happen to go forth from him, shall then wash his whole body, and shall be unclean until evening.

Truly, you aren't saying anything that I haven't been exposed to already. When you have ascended to a higher level of thinking, speak to me again; otherwise you're waisting your time.

We must keep in mind that:

A) there was no word in neither ancient Greek nor ancient Hebrew that described homosexuality as we think of it today.
B) Since there was no one word to describe homosexuality as we think of it today, there is no way that it even could have been forbidden

Der Alte · Apr 2, 2007

gwdboi said:
FOR YOUR INFORMATION THAT WAS MY OWN WORK THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I have seen the same stuff virtually word for word posted here before more than once.

gwdboi said:
aresenokoites more true meaning is male prostitute and not "a man who lies with mankind"

You don't know what you are talking about here. Just posting gay rubbish you found online. The reason I can say this is, REAL Greek scholars translated it that way 250 years BC. And the translation has stood unchallenged for 2400 +/- years until the past few decades when homosexuals have tried to change, i.e. pervert, the scriptures. The only "evidence" you can post is what some 2007 homosexual website says.

gwdboi said:
Abusers of themselves with mankind? This does not refer to a loving committed gay relationship. I'm sure that if you would expand your mind enough you would be able to see that.

My God is omnipotent and God knew all about every kind of relationship possible, if you could expand your mind enough to conceive of an omniscient God you would be able to see that.

gwdboi said:
Truly, you aren't saying anything that I haven't been exposed to already. When you have ascended to a higher level of thinking, speak to me again; otherwise you're waisting your time.

When you know the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God, I serve, let me know until then it appears the only thing you got is a secular humanism, if it feels good do it, philosophy and you are wasting everyone's time.

gwdboi said:
We must keep in mind that:

A) there was no word in neither ancient Greek nor ancient Hebrew that described homosexuality as we think of it today.
B) Since there was no one word to describe homosexuality as we think of it today, there is no way that it even could have been forbidden

Too bad, evidently your god is not omniscient and there are things he does not know.

gwdboi · Apr 2, 2007

Der Alter said:
Logical fallacy, argument from ignorance. Where is the verse for grandfather? There must not have been any grandfathers in the O.T. times because the word never occurs in scripture. Neither does aunt, cousin, or niece. There is a lot of talk about planting, cultivating, and harvesting but the words, farm or farming never occur.

Unless the context demands it or it is explicitly stated, otherwise, the masculine can and does include the feminine.

Actually, you're wrong.
Let me break it down:

A) IF homosexuality is such an abomination as is upheld by close minded religious leaders THEN why is it not mentioned any more than twice in the OT, neither of which specifically refers to women having sex with women.

Lets break the verse down:

shâkab zâkâr mishkâb 'ishshâh nâshîym tow`ebah.

A more sensible interpretation:
Men, do not ravish yourself with men as with women [that is, do not have carnal intercourse with men] for it is equivalent to idolatry.

Lev 20:13 is not a ceremonial ritual bushwah. It is among STATUTES given by God to all Israel.
Lev 20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel,
. . .
Lev 20:8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
While a concordance is good it only identifies the root word and not the voice, state, mood, etc. I would rather consult the historical interpretation by REAL Jewish scholars.

For example, the words bar, bear, cart, lead, house, what do they mean? Are they verbs or nouns? Is the first definition listed in the dictionary always the correct definition? The Jews who actually spoke Hebrew NEVER made the distinction that homosexuals try to force into the scripture.
Jewish Encyclopedia-ABOMINATION:

Rendering in the English versions of different Biblical terms denoting that which is loathed or detested on religious grounds and which, therefore, is utterly offensive to the Deity. These terms differ greatly in the degree of the abhorrence implied and should be distinguished in translation, as follows:

(1)

(to'ebah): Abomination of the highest degree; originally that which offends the religious sense of a people. Thus (Gen. xliii. 32): "The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians." The reason is that the Hebrews, as foreigners, were considered an inferior caste. According to Herodotus, ii. 41, no Egyptian would kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or even taste meat cut with a carving-knife belonging to a Greek. But especially as shepherds the Hebrews were "an abomination unto the Egyptians" (Gen. xlvi. 34). The eating of unclean animals is a religious offense called to'ebah: "Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing" (Deut. xiv. 3). This is the introduction to the laws prohibiting the use of unclean animals (see Clean and Unclean Animals). Still more offensive to the God of Israel is the practise of idolatry. The idol itself is called an Abomination: "for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house and thus become a thing set apart [tabooed=ḥerem] like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it and utterly abhor it; for it is a thing set apart [tabooed]" (Deut. vii. 25, 26, Heb.): "Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord" (Deut. xxvii. 15). Often the word to'ebah is used for idol or heathen deity; for instance, in Isa. xliv. 19; Deut. xxxii. 16; II Kings, xxiii. 13, and especially Ex. viii. 22 (26, A. V.), it is to be taken in this sense. When Pharaoh had told the Israelites to offer sacrifices to their God in Egypt, Moses replied: "How may we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians [that is, the kind of animals worshiped by them] before their eyes, and they not stone us?" (see Ibn Ezra, ad loc.).

All idolatrous practise is an Abomination because of its defiling character: "Every abomination to the Lord which he hateth have they done unto their gods" (Deut. xii. 31; compare Deut. xiii. 15, xvii. 4, xx. 18). Also magic and divination are an Abomination (Deut. xviii. 12). Sexual transgression is particularly denounced as an Abomination (to'ebah) (Deut. xxii. 5, xxiii. 19 [18, A. V.], xxiv. 4); especially incest and unnatural offenses (Lev. xviii. and xx.): "For all these abominations have the men of the land done who were before you, and the land became defiled; lest the land vomit you out also when ye defile it" (Lev. xviii. 27, 28, Heb.; compare also Ezek. viii. 15 and elsewhere).

But the word to'ebah also assumes a higher spiritual meaning and is applied also to moral iniquities: "Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. . . For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the Lord thy God" (Deut. xxv. 14-16). In the same strain we are taught that "lying lips" (Prov. xii. 22), "the perverse" (ib. iii. 32, R.V.) the "proud in heart" (ib. xvi. 5), "the way of the wicked" (ib. xv. 9), "thoughts of evil" (ib. xv. 26, Heb.), and "he that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the righteous" (ib. xvii. 15) are an Abomination. "These six things doth the Lord hate, yea, seven things are an abomination to him: haughty eyes; a lying tongue; hands that shed innocent blood; a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations; feet that be swift in running to mischief; a false witness that uttereth lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren" (ib. vi. 16-19, Heb.). In another direction the prohibition of an abominable thing is given an ethical meaning: "Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God an ox or a sheep wherein is a blemish, for that is an abomination unto the Lord thy God" (Deut. xvii. 1, Heb.). Here the physical character of the sacrifice is offensive. But prophet and sage declare that any sacrifice without purity of motive is an Abomination: "Bring no more an oblation of falsehoodan incense of abomination it is to me" (Isa. i. 13, Heb.; compare Jer. vii. 10). "The sacrifice of the wicked" (Prov. xv. 8, xxi. 27) and the prayer of "him that turneth his ear from hearing the law" (Prov. xxviii. 9, Heb.) are an Abomination.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=352&letter=A

The only way to ever interpret the Bible is to look at it with the spirit of all things in mind. We should interpret it based on our knowledge of God, our rational faculty, and our own experience. When all these are in harmony with our interpretation of the Bible we can be sure that we have found truth.

Der Alte · Apr 2, 2007

gwdboi said:
Actually, you're wrong.
Let me break it down:

A) IF homosexuality is such an abomination as is upheld by close minded religious leaders THEN why is it not mentioned any more than twice in the OT, neither of which specifically refers to women having sex with women.

How many times does God announce what his name is, in scripture? ONCE!

gwdboi said:
Lets break the verse down:

shâkab zâkâr mishkâb 'ishshâh nâshîym tow`ebah.

A more sensible interpretation:
Men, do not ravish yourself with men as with women [that is, do not have carnal intercourse with men] for it is equivalent to idolatry.

Great. Just ignore everything posted and make up your own interpretation. Well since you are such a competent Hebrew scholar, interpret this passage for me.

[size=+1]ויפתח יהוה את־פי האתון[/size]

gwdboi said:
The only way to ever interpret the Bible is to look at it with the spirit of all things in mind. We should interpret it based on our knowledge of God, our rational faculty, and our own experience. When all these are in harmony with our interpretation of the Bible we can be sure that we have found truth.

See the passage above, and tell me your own private interpretation system again.

gwdboi · Apr 2, 2007

Der Alter said:
How many times does God announce what his name is, in scripture? ONCE!

Great. Just ignore everything posted and make up your own interpretation. Well since you are such a competent Hebrew scholar, interpret this passage for me.
[SIZE=+1]ויפתח יהוה את־פי האתון[/SIZE]
See the passage above, and tell me your own private interpretation system again.

Okay, first off I have a confession: I can't read Hebrew [crowd gasps!]! But I can read English and English translations and lexicons. You see, it is important when interpreting scripture to place a passage in not only historical context but also in the context of God's nature.

Some more food for thought:
Okay, God only says His name once, so? What we term God is just for our benefit. I could call God the great time man in the sky place and as long as I conceived Him as God it wouldn't matter what I called Him.

Secondly, Lev 18 goes to great extent to state what is sexually appropriate and inappropriate. God could have just said "don't screw anyone you're not married to" and been done with it, but He went to great lengths to outline exactly what was and was not appropriate. So then, homosexuality being this abhorrence above all others, why doesn't God mention lesbians??

PinkTulip · Apr 2, 2007

gwdboi said:
Okay, first off I have a confession: I can't read Hebrew [crowd gasps!]! But I can read English and English translations and lexicons. You see, it is important when interpreting scripture to place a passage in not only historical context but also in the context of God's nature.

Some more food for thought:
Okay, God only says His name once, so? What we term God is just for our benefit. I could call God the great time man in the sky place and as long as I conceived Him as God it wouldn't matter what I called Him.

Secondly, Lev 18 goes to great extent to state what is sexually appropriate and inappropriate. God could have just said "don't screw anyone you're not married to" and been done with it, but He went to great lengths to outline exactly what was and was not appropriate. So then, homosexuality being this abhorrence above all others, why doesn't God mention lesbians??

I always thought homosexuality included lesbians. Look at the word.

UberLutheran · Apr 2, 2007

Time4AChange said:
Not if you're going to be a Christian....do you realize that "one's self" is a sinner. Seeing as we were all born sinners, if we were to all "be ourselves", u think we'd please God?

All these questions that keep poppin up in this section are ALL answered in the Bible. All the threads being made, if ppl would just submit to the Word of God, they'd have their answers...The Bible states as Christians, we are servants of God, we're not own...we're bought with a price. It also says if ANY man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things are past away, behold all things become new. It also says "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless i live, YET NOT I, CHRIST LIVETH IN ME. <-----All those Scriptures, and many more prove that as Christians, the old us is dead...we are not our own anymore, we can't "be ourselves" (which is sinners) we be like Christ.

Therefore, if we're going to be born again Christians, we're not our own anymore....That concept of who in control is the root of this whole homosexual debate.

and Romans 1:27 says And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

How doesn't the Bible speak about homosexuality as you stated in your OP?

Interesting: since "the concept of who is in control is the root of this whole homosexual debate", may I make the observation that the gay Christians and some of their liberal supporters (and a few of the conservatives, too, to be fair!) have behaved in a more truly "Christian" manner than some of the self-professed "Christians".

There isn't a whole lot in these diatribes against gays which would make one want to become Christian especially if that means emulating some of the self-righteous, judgmental and condemning attitudes which have been presented here.

gwdboi · Apr 2, 2007

PinkTulip said:
I always thought homosexuality included lesbians. Look at the word.

(Lev 18:22 [KJV])
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

no mention of lesbians nor homosexuality for that matter.

Brieuse · Apr 3, 2007

PinkTulip said:
I always thought homosexuality included lesbians. Look at the word.

Homosexuality includes Lesbians, yes.

Piedpiper123 · Apr 3, 2007

gwdboi said:
[FONT=&quot]NT Verses:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now, the largest problem with these verses is the translation of the two Greek words: arsenokoitai and malakoi. Taking into mind the Greek mindset of sex the two words (arsenokoitai: arseno: man, koitai: bed, lying, or having sex with; malakoi: soft [as in the softness of a fabric or “soft” moral views]) the more likely translation of “homosexual” is actually “male prostitute.” The NIV even goes as far to translate the word as “homosexual offenders” in 1 Corinthians and “perverts” in 1 Timothy. Homosexual offenders and perverts do not even come close to referring to committed homosexual relationships.[/FONT]

Not sure how you get this. What makes you think arsenokoitai (lying with a man) really means male prostitute? I haven't seen any evidence for that in Greek.

Malakoi can also mean effeminate in Greek which you did not include in your definition.

Der Alte · Apr 3, 2007

gwdboi said:
Okay, first off I have a confession: I can't read Hebrew [crowd gasps!]! But I can read English and English translations and lexicons. You see, it is important when interpreting scripture to place a passage in not only historical context but also in the context of God's nature.

I knew you couldn't read Hebrew. Therefore you are not interpreting the scripture, just twisting English versions to fit you biases and assumptions.

Please explain to me how you place a passage in historical context when you blow off all the historical documents which establish that context? What do you consider historical context, anything posted at GBLT-Я-us?

gwdboi said:
Some more food for thought:
Okay, God only says His name once, so? What we term God is just for our benefit. I could call God the great time man in the sky place and as long as I conceived Him as God it wouldn't matter what I called Him.

You missed the point, you said, IF homosexuality is such an abomination as is upheld by close minded religious leaders THEN why is it not mentioned any more than twice in the OT, If according to your logic the number of times something is stated in scripture determines whether it is important, or not, then God's name is not very important because he only states it once.

gwdboi said:
Secondly, Lev 18 goes to great extent to state what is sexually appropriate and inappropriate. God could have just said "don't screw anyone you're not married to" and been done with it, but He went to great lengths to outline exactly what was and was not appropriate. So then, homosexuality being this abhorrence above all others, why doesn't God mention lesbians??

Now you are going to dictate to God how he should have stated something in the O.T. And because it is not written in exactly the way you think it should be, then it doesn't say what it does say as clearly understood by God's people for the past 4000 years. Job tried that, this is God's answer.

Job 38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof

An Interesting Question

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

A Sinner Saved By Grace (Romans 3:23)

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Regular Member

Regular Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Regular Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Regular Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Similar threads