APA's 1973 decision cannot be cited as medial consensus.

[lmnop9876]

Well, we have a transgender that disagrees with you Dave. Consider that GID was removed from the DSM as well as homosexuality:

Gender Identity Disorder is still in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV):

Diagnostic Criteria for Gender Identity Disorder

• A. A strong persistent cross-gender identification (not merely a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex). In children, the disturbance is manifested by four (or more) of the following:
  1. Repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex.
  2. In boys, preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; In girls, insistence on wearing only stereotypical masculine clothing.
  3. Strong and persistent preferences for cross-sex roles in make believe play or persistent fantasies of being the other sex.
  4. Intense desire to participate in the stereotypical games and pastimes of the other sex.
  5. Strong preference for playmates of the other sex.
  In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as a stated desire to be the other sex, frequent passing as the other sex, desire to live or be treated as the other sex, or the conviction that he or she has the typical feelings and reactions of the other sex.
  
• B. Persistent discomfort with his or her sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex. In children, the disturbance is manifested by any of the following:
  In boys, assertion that his penis or testes are disgusting or will disappear or assertion that it would be better not to have a penis, or aversion toward rough-and-tumble play and rejection of male stereotypical toys, games, and activities.
  In girls, rejection of urinating in a sitting position, assertion that she has or will grow a penis, or assertion that she does not want to grow breasts or menstruate, or marked aversion toward normative feminine clothing.
  In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as preoccupation with getting rid of primary and secondary sex characteristics (e.g., request for hormones, surgery, or other procedures to physically alter sexual characteristics to simulate the other sex) or belief that he or she was born the wrong sex.
• C. The disturbance is not concurrent with physical intersex condition.
• D. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

• Code based on current age:
• 302.6 Gender Identity Disorder in Children
• 302.85 Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults

• Specify if (for sexually mature individuals):
• Sexually Attracted to Males
• Sexually Attracted to Females
• Sexually Attracted to Both
• Sexually Attracted to Neither

302.6 Gender Identity Disorder Not Otherwise Specified

This category is included for coding disorders in gender identity that are not classifiable as a specific Gender Identity Disorder. Examples include:

1. Intersex conditions (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia) and accompanying gender dysphoria
2. Transient, stress-related cross-dressing behavior
3. Persistent preoccupation with castration or penectomy without a desire to acquire the sex characteristics of the other sex

http://www.mhsanctuary.com/gender/dsm.htm#gid9

 

[MercyBurst]

OK so it's both in and out of the DSM, depending on the criteria that you just listed (and those criteria change).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder#Controversy

It's just another way to get homosexuality back into the DSM:

Many people feel that the deletion of homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-III and the ensuing creation of the GID diagnosis was merely sleight of hand by psychiatrists, who changed the focus of the diagnosis from the deviant desire (of the same sex) to the subversive identity (or the belief/desire for membership of the opposite sex/gender).[7]

This is just too confusing.

Can we return to the OP?

 

[davedjy]

That is because the bible speaks of the only orientation that God designed. We are told in Genesis, and all through the Bible, but yet that isn't good enough for those who don't really want to see the truth. We see in Ephesians 5:22-33 and Ephesians 6:1-4 what the family tripod is to be, but yet no matter how many times the Bible shows the design of marriage and family it is ignored.

I don't see anyone saying it is "ignored", but none of these verses ever mention this is the only arrangement "God designed".

But it does because all sin is equal in the Lords eyes, and all the attempts to say that no valid proof has been given is just one more proof that the heart does grow hard the more and more His knocking at hearts doors is rejected.

...or I can use that one on you too, very easily. You have been presented with what I believe is the truth, yet you have rejected it. "Your heart grows hard...".

Red herring, good try, yes I wish I could say that attempts to try and say thats all it is were good. Yet, all those who will seek, really seek and not let their itchy ears be scratched by the words or false teachers and preachers, will find the truth.

Ironic you use the phrase "false teacher", yet you are comparing apples and oranges when discussing homosexuality with a murderer, or any other violent behavior.

Yes stealing is bad behaviour, and excessive drinking or drinking things that make us do things we wouldn't do if we had not drank it is bad. Again like all sin is bad and since homosexuality is mention along with stealing, murder, and even lying as things that will keep a person from inheriting the Kingdom of God it is very comparable.

As I stated, you keep doing comparisons to something proven harmful. There is no point in you mentioning that homosexuality will keep someone out of the kingdom, the word "arsenokoitai" from 1 Cor. 6:9 is unknown.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

No I wouldn't think that you would see way one sin is the same as another, because that is very hard to do. Yet, we are told in the word that that is how the Lord does it.

As stated, it is disputed whether it is a "sin" or not.

Which is so plainly just another sexual sin that we are warned against in the Bible. Yep, just another sin in the Lords eyes, and just another thing that a person would need to admit and ask for forgiveness for.

Then why compare it to promiscuity to start? they are not nearly the same thing. Since you can't really debate that point I made, now you want to relate them by saying they are both "sins". What was the point in relating it to start?

Words in your mouth, hmm, I find it so interesting that you would make a person who says they are bisexual to choice just one partner if they want to get married. When by your logic they are born the way they are, and since God made them that way they should be considered normal and should marry someone from both genders. Jesus never spoke of this so it must be ok or He would have said something. I think even the APA says it is normal, come to think of it.

It is a silly point you keep making about bisexuals. AS I STATED, there are probably multiple men that you were attracted to, it doesn't matter what sex they are. You chose ONE because of the principle of monogamy, and that is what bisexuals must do. It doesn't matter the gender of the person you are attracted to, you choose one person for life. Arguments on "Jesus never mentioned it" is a 2 way street because both sides fill in and speak for Him on that regard, then.

Can't you see that in the old days they would not have been able to understand bi-sexuals, and know that 3 people could live together in a relationship just like the hetrosexuals and homosexuals do?

You are addressing something that goes outside the lines of monogamy, and there isn't any point with that. Plenty of bisexuals are willing to commit to one person. You make bisexuals out to needing a person of both sexes to be happy which is an ignorant point, at best.

If a person needs to have sex many times a day, than this would mean that they are born that way, again by your logic. Being made by God this is normal so if they are kept from being able to do the things God made them to do, well shouldn't they be allowed to go out and find someone to help their spouse fulfill their needs, because God made them that way we can stand in their way.

How much sex a person wants or needs is not the same as who they are attracted to in the first place, which was the point that you skirted. Clearly, there is a chemical imbalance there, and I never said that sexual addiction is the way a person was made.

So people would need sex several times are a day you say, and this makes it wrong? Can you give me the scripture that say having sex many times a day is an addiction? Can you show the scripture where Jesus spoke of this, because I can't find it?

Whenever you say you "need" something, that isn't based upon actually needing it (like food or water), that is clearly an addiction. Nobody needs sex, so this isn't a valid point.

Red herring no, just another example of how that great deceiver twist things, and tempts us with desires that are not of God.

Humorously, you accept that, yet you haven't proven that same sex desire comes from "the Great Deceiver". What has been proven, is that comments like you and others have made about Jesus healing the homosexual, ARE VERY deceitful, as this isn't just not true.

It is just another sin that I have heard justified away by it being the way they were born, which must mean that it is ok because that is the way God made them. They say that they have been that way as far back as they can remember. Boy due all those excuses sound like things I have heard before.

Nobody should have to "excuse" themselves for a valid sexual orientation. There isn't anything harmful about being a gay or lesbian, and to accept your Biblical standard as truth, is making God out to be extremely arbitrary.

Again, I don't understand why you hate them, why are you prejudice against this minority? Why aren't they allowed to have many spouses to fill their needs. I never saw you as a bigot, but that must be what you are if you would say there is something in the bible that would say having sex many times a day is wrong. We are told to love and not condemn, but if you want to say this behavior is wrong then how is that showing love? How can you not see how you are condemning them?

I don't believe having sex multiple times a day is wrong unless you say "you have to have it". Just like anything else...if I say that I need to be on the internet or use my computer to function everyday, that can become a form of idolatry.
I don't see bisexuals as saying they need to have multiple partners, so that is a silly point at best. It is also a myth that bisexuals must be with one person from each sex.

Sound familiar? Why does the logic that homosexuals use not work for bi-sexuals?

...for one thing, it doesn't work because it isn't even true.

Can't you see that in the old days they would not have been able to understand bi-sexuals, and know that 3 people could live together in a relationship just like the hetrosexuals and homosexuals do.

....you already said this, I already addressed it.

The scriptures that speak of worshiping with the mouth but not the heart comes to mind, along with those scriptures that speak of another Christ. This then greatly saddens me because the next scriptures that come to mind are the ones that say Lord, Lord did we not cast out demons in your name, and the Lord answered and said depart from me I never knew you.

Yes, to people the Lord NEVER knew, which means that they were never saved, and NEVER knew God to begin with. Doesn't explain gays and lesbians, verse and chapter please.

You enjoy using the clobber passage statement time and time again as if that makes what you are saying correct. I am sorry that you won't be able to throw it down as some proof of truth on any post to me, but I am sure other will come for you to use it with

Of course not, I have already posted the theology a gazillion times, which does hold water. You saying homosexuals aren't going to enter the kingdom, by using a proven false translation, isn't going to work with me, either (posted link up higher). I am not alone...Olliefranz and Mr. Pirate both have brought evidence to back their claims. I have yet to see any pro-gay arguer post proof arsenokoitai means homosexual, and you can't do it either. The word definition is unknown.
This next link shows more excellent theology that cannot be easily refuted:



http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/gay_and_christian_yes.htm

The historical context on those 2 passages is not the truth that was shown to be the beliefs that the church fathers who lived in that time believed and taught. It is from bible scholars of today that think they know better than those who lived in the time. They are people who don't even have to believe in the very thing that they are called scholars of. They are people/humans that can be used and deceived just like all people/humans can.

The beliefs of the Church Fathers, in many cases is not even the same as now, anyways, so I don't get your point with that. For example, a word universally translated at the time of Martin Luther as "masturbator", and now "homosexual", proves you trust translations that were not used "back then". Pretty ironic you would even say that, wow....

I have the interpretation of Genesis that says God created them male and female, which no one has said or proved is misinterpretated. I have the scriptures in Genesis that say he will leave his parents and cleave to a wife, which again has not been questioned. I have that same statement found throughout the Bible, which shows no contradiction, because in every place it is stated it says just what God said in Genesis. I have scripture after scripture that tells how a wife should treat her husband and how a husband should treat his wife, and again there is no claims or proof of misinterpretation.

I have Eph. 5:22-33 and Eph. 6:1-4 showing very clearing what a family is to be and how they should act. Lets see what does it say? It says a wife is to submit herself to her husband as she does to the Lord.

Then it tells us how a husband should love his wife even as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. It tells us how the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.

Yet none of these verses have anything to do with disputing homosexuality, so you don't really have a credible debate point there.

Lets see what does it teach us next? Oh, yes it is that all familiar example given to us since the beginning of time.

Eph. 5:31
31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

What next are we shown so clearly. Oh, yes we see how children are to treat their parents, and how the parents are to treat their children.

All these scriptures have been called the family tripod by some churches. This we see all through the bible, and even without the scriptures that tell of homosexuality being a sin the God designed family is clear from the first book of the Bible to almost the last.

Clear, in your misinterpretation that God only intended a man to be with a woman. The verses never address a sexual orientation, and you use those verses to say "by the orientation being omitted, it means that it is only God's intent for a man to be with a woman". Either way and either side, is claiming to speak for God.

No, I don't suppose you do.

You posting a false translation for your justification that homosexuals "will not inherit the kingdom" proves you still don't get it.

 

[savedandhappy1]

I don't see anyone saying it is "ignored", but none of these verses ever mention this is the only arrangement "God designed".




...or I can use that one on you too, very easily. You have been presented with what I believe is the truth, yet you have rejected it. "Your heart grows hard...".

How many books in the bible? How many verses, and not a one speaks of anything but hetrosexual marriage and/or not marrying at all. Yet you can't see how that would mean that it is the design we are to follow. So many things that aren't mention by name in the Bible but yet we know they are wrong, but this one means the total opposite. Don't know what to tell you.

Ironic you use the phrase "false teacher", yet you are comparing apples and oranges when discussing homosexuality with a murderer, or any other violent behavior.

All the sins are listed together, and I haven't seen anywhere in the bible that God said homosexuality was an apple and lying is an orange. I just see Him saying a sin is a sin is a sin. I believe it says in one place if you have done one of them it is the same as you doing all of them. So nope, I don't see any apples or oranges. All I see is that we all sin, and because of that sin we need to repent and confess.

As I stated, you keep doing comparisons to something proven harmful. There is no point in you mentioning that homosexuality will keep someone out of the kingdom, the word "arsenokoitai" from 1 Cor. 6:9 is unknown.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

Yet we have those scriptures that say man laying with man and woman with woman, which mean homosexual. So then we have to take something so clear, and which backs up what the meaning should be of the word arsenokoitai, and make it wrong by saying the only sin is hetrosexuals having homosexual sex. Yep we can take the bible as a whole and ask the Lord for the wisdom needed to understand, or we can end up like the scripture Romans 1:24-25 says will happen.

I noticed no one wanted to try and correct the many bible scholars and there translations of the gave them up to passages. hmm

It is a silly point you keep making about bisexuals. AS I STATED, there are probably multiple men that you were attracted to, it doesn't matter what sex they are. You chose ONE because of the principle of monogamy, and that is what bisexuals must do. It doesn't matter the gender of the person you are attracted to, you choose one person for life. Arguments on "Jesus never mentioned it" is a 2 way street because both sides fill in and speak for Him on that regard, then.

Let me see if I can clear this up for you. If they are bisexual, but are fine with settling down with one person, then they are either hetrosexual or homosexual, not bisexual I would think?

Bisexuality is a sexual orientation which refers to the romantic and/or sexual attraction of individuals to other individuals of both their own and the opposite gender (socially) or sex (biologically).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality

Since you are ok with this site I thought I would use their definition for bisexuality. Looky there it is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or hetrosexuality is, so you aren't being fair to them. If God made them that way, why can't they marry both a man and a woman. Why are you treating this minority this way?

You are addressing something that goes outside the lines of monogamy, and there isn't any point with that. Plenty of bisexuals are willing to commit to one person. You make bisexuals out to needing a person of both sexes to be happy which is an ignorant point, at best.

What does monogamy have to do with it? This is the way God made them so if it ok with God that homosexuals are together then why can't bisexuals do what God created them to do?

Humorously, you accept that, yet you haven't proven that same sex desire comes from "the Great Deceiver". What has been proven, is that comments like you and others have made about Jesus healing the homosexual, ARE VERY deceitful, as this isn't just not true.

Humm Donnie whats his .................McCorken. Can't think of his last name, but he sings, preaches and is backing the Dems Presidential canadate Obama. He seems to differ with your statements, but I know he is just lying and you are sure of that because there is nothing to heal even if someone gets healed.

Nobody should have to "excuse" themselves for a valid sexual orientation. There isn't anything harmful about being a gay or lesbian, and to accept your Biblical standard as truth, is making God out to be extremely arbitrary.

Is there something wrong with bisexuals then, because it doesn't seem you want to call them as a valid sexual orientation? I should go see what the APA says about them, because they know so much about things like this. Yep, I think I will go see what they say.

...for one thing, it doesn't work because it isn't even true.

It isnt' true that they are attracted to both sexes? Then what does bisexual mean?

Of course not, I have already posted the theology a gazillion times, which does hold water. You saying homosexuals aren't going to enter the kingdom, by using a proven false translation, isn't going to work with me, either (posted link up higher). I am not alone...Olliefranz and Mr. Pirate both have brought evidence to back their claims. I have yet to see any pro-gay arguer post proof arsenokoitai means homosexual, and you can't do it either. The word definition is unknown.
This next link shows more excellent theology that cannot be easily refuted:

http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/gay_and_
christian_yes.htm

you keep mentioning arsenokoitai, but yet man laying with man and woman with woman in other than 1 Cor. isn't misinterpretated. So continuely throwing that word out..........

I still find it so amazing that scholars now think they no more than those who were living it. Nothing really more to say on that.

The beliefs of the Church Fathers, in many cases is not even the same as now, anyways, so I don't get your point with that. For example, a word universally translated at the time of Martin Luther as "masturbator", and now "homosexual", proves you trust translations that were not used "back then". Pretty ironic you would even say that, wow....


Yet none of these verses have anything to do with disputing homosexuality, so you don't really have a credible debate point there.


Clear, in your misinterpretation that God only intended a man to be with a woman. The verses never address a sexual orientation, and you use those verses to say "by the orientation being omitted, it means that it is only God's intent for a man to be with a woman". Either way and either side, is claiming to speak for God.

Lets see did I post what year the term sexual orientation was created? Can't remember if I did so will have to look that up again, and can remember it was awhile after the time that you pointed out that the word homosexual was created. Or at least I think that is what I remember, but will have to look that up again.

Never addresses sexual orientation, and so many can't/won't see that as the point. Maybe there wasn't anything to omit because there isn't suppose to be anything but hetrosexuality. That would be to literal and clear, and way to easy to just go with what is shown us in the word instead of ..................

Lets see and Eve sad that the Lord said if we eat of the tree in the center of the garden we will die, and that great serpent the devil says oh you won't really die.

You posting a false translation for your justification that homosexuals "will not inherit the kingdom" proves you still don't get it.

I posted a false translation, oh yes I know everything is false if it doesn't line up with yours. Just like all homosexuals that say the Lord cured them are liars and fake. And again we see so clearly.

As I said before nothing left to say again and again. Nothing left to post again and again.

 

[davedjy]

How many books in the bible? How many verses, and not a one speaks of anything but hetrosexual marriage and/or not marrying at all. Yet you can't see how that would mean that it is the design we are to follow. So many things that aren't mention by name in the Bible but yet we know they are wrong, but this one means the total opposite. Don't know what to tell you.

AS I stated, you can't use those verses against gay people, since historical context is that these types of relationships were not around. Certain ridiculous behaviors are endorsed in the Bible historically speaking such as, polygamy was in Exodus and slavery.

Yet we have those scriptures that say man laying with man and woman with woman, which mean homosexual. So then we have to take something so clear, and which backs up what the meaning should be of the word arsenokoitai, and make it wrong by saying the only sin is hetrosexuals having homosexual sex. Yep we can take the bible as a whole and ask the Lord for the wisdom needed to understand, or we can end up like the scripture Romans 1:24-25 says will happen.

Romans 1 is not a clobber passage against gays and lesbians. The historical context is in Rome, and it is pagan idolatry worship IN CONJUNCTION with mass orgies to a false God. I posted the link that shows that the word definition of arsenokoitai is unknown. I have also posted the numerous translation flaws and inconsistencies of that word. I have also posted the compound word which merely means "man", and "many beds".

I noticed no one wanted to try and correct the many bible scholars and there translations of the gave them up to passages. hmm

Correct the many Bible Scholars? which ones?

Let me see if I can clear this up for you. If they are bisexual, but are fine with settling down with one person, then they are either hetrosexual or homosexual, not bisexual I would think?

Just because someone is bisexual, doesn't mean they need to be with members of both sexes to be happy. Your premise is based upon a faulty one, at best.

Bisexuality is a sexual orientation which refers to the romantic and/or sexual attraction of individuals to other individuals of both their own and the opposite gender (socially) or sex (biologically).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality

Since you are ok with this site I thought I would use their definition for bisexuality. Looky there it is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or hetrosexuality is, so you aren't being fair to them. If God made them that way, why can't they marry both a man and a woman. Why are you treating this minority this way?

I have already been through this with you. You assume that a sexual orientation where people are attracted to both sexes means they need to be with both sexes. Since you may be attracted to many different people (men), maybe you should marry more than one = your same flawed logic spelled out. People can be attracted to many different people, that doesn't mean that the orientation is suited or catered to polygamy.

What does monogamy have to do with it? This is the way God made them so if it ok with God that homosexuals are together then why can't bisexuals do what God created them to do?

Again, based upon your faulty premise that bisexuals were made to be with more than one person, which you cannot prove is the truth. Many heterosexual and homosexual people are attracted to many different people. Attraction and monogamy are two different things. As stated, with your same logic, heterosexuals and homosexuals could be with more than one person. Hey, they are attracted to those people...your point does not work in the least.

Humm Donnie whats his .................McCorken. Can't think of his last name, but he sings, preaches and is backing the Dems Presidential canadate Obama. He seems to differ with your statements, but I know he is just lying and you are sure of that because there is nothing to heal even if someone gets healed.

It's Donnie McClurkin.
Right, like I'm going to trust a man that says that gays are "trying to kill our children":

http://www.nbjcoalition.org/news/nbjc-responds-to-obamadonnie.html


You may wish to more carefully cite your references before using someone like that, wow. Testimonials mean absolutely nothing...there is no proof that the person wasn't bisexual to start. There are plenty of testimonials where the people from Exodus
retracted and regretted making a statement to start. So why should I trust testimonials?

Is there something wrong with bisexuals then, because it doesn't seem you want to call them as a valid sexual orientation? I should go see what the APA says about them, because they know so much about things like this. Yep, I think I will go see what they say.

Bisexuality IS a valid orientation. However, your notion is a faulty one. You assume that since someone is bisexual they need to be with members of BOTH sexes to be happy. This is a stereotype myth, and probably offensive to bisexual people. Many wish to be in monogamous relationships with ONE person. I have read about the stats on that one.
While you are over at APA, please do cite where bisexuals must be with a member of both sexes to be happy. You keep using that as a statement, and it really is a faulty one. As stated, many are attracted to lots of people, but attraction doesn't change whether someone stays monogamous or not. Bisexuals are simply attracted to both sexes, that doesn't mean they need someone from both sexes, or even desire not to be monogamous!
Just because someone is attracted to many different people (sex aside), doesn't mean they want to be with 2 or more people.

I guess you can't see the difference between attraction and monogamy... AGAIN, I will reiterate...we all are attracted to many different people in our orientations, it doesn't mean that we can be with more than one person, or even want to do that. Bisexuals are no different, many desire monogamous relationships. Then again, there are bisexuals who wish not to be monogamous and be promiscuous...but we find that in ALL sexual orientations.

It isnt' true that they are attracted to both sexes? Then what does bisexual mean?

Yes, attracted to both sexes. Just as you are attracted to many different people of the opposite sex, I would assume. That does not equate "must be with a member of both sexes", or that the person even wants to do that. Most bisexual people I have talked to or known, date ONE person, and are interested in monogamy. Your point doesn't work in the least. Attraction and exclusivity are two different things.

you keep mentioning arsenokoitai, but yet man laying with man and woman with woman in other than 1 Cor. isn't misinterpretated. So continuely throwing that word out..........

Leviticus refers to a ceremonial/ritual impurity violation as stated with what the word "abomination" really means = tow'ebah. A ceremonial idolatry violation where men were dressing as women before a false sex God. This is why you don't see a verse for lesbians. The verse that follows says "no man can lie wit h a beast NOR a female...". The explanation...the ban is the same sex idolatry violation where women didn't engage in it.

I still find it so amazing that scholars now think they no more than those who were living it. Nothing really more to say on that.

Really isn't a debate point, as there are Scholars who claim this from both sides of the spectrum...anti-gay and pro-gay.

Lets see did I post what year the term sexual orientation was created? Can't remember if I did so will have to look that up again, and can remember it was awhile after the time that you pointed out that the word homosexual was created. Or at least I think that is what I remember, but will have to look that up again.



Never addresses sexual orientation, and so many can't/won't see that as the point. Maybe there wasn't anything to omit because there isn't suppose to be anything but hetrosexuality. That would be to literal and clear, and way to easy to just go with what is shown us in the word instead of ..................

Assumption...you use assumption to come to the conclusion that there isn't supposed to be anything but heterosexuality. Yet, what we have is practices in the Bible such as God ordained polygamy in Exodus and slavery, and you ignore those historical contexts. Same sex relationships were not part of the culture, so why would they be in the Bible?

I posted a false translation, oh yes I know everything is false if it doesn't line up with yours. Just like all homosexuals that say the Lord cured them are liars and fake. And again we see so clearly.

That is incorrect. I proved that the word definition is unknown, I gave the link from religious tolerance. You also posted a testimonial from Donnie McClurkin, who believes "gays are trying to kill our children". I also posted why I don't believe testimonials have credibility. (bisexuality and MANY testimonies being retracted).

As I said before nothing left to say again and again. Nothing left to post again and again.

'round and 'round in circles. You keep equating bisexuality with someone
that needs to be with both sexes to be happy.
As I will say again, in hope it gets through...we all have attraction to many different people regardless of our sexual orientation, we choose one person. Bisexuals are no different, so you can't really use that as a credible debate point. Bisexuals may date a man one week, and a woman the next, just as a heterosexual will date one person they are attracted to one week, and another the next.

Bisexuality in NO WAY means that a person needs both sexes to be happy, any more than you need more than one man, or a homosexual needs more than one person to be happy.

 

[MercyBurst]

As I stated, you keep doing comparisons to something proven harmful. There is no point in you mentioning that homosexuality will keep someone out of the kingdom, the word "arsenokoitai" from 1 Cor. 6:9 is unknown.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

Dave, you know we will all stand before God someday and give an account of ourselves.

You could be required to explain how same-sex-sodomy is ok when some Christian brothers and sisters had to leave this ungodly addiction in order to live their lives for Christ.

The rest of us don't have to explain why it's not ok. Rather God, needs to explain to us why same-sex-sodomy is ok when His translaters told us otherwise. He'll also have to explain why some of our brothers and sisters found it damaging to their lives and testimonies, yet he sent it to them. This will be one embarrassed God for sure.

And another thing: tolerance is living with that which you find unacceptable; it doesn't mean accepting that which you can not live with.

 

[davedjy]

Dave, you know we will all stand before God someday and give an account of ourselves.

You could be required to explain how same-sex-sodomy is ok when some Christian brothers and sisters had to leave this ungodly addiction in order to live their lives for Christ.

The rest of us don't have to explain why it's not ok. Rather God, needs to explain to us why same-sex-sodomy is ok when His translaters told us otherwise. He'll also have to explain to us why some of our brothers and sisters found it damaging to their lives and testimonies, yet it was God-sent. This would be one embarrassed God for sure.

And another thing: tolerance is living with that which you find unacceptable; it doesn't mean accepting that which you can not live with.

Yes, we will all stand before God someday and give an account. Where have I disputed that, but many of you seem to bring that up like that actually might change what I believe.
"His translators" are not in universal agreement on Arsenokoitai, and the definition of the word is unknown, so why did you post a definition of the word "tolerance"? The Website, Religious Tolerance, just points out the word definition for arsenokoitai is unknown, but translators have come to conclusions based upon lack of evidence.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Romans 1 is not a clobber passage against gays and lesbians. The historical context is in Rome, and it is pagan idolatry worship IN CONJUNCTION with mass orgies to a false God. I posted the link that shows that the word definition of arsenokoitai is unknown. I have also posted the numerous translation flaws and inconsistencies of that word. I have also posted the compound word which merely means "man", and "many beds".

AND IN THE SAME WAY ALSO THE MEN (lit "the males") ABANDONED (forsook by a conscious choice of their will): homoios te kai oi arsenes aphentes (AAPMPN):
"In the same way" (3668) (homoios) means to being similar in some respect, similarly, of equal degree or manner and denoting perfect agreement.
"Men" (730) (arrhen or arsen) means the gender male and is not the more common word aner (435). John MacArthur comments that...
The usual Greek terms for women and men, like corresponding terms in most languages, imply a certain dignity, and Paul refused to ascribe even an implied dignity to those who degenerate into homosexuality." (MacArthur, J. Romans. Chicago: Moody Press)
"Abandoned" (863) (aphiemi from apo= separation + hiemi = send) conveys the basic idea of an action which causes separation and thus means to send away or to let go from oneself. Aphiemi was used for example of the action of dismissing a wife. The idea is to let go from one's possession!
The verb abandoned is aorist tense (action at a moment in time) and active voice (subject makes a choice of their will to carry out this action) indicating that these men made a deliberate choice to abandon the natural for the unnatural.
So these men by a conscious willful choice sent away so to speak their natural function, dismissing their God given desire for the opposite sex, letting their natural function be set free. This is a vivid picture of personal choice which all began when they refused to acknowledge God as Creator. They forsook their God given natural role, God having created men (Adam) with the direct instruction to be fruitful and multiply! How ironic that if they had obeyed God they would have brought forth life, but in disobeying Him, the tragic result was death! And so we see that not only is homosexuality a willful choice, it is one that completely reverses the natural order of creation. It is thoroughly "unnatural," literally it is "against nature." Men and women have to deliberately repress the way God made them in order to practice homosexuality.

Homosexuality was common in first century Rome, and is often spoken of without a sense of shame by Roman writers. Homosexuality was prohibited neither by religion nor law, and was acknowledged without shame. At times, the Roman empire specifically taxed approved homosexual prostitution, and gave boy prostitutes a legal holiday. Same sex marriage was legally recognized, and even some of the Roman emperors married men. At the very time Paul was writing, Nero was emperor. He had taken a boy named Sporus and had him castrated. He then married him (with a full ceremony), brought him to the palace with a great procession, and made the boy his "wife." Later, Nero lived with another man, and Nero was the "wife."
Barnes has this historical note:
Cicero says that...the practice of (homosexuality) was common among the Greeks, and that their poets and great men, and even their learned men and philosophers, not only practiced, but gloried in it. And he adds, that it was the custom, not of particular cities only, but of Greece in general. Xenophon says, that "the unnatural love of boys is so common, that in many places it is established by the public laws." He particularly alludes to Sparta. Plato says that the Cretans practiced this crime, and justified themselves by the example of Jupiter and Ganymede. (Book of Laws, i.) And Aristotle says, that among the Cretans there was a law encouraging that sort of unnatural love. Plutarch says, that this was practiced at Thebes, and at Elis. He further says, that Solon, the great lawgiver of Athens, "was not proof against beautiful boys, and had not courage to resist the force of love." Diogenes Laertius says that this vice was practiced by the Stoic Zeno. Among the Romans, to whom Paul was writing, this vice was no less common. It appears from what Seneca says that in his time it was practiced openly at Rome, and without shame. He speaks of flocks and troops of boys, distinguished by their colors and nations; and says that great care was taken to train them up for this detestable employment. There is not the least evidence that this abominable vice was confined to Greece and Rome.
Pritchardhas some strong words in conclusion on this section of Scripture:
"...let's not lose the main point. More than anything else, homosexuality is a willful choice. No one can say, "I was born that way." No one is born homosexual. No one. Anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant of the Bible or has deliberately perverted its teaching. You can talk all you want about genetics, the size of the hypothalamus, about absent fathers, over-protective mothers, about early sexual confusion, and even about sexual abuse. Some of those things may indeed create a predisposition to this particular sin. But the fact remains: Every act of homosexuality—whether in word or deed or in lustful thought—every single act is a personal moral choice. Temptation is not the issue because temptation in and of itself is not a sin. But giving in to temptation—whether mentally, verbally or in actual deed—is a sin. That's a moral choice for which God will hold you 100% accountable. You can't blame your choices on your hypothalamus! You can't even blame your father for his failure to be there when you needed him...As a society moves away from God, one mark of its drift into judgment is widespread homosexuality. The tragic fact is that this is exactly where America is today."
Martin Luther wrote
"I find it impossible to avoid offending guilty men, for there is no way of avoiding it by our silence or their patience; and silent we cannot be because of God's command, and patient they cannot be because of their guilt."
THE NATURAL FUNCTION OF THE WOMAN AND BURNED: ten phusiken chresin tes thleias exekauthesan (3PAPI):
"Natural" (natural) (phusikos from phúsis = nature) means pertaining to things in accordance with nature or belonging to the naturally regulated order of things. Phusikos refers to those things which one does out of instinct. The idea is that something pertains to that which is in accordance with the nature or character of that thing. Thus it is natural for both men and woman to desire heterosexual relationships.
Peter uses phusikos to describe false teachers as likened to animals whose natural destiny is to be victims of predators. (see exposition of 2 Peter 2:12-13)
"Function" (function) (chresis from chráomai = to use) describes use or the act (usage) or manner (use) of using. It can refer to the habitual or customary usage of something. In the two NT uses (Romans 1:26-27) chresis refers to "use" of the body or more accurately in the context of Romans 1, the perverted use of one's body and not the use specified in God's plan and order for men and women who were created in His image.
"Burned" (1572) (ekkaio from ek = intensifies meaning of the following verb + kaío = burn, set fire to) means to cause to burn or flame up and figuratively as used in this only NT usage mans to be inflamed with passion or burn furiously with lust. Their lusts or desires were enflamed. They were made to flame up or burn furiously with lust. What a picturesque word: fire destroys, fire spreads quickly on dry timber, fire is flamed up by winds.
Regarding the Greek word for "burned" (ekkaio) Vincentcomments.
“The terms are terrible in their intensity. Literally, ‘burned out.’ The preposition ("ek") indicates the rage of lust because this preposition ( ek) prefixed to the verb, intensifies its meaning. Their lust could not be satiated. It was an all-out endeavor to satisfy their totally-depraved natures."
IN THEIR DESIRE: en te orexei auton:
"Desire"(3715) (orexis) refers to an eager desire, lust or appetite. Orexis isused only here in NT but in classic Greek was the most general term for every kind of desire, as the appetite for food. Orexis has an instructive origin from oregomai which pictures a stretching out of one’s self to touch or grasp an object. The idea is that of a deep, abiding, and profound degree of internal longing for the object of one's desire. Orexis thus refers to a continual reaching out after an object with the purpose of drawing it to oneself and appropriating it.
Vincent says that
"The peculiar expressiveness of the word (orexis) here is sufficiently evident from the context." (Vincent, M. R.: Word Studies in the New Testament)


http://www.preceptaustin.org/romans_126-27.htm

We have gotten so far from the OP well............I guess we should go with it.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Assumption...you use assumption to come to the conclusion that there isn't supposed to be anything but heterosexuality. Yet, what we have is practices in the Bible such as God ordained polygamy in Exodus and slavery, and you ignore those historical contexts. Same sex relationships were not part of the culture, so why would they be in the Bible?

Homosexuality was common in first century Rome, and is often spoken of without a sense of shame by Roman writers. Homosexuality was prohibited neither by religion nor law, and was acknowledged without shame. At times, the Roman empire specifically taxed approved homosexual prostitution, and gave boy prostitutes a legal holiday. Same sex marriage was legally recognized, and even some of the Roman emperors married men. At the very time Paul was writing, Nero was emperor. He had taken a boy named Sporus and had him castrated. He then married him (with a full ceremony), brought him to the palace with a great procession, and made the boy his "wife." Later, Nero lived with another man, and Nero was the "wife."
Barnes has this historical note:
Cicero says that...the practice of (homosexuality) was common among the Greeks, and that their poets and great men, and even their learned men and philosophers, not only practiced, but gloried in it. And he adds, that it was the custom, not of particular cities only, but of Greece in general. Xenophon says, that "the unnatural love of boys is so common, that in many places it is established by the public laws." He particularly alludes to Sparta. Plato says that the Cretans practiced this crime, and justified themselves by the example of Jupiter and Ganymede. (Book of Laws, i.) And Aristotle says, that among the Cretans there was a law encouraging that sort of unnatural love. Plutarch says, that this was practiced at Thebes, and at Elis. He further says, that Solon, the great lawgiver of Athens, "was not proof against beautiful boys, and had not courage to resist the force of love." Diogenes Laertius says that this vice was practiced by the Stoic Zeno. Among the Romans, to whom Paul was writing, this vice was no less common. It appears from what Seneca says that in his time it was practiced openly at Rome, and without shame. He speaks of flocks and troops of boys, distinguished by their colors and nations; and says that great care was taken to train them up for this detestable employment. There is not the least evidence that this abominable vice was confined to Greece and Rome.

Just in case you missed in the last post, thought I would repost it.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Correct the many Bible Scholars? which ones?

Wayne Barber
Albert Barnes
John Calvin
Thomas Constable
Bob Deffinbaugh
Jonathan Edward's
Dave Guzik
Greg Herrick
S Lewis Johnson
Middletown Bible
John MacArthur
William Newell
John Piper
Precept Ministries
Ray Pritchard
A T Robertson
Ray Stedman
Marvin Vincent

Well this shows how you didn't even go to the link provided or you would have seen the many quotes/findings etc.

I guess I should stop doing that as well, since alot of times I don't have the time.

Must be my misquided doctrines and closed mindedness that makes me do that.

Yet, since I feel that all things should be checked against the qualifications given by the Lord, I will continue to check things presented as proof of different points of view then mine. I will prayerfully seek the wisdom needed to understand the ways of the Lord, and I will probably continue to be told I am closed minded and brainwashed by false doctrines.

Kind of strange how the person being accused of the above things seems to be the one looking at all sides, and the supposed open minded ones don't even look at things.

How sad.

This is really, well since it doesn't appear...........well I guess you should have taken the advise in another thread about having you responses where you can just copying and paste them to save you time........

Come to think of it maybe you have, since nothing changes.

Well my closed mind has some other things to study, so once again I will say there is really no reason to put links that won't be looked at, so there is no reason to save information found while in my studies.

So

 

[MercyBurst]

Yes, we will all stand before God someday and give an account.

Brothers and sisters in Christ struggle with sexual addictions. You could be accountable for some of them too.

Your promise of a sinless "loving committed relationship" to people recovering from sexual addictions is like a liquor salesman telling recovering alchoholics that there's nothing wrong with just one little drink.

This promise of a "sinless loving committed relationship" is nothing more than an unsustainable pipe dream from hell.

What gay person has only had one sexual partner in their entire life?

Where have I disputed that, but many of you seem to bring that up like that actually might change what I believe.

Regardless of what you believe, how does this help God's kingdom?

"His translators" are not in universal agreement on Arsenokoitai, and the definition of the word is unknown,

In other words, God just can't make Himself clear. Well, so much for His everlasting promises -- some translator probably botched them too.

And one thing we do know for sure -- anyone that loves Christ will not try to hurt His Body of Believers. Yet, here you are preaching carnality, enticing the body of Christ into sexual addiction. If you want to give yourself over that is your choice. Others who fight the same temptations, and want to live for Jesus Christ, do not want to follow you.

so why did you post a definition of the word "tolerance"?

because of your link to religioustolerance.org
Religious tolerance is nothing more than self-hypocrisy -- it's faking that you are ok with something when you really aren't.

The Website, Religious Tolerance, just points out the word definition for arsenokoitai is unknown, but translators have come to conclusions based upon lack of evidence.

So why don't they translate the entire bible the way they see it? Let's see who accepts their version as authoritative. I can see it now -- the Religious Tolerance Bible offends nobody, and tells everyone they can believe whatever they want -- just what the world wants to hear! THAT'S TOLERANCE FOLKS!!!

 

[davedjy]

Brothers and sisters in Christ struggle with sexual addictions. You could be accountable for some of them too.

As will you be accountable for spreading your anti-gay interpretations around. I don't equate a valid sexual orientation with sexual addiction, you shouldn't even call it that.

Y

our promise of a sinless "loving committed relationship" to people recovering from sexual addictions is like a liquor salesman telling recovering alchoholics that there's nothing wrong with just one little drink.

Who is the "sex addict"? why are you equating homosexuality with being a sex addict? and there is no proof of this link other than the one you made up in your head.

What gay person has only had one sexual partner in their entire life?

Are you insisting that this hasn't happened? how many heterosexuals have only had one sexual partner?

Regardless of what you believe, how does this help God's kingdom?

By helping people make peace between their sexual orientation and God. I don't make that decision for them, anyways, tho.

In other words, God just can't make Himself clear. Well, so much for His everlasting promises -- some translator probably botched them too.

Yes, I have proven the translation inconsistencies. Your translators aren't universally in agreement on that word, so argue with them, not me.

And one thing we do know for sure -- anyone that loves Christ will not try to hurt His Body of Believers. Yet, here you are preaching carnality, enticing the body of Christ into sexual addiction. If you want to give yourself over that is your choice. Others who fight the same temptations, and want to live for Jesus Christ, do not want to follow you.

Homosexuality is not sexual addiction, only by your uneducated opinion it is.

because of your link to religioustolerance.org
Religious tolerance is nothing more than self-hypocrisy -- it's faking that you are ok with something when you really aren't.

That is the name of the site, but that has NOTHING to do with the information in the link, which proves the translation is unknown. No point in bringing up something regarding tolerance, that isn't what the information is about.

So why don't they translate the entire bible the way they see it? Let's see who accepts their version as authoritative. I can see it now -- the Religious Tolerance Bible offends nobody, and tells everyone they can believe whatever they want -- just what the world wants to hear! THAT'S TOLERANCE FOLKS!!!

That isn't the point, see above. You are taking a website, and making your whole rant about that, which is a red herring. Do you have any proof arsenokoitai means "homosexual" other than some false lexicon?
That word means "male", and "many beds", which does not equate "homosexual". Not every translation in the Bible is disputed, so I don't know what your point is w/that.

 

[davedjy]

Natural" (natural) (phusikos from phúsis = nature) means pertaining to things in accordance with nature or belonging to the naturally regulated order of things. Phusikos refers to those things which one does out of instinct. The idea is that something pertains to that which is in accordance with the nature or character of that thing. Thus it is natural for both men and woman to desire heterosexual relationships.

Are you even examining this information as you read it? As even their definition states it says it is the way one does things out of instinct. Instinctively homosexuals have an attraction to the same sex. This whole article you posted proposes word definitions, and arrives at erroneous conclusions, like "thus it is natural for both men and women to desire heterosexual relationships". FALSE!

Well this shows how you didn't even go to the link provided or you would have seen the many quotes/findings etc.

That isn't true, I either missed the link or didn't see it, but I didn't DELIBERATELY not click it.

I am not familiar with the whole list of Scholars, but you cite John Macarthur? I have already seen what that guy says about homosexuality, and he is a joke at best. He equates the vague term "sodomite" with every homosexual, and has already misinformed his entire congregation about arsenokoitai, saying that it means a homosexual. If sodomite was the same as homosexual, it wouldn't be cited as two different things in the NJKV. Let's lie to them, and not tell them that the word definition is unknown! (or perhaps he doesn't know, but either way it is of no consequence). He says "don't call them gays, that is too clinical, call them sodomites". I found that in one of his sermons, either the first or the 2nd part, how bigoted he is! You don't have to go to it, but I will cite at least one of the transcripts, I'm not sure if it is part 1 or 2.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/90-69

 

[davedjy]

This is really, well since it doesn't appear...........well I guess you should have taken the advise in another thread about having you responses where you can just copying and paste them to save you time........

Why the heck would you even say that? I haven't responded back to you in a robotic way. I have taken your quotes piece by piece and replied back to them specifically.

The only reason a responder would say that my answers are the same, is because circular points are made here all the time. Obviously, I am going to respond in a similar way. EVERY person that regularly posts in this forum, has made NUMEROUS similar posts, including yourself. Newbies ask the same questions that have been asked, and many circular points are thrown around, which get circular answers from everyone here.

Homosexuality was common in first century Rome, and is often spoken of without a sense of shame by Roman writers. Homosexuality was prohibited neither by religion nor law, and was acknowledged without shame. At times, the Roman empire specifically taxed approved homosexual prostitution, and gave boy prostitutes a legal holiday. Same sex marriage was legally recognized, and even some of the Roman emperors married men. At the very time Paul was writing, Nero was emperor. He had taken a boy named Sporus and had him castrated. He then married him (with a full ceremony), brought him to the palace with a great procession, and made the boy his "wife." Later, Nero lived with another man, and Nero was the "wife."
Barnes has this historical note:
Cicero says that...the practice of (homosexuality) was common among the Greeks, and that their poets and great men, and even their learned men and philosophers, not only practiced, but gloried in it. And he adds, that it was the custom, not of particular cities only, but of Greece in general. Xenophon says, that "the unnatural love of boys is so common, that in many places it is established by the public laws." He particularly alludes to Sparta. Plato says that the Cretans practiced this crime, and justified themselves by the example of Jupiter and Ganymede. (Book of Laws, i.) And Aristotle says, that among the Cretans there was a law encouraging that sort of unnatural love. Plutarch says, that this was practiced at Thebes, and at Elis. He further says, that Solon, the great lawgiver of Athens, "was not proof against beautiful boys, and had not courage to resist the force of love." Diogenes Laertius says that this vice was practiced by the Stoic Zeno. Among the Romans, to whom Paul was writing, this vice was no less common. It appears from what Seneca says that in his time it was practiced openly at Rome, and without shame. He speaks of flocks and troops of boys, distinguished by their colors and nations; and says that great care was taken to train them up for this detestable employment. There is not the least evidence that this abominable vice was confined to Greece and Rome.

Just in case you missed in the last post, thought I would repost it.

If this were true, Romans 1 does not address same sex marriages nor does the Bible condemn or mention what you have written here.

 

[savedandhappy1]

If this were true, Romans 1 does not address same sex marriages nor does the Bible condemn or mention what you have written here.

You have said many a time that Paul couldn't have understood a homosexual marriage, so he couldn't have been writing about that.

So I show you where they did have homosexual marriage back in his day, so he could and did know about them. Thus he could be speaking of that, and he could be saying it is a sin. If homosexual sex is a sin, why would he need to mention marriage ? If you aren't supposed to do the one why would it suddenly not be a sin because you have a license that says your married?

So it is real simply those things were going on in his day, and he still said it was wrong for a man to lay with a man or women with women. If it is wrong for them to be together than it is wrong for them to marry.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Are you even examining this information as you read it? As even their definition states it says it is the way one does things out of instinct. Instinctively homosexuals have an attraction to the same sex. This whole article you posted proposes word definitions, and arrives at erroneous conclusions, like "thus it is natural for both men and women to desire heterosexual relationships". FALSE!

Greek definition taken in context for the time that it was written. Yes, I read it and it plainly says that natura; means woman with man and man with woman. TRUE!

That isn't true, I either missed the link or didn't see it, but I didn't DELIBERATELY not click it.

I am not familiar with the whole list of Scholars, but you cite John Macarthur? I have already seen what that guy says about homosexuality, and he is a joke at best. He equates the vague term "sodomite" with every homosexual, and has already misinformed his entire congregation about arsenokoitai, saying that it means a homosexual. If sodomite was the same as homosexual, it wouldn't be cited as two different things in the NJKV. Let's lie to them, and not tell them that the word definition is unknown! (or perhaps he doesn't know, but either way it is of no consequence). He says "don't call them gays, that is too clinical, call them sodomites". I found that in one of his sermons, either the first or the 2nd part, how bigoted he is! You don't have to go to it, but I will cite at least one of the transcripts, I'm not sure if it is part 1 or 2.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/90-69

I am sorry for just assuming you weren't even reading the links, shouldn't have assumed that even when your answers didn't show any evidence that you had.

Next, I listed 18 names and you mention one. So trying to discredit him and because his name is mixed in with 17 other names that makes all them wrong?

 

[Brieuse]

As will you be accountable for spreading your anti-gay interpretations around. I don't equate a valid sexual orientation with sexual addiction, you shouldn't even call it that.

Y
Who is the "sex addict"? why are you equating homosexuality with being a sex addict? and there is no proof of this link other than the one you made up in your head.


Are you insisting that this hasn't happened? how many heterosexuals have only had one sexual partner?




By helping people make peace between their sexual orientation and God. I don't make that decision for them, anyways, tho.




Yes, I have proven the translation inconsistencies. Your translators aren't universally in agreement on that word, so argue with them, not me.


Homosexuality is not sexual addiction, only by your uneducated opinion it is.




That is the name of the site, but that has NOTHING to do with the information in the link, which proves the translation is unknown. No point in bringing up something regarding tolerance, that isn't what the information is about.



That isn't the point, see above. You are taking a website, and making your whole rant about that, which is a red herring. Do you have any proof arsenokoitai means "homosexual" other than some false lexicon?
That word means "male", and "many beds", which does not equate "homosexual". Not every translation in the Bible is disputed, so I don't know what your point is w/that.

+1

 

[Brieuse]

Brothers and sisters in Christ struggle with sexual addictions. You could be accountable for some of them too.

Your promise of a sinless "loving committed relationship" to people recovering from sexual addictions is like a liquor salesman telling recovering alchoholics that there's nothing wrong with just one little drink.

This promise of a "sinless loving committed relationship" is nothing more than an unsustainable pipe dream from hell.

What gay person has only had one sexual partner in their entire life?



Regardless of what you believe, how does this help God's kingdom?



In other words, God just can't make Himself clear. Well, so much for His everlasting promises -- some translator probably botched them too.

And one thing we do know for sure -- anyone that loves Christ will not try to hurt His Body of Believers. Yet, here you are preaching carnality, enticing the body of Christ into sexual addiction. If you want to give yourself over that is your choice. Others who fight the same temptations, and want to live for Jesus Christ, do not want to follow you.



because of your link to religioustolerance.org
Religious tolerance is nothing more than self-hypocrisy -- it's faking that you are ok with something when you really aren't.



So why don't they translate the entire bible the way they see it? Let's see who accepts their version as authoritative. I can see it now -- the Religious Tolerance Bible offends nobody, and tells everyone they can believe whatever they want -- just what the world wants to hear! THAT'S TOLERANCE FOLKS!!!

What straight person has only had one sexual partner his/her entire life?

 

[davedjy]

You have said many a time that Paul couldn't have understood a homosexual marriage, so he couldn't have been writing about that.

From the Bible's standpoint, one cannot conclude either way what Paul was familiar with regarding homosexual marriage, since it isn't mentioned. If it was so commonplace as you say in Rome, you would think he would've written something about this to condemn it.

So I show you where they did have homosexual marriage back in his day, so he could and did know about them. Thus he could be speaking of that, and he could be saying it is a sin. If homosexual sex is a sin, why would he need to mention marriage ? If you aren't supposed to do the one why would it suddenly not be a sin because you have a license that says your married?

Paiderasste was the standard Greek term for sexual behavior between males. Paul did not use this word. Homosexual marriage aside, the sexual act, would've been condemned with the use of this word. I do find it interesting that you proved that homosexual unions were around back then, but yet it makes it even more ambiguous as to why they aren't condemned or mentioned, nor is the standard Greek term for sexual behavior between males. From what I have read, most of these sexual relationships in the culture are based upon pederasty, and not adult male relationships.

Greek definition taken in context for the time that it was written. Yes, I read it and it plainly says that natura; means woman with man and man with woman. TRUE!

The word itself does not mean "man with woman". What it does is it sets itself up upon the faulty notion that homosexuality is unnatural, and then uses that to justify that a man with woman is natural.

I am sorry for just assuming you weren't even reading the links, shouldn't have assumed that even when your answers didn't show any evidence that you had.

The vast majority of the links you have ever posted I have examined, but yes, as I said, I don't remember seeing a link on those scholars.

Next, I listed 18 names and you mention one. So trying to discredit him and because his name is mixed in with 17 other names that makes all them wrong?

I never said that the whole list was wrong, Kathy, as mentioned, I posted what I knew about one of the scholars listed. As I stated, "I'm not familiar with the whole list of Scholars". The vast majority of anti-gay arguers I have read about, have very similar religious opinions, though. They rely on a false translation of 1 Cor. 6:9, and faulty conclusions for Romans 1, usually ignoring the idolatry associated with these pagan sex practices.

 

[savedandhappy1]

What straight person has only had one sexual partner his/her entire life?

Well not my entire life because I haven't died yet, but for almost 52 years.

That would describe me, was there something you were needing?

Oh, I also didn't have sex before I was married, just in case that changes the qualifications of who you are looking for.