Can You At Least Admit that The Act is Wrong?

[Zaac]

3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. 1 John 2:3-6

I see all these threads on homosexuality. Is there a homosexual on this board who, regardless of how you think you were born, can agree with God's Word about the committing of homosexual ACTS?

 

[MrPirate]

A major point is that what the bible says is not clear.

While the pro-discrimination group will wail loudly and gnash tier teeth at this it doesn’t change the fact that there is serious questions about the translation of the four verse generally used to justify their personal prejudice. The best argument the pro-discrimination group can provide is an appeal to history, that is stating that since many have always hated this particular minority and forced certain interoperations of key verses then it is all right to continue.

The bible is much clearer on many topics that are rejected by modern Christians.
Slavery
Racism
Animal sacrifice
The use of rape to force marriage on a woman

These and many other topics are publicly condemned as “wrong” despite their biblical support.



Take your post and exchange the references to homosexuals to blacks
Would you attack people who support racial equality as you are attacking people who reject discrimination against homosexuals?

 

[DMagoh]

I see all these threads on homosexuality. Is there a homosexual on this board who, regardless of how you think you were born, can agree with God's Word about the committing of homosexual ACTS?

Unfortunately Zaac, the answer is NO.

Despite there being numerous verses in the Bible, there are men on this forum that have become experts at reinterpreting, twisting, making excuses for, making assumptions, and basically see what they want to see. They have to take numerous verses from the Bible and change the way they read, make complicated explanations for them, and/or eliminate them altogether for various reasons:

• One verse is only condemning unhospitality
• One verse is only condemning homosexual rape
• One verse is only condemning uncleanliness
• One verse is only condemning male prostitutes
• One verse is only condemning engaging in homosexual acts during pagan worship
• One verse is only condemning heterosexual men engaging in homosexual acts
• One verse the word homosexual was translated wrong

How many verses have to be manipulated? Basically, if you can read the Bible and justify homosexuality, then you have the ability to justify ANY sin you want to.

 

[DMagoh]

Take your post and exchange the references to homosexuals to blacks
Would you attack people who support racial equality as you are attacking people who reject discrimination against homosexuals?

See what you're up against Zaac? MrPirate actually equates engaging in homosexual acts with being black.

You are learning some Liberal Truths today. For example...


Liberal Truth #7 - If you think someone is sinning, it means that you either HATE him, or secretly desire to do what he is doing



You might be interested in a complete listing of Liberal Truths that we have compiled from this Forum. If so, refer to:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35604950&postcount=412

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Well, no. Because CLEAR is only an adjective if you're reading the one version of the English bible that uses the word 'homosexual' in Roman's. Any other English version can be read any number of ways and you can't possibly say that way is "well it condemns homosexuality" without looking into it.

The one most use is Roman's, I've found, is only relevant to the time and to Paul himself. Paul didn't condone ANY sort of relationship and wished that everyone could remain celibate. Why would he condone homosexuality if he didn't even condone heterosexuality? (Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for several reasons. Even if the majority of S&G were homosexuals, to claim outright they were destroyed ONLY for homosexuality is pushing it). Leviticus is just Jewish Code, not Christian law.

The reason we don't admit it is because it isn't true. It would be like admitting the sky is green and the grass is blue. Ridiculous. Why admit something you know isn't true?

Imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. "admit" that the discrimination against him was alright.

Imagine if Ghandi "admit" that Indian's are only second rate citizens.

Or to the most unimaginable degree, imagine if Christ "admit" He wasn't really God.

Obviously, none of those are true but the second you admit it's true, people will believe it. People are far more likely to believe someone who AGREES with them then they are to believe someone who DOESN'T. I'm not going to admit anything that isn't true to please those who don't agree.

EDIT: Political stance means nothing in the argument so why do you continue to bring it up DMagoh? The context you use it in is akin to 3rd grade name-calling.

 

[ALiberalTeen]

Jesus makes no mention of Homosexuality, but I will admit the bible does say it's a sin.

 

[UberLutheran]

In a word: No.

Is there a Baptist here who believes in the validity of infant baptism or the Eucharist as a religious Sacrament?

I rest my case.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. 1 John 2:3-6

I see all these threads on homosexuality. Is there a homosexual on this board who, regardless of how you think you were born, can agree with God's Word about the committing of homosexual ACTS?

I see no condemnation of homosexuality in the original texts of the Bible. In that regard, I agree with the Bible: homosexuality is not something to be condemned.

 

[MrPirate]

Jesus makes no mention of Homosexuality, but I will admit the bible does say it's a sin.

Actually is says that it is a sin for a man (abomination) to rape another man. Which is not the same.

Other sexual prohibitions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy indicate that one is not to have “carnal relations” with a specified individual. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do NOT say you will not have mishakhah carnal relations with another men. the specific word used in teh passages is shakab

Shakab is used elsewhere in the old testament fifty times and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

 

[GwynApNudd]

Actually is says that it is a sin for a man (abomination) to rape another man. Which is not the same.

Other sexual prohibitions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy indicate that one is not to have “carnal relations” with a specified individual. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do NOT say you will not have canrnal relaations with another men. the specific word used is shakab

Shakab is used elsewhere in the old testament fifty times and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

Actually it just means to lie down and is often used in a morally-neutral sense in very many instances, for example, when a person lies down alone to go to sleep.

I never noticed that every time it is used in a sexual sense, at least one of the partners has not given or can not give informed consent. In modern law, all of the instances (with the possible exception of the use of the word in prohibiting inappropriate behavior with animals) would thus be rape (granted, some would be statutory rape, but that does not make it any less rape).

However, I did a quick check on the use of the word. I have checked from Genesis to Deuteronomy so far and have not found an exception. I'll continue to check through the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Very interesting

 

[DMagoh]

I see no condemnation of homosexuality in the original texts of the Bible. In that regard, I agree with the Bible: homosexuality is not something to be condemned.

You are a self-professed pagan. I dont think any Muslims would be interested in my advice on the Koran, why do you think Christians would be interested in your advice on the Bible? You are trying to advise about a book you think is false, about a person you believe is fictious. You might as well go to the Disney website and give everyone your opinion about Mickey Mouse and what he believes in.

 

[DMagoh]

Actually is says that it is a sin for a man (abomination) to rape another man. Which is not the same.

Other sexual prohibitions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy indicate that one is not to have “carnal relations” with a specified individual. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do NOT say you will not have mishakhah carnal relations with another men. the specific word used in teh passages is shakab

Shakab is used elsewhere in the old testament fifty times and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

Actually it just means to lie down and is often used in a morally-neutral sense in very many instances, for example, when a person lies down alone to go to sleep.

I never noticed that every time it is used in a sexual sense, at least one of the partners has not given or can not give informed consent. In modern law, all of the instances (with the possible exception of the use of the word in prohibiting inappropriate behavior with animals) would thus be rape (granted, some would be statutory rape, but that does not make it any less rape).

However, I did a quick check on the use of the word. I have checked from Genesis to Deuteronomy so far and have not found an exception. I'll continue to check through the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Very interesting

Have you noticed anything positive in the scripture about homosexuality? No one has ever answered that question.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Have you seen anything positive about those of races other than Middle Eastern DMagoh?

 

[DMagoh]

Have you seen anything positive about those of races other than Middle Eastern DMagoh?

Yep.

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. Romans 1:16

"Gentile" covers all other races.

So is that a 'NO' to the question then...there is nothing positive about homosexuals?

 

[UberLutheran]

You are a self-professed pagan. I dont think any Muslims would be interested in my advice on the Koran, why do you think Christians would be interested in your advice on the Bible? You are trying to advise about a book you think is false, about a person you believe is fictious. You might as well go to the Disney website and give everyone your opinion about Mickey Mouse and what he believes in.

And what makes you think all Christians are hanging on every word you (and the other fundamentalists) say? Despite what many fundamentalists like to think, fundamentalists don't represent all of Christianity, and frankly I'm tired of their misrepresentations of the faith.

 

[DMagoh]

And what makes you think all Christians are hanging on every word you (and the other fundamentalists) say? Despite what many fundamentalists like to think, fundamentalists don't represent all of Christianity, and frankly I'm tired of their misrepresentations of the faith.

Isnt that cute. That pagan and a lot of the liberal Christians on this forum seem to be in agreement an awful lot.

To answer your question, I dont expect you to hang on every word, but I do believe the Bible and believe in Jesus so I am qualified to enter the debate, just like you. However, someone who disregards my Savior as someone no more real than Bugs Bunny, is hardly someone ANY Christian should receive advice from about the fictious Jesus.

 

[UberLutheran]

So is that a 'NO' to the question then...there is nothing positive about homosexuals?

Of course there isn't.

I thought it was a well known fact that every problem in Western civilization, from the U.S. trade imbalance to the War in Iraq to the nine trillion dollar national debt and the fact that China is selling us cheap goods and thus financing our debt through the trade imbalance, to poverty, Ebola, Lassa fever, bubonic plague, all the genocides of the 20th century, the U.S. Civil War, WWI and WWII, the influenza pandemic of 1918 and the 70 million people killed during the Stalinist Purges could be traced back directly to homosexuals.

 

[UberLutheran]

Isnt that cute. That pagan and a lot of the liberal Christians on this forum seem to be in agreement an awful lot.

To answer your question, I dont expect you to hang on every word, but I do believe the Bible and believe in Jesus so I am qualified to enter the debate, just like you. However, someone who disregards my Savior as someone no more real than Bugs Bunny, is hardly someone ANY Christian should receive advice from about the fictious Jesus.

Was that a demonstration of the "compassionate conservatism" that your President and your party are always talking about?

Where is the LOVE, DMagoh?

 

[stelow]

[1 Corinthians 6:8-10]

8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The bible is clear but the truth is not going to set well with the lovers of darkness.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You are a self-professed pagan.

And you are a self-professed Christian. Your point?

I dont think any Muslims would be interested in my advice on the Koran,

Why not? I have discussed the Qu'ran with some of my Muslim friends before, and we had quite a good discussion. I now know more about it.

why do you think Christians would be interested in your advice on the Bible?

I was responding to the OP. If you are not interested in my opinion on the Bible, then disregard it. There is no need for you to go shouting your mouth off and making yourself look like an idiot.

You are trying to advise about a book you think is false, about a person you believe is fictious. You might as well go to the Disney website and give everyone your opinion about Mickey Mouse and what he believes in.

I would, if people misinterpreted Disney's portrayal of Mickey to one of homophobia.