Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
HunterRose said:What I am saying I say not with the Lords authority 2 Cor 11:17
HunterRose said:The relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.
Colabomb said:The Men in the passage were burning for lust for one another. Women were having sex with Women.
They were gay.
According to your theory, they did nothing wrong, as they were gay and were having sex with one another.
Why then did Paul condemn it?
If your theory were correct, the passage would read:
"They burned with lust for one another, yet despite their natural gay attraction, they had sex with the opposite gender".
Or he was under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost?crumbs2000 said:Perhaps Paul had such homophobia because he may have latent homosexual urges. I can't confirm it now but I'll dig up the study that found most violent homophobes are in fact latently gay.
That's an entirely different subject matter that has it's own logical inconsistencies.crumbs2000 said:Perhaps Paul had such homophobia because he may have latent homosexual urges. I can't confirm it now but I'll dig up the study that found most violent homophobes are in fact latently gay.
Which is it, was he a homophobe? Or am I misinterpreting the Passage.crumbs2000 said:Perhaps Paul had such homophobia because he may have latent homosexual urges. I can't confirm it now but I'll dig up the study that found most violent homophobes are in fact latently gay.
Anachronism; when this was writen there was no abstract notion of natural homosexuality or heterosexuality; there were only homosexual actions and heterosexual actions. Natural sexuality was seen to be heterosexual; between one male and one female, anything else was considered unnatural. You're reading modern ideas into the scripture.HunterRose said:The relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.
HunterRose said:According to his icon here yes does seem to be a Unitarian so what?
He doesn't believe in God and is not a Christian. You seem to agree on every point of his "theology". Interesting.
He seems to disagree with you on this point.
Are saying you know the details of his personal relationship with God better than he does?
I never said any such think, and you know that
Does his wife know?
He's a confessed homosexual in a "homosexual marriage" with another man. He doesn't have a "wife".
why?
Didn't think you would answer and state your position on the essentials of orthodox Christianity, but I think they are quite clear to everyone what your "theology" is. I don't think the Pope agrees with you though.
crumbs2000 said:How is this relevant. This line of questioning sounds like argumentum ad hominem.
Hunter Rose has countered your scripture with scripture. There has not been one example of Hunter Rose adding anything else to those scripture. Why do they have to justify what they wrote?
dittoKgreg said:I'm pleased to answer these:
Do you believe in the Triune God? Yes
Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Yes
Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Yes
Do you believe in the subsitutionary attonement of Jesus for our sins? Yes
Do you believe that homosexual sex acts are righteous before God? No
Do you believe there is a heaven and that the one and only God dwells there? Yes
Do you believe there is a hell and that all people who don't accept salvation via Jesus go there for eternity? Yes
All are welcomed to answer these questions, and please do, and let your fellow Christians know where you stand.
crumbs2000 said:No this is part of the topic. You literalist use the bible as the inerrant word of God to prosecute your case for saying that Homosexuals are condemned.
Since the bible didn;t fall out of the sky from the heavens nor was it written by angels as scribes for God, I don't see it anymore than just a book which contains essences of Gods message intermingled with the bias and prejudice by generations of human writers.
Put together as one would compile a greatest hits album, and yet people would profess it to be complete???
There are many things that are totally absurd science in the bible. I've posted it ad nauseum please read it and you can try and explain. I can post it again if you want.
The whole Genesis book is plagued with errors.
The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.
And God said, Let there be light (Genesis 1:3) and . . .And the evening and the morning were the first day (Genesis 1 :5), versus And God said, Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night.... And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also And the evening and morning were the fourth day (Genesis 1 :14-19).
These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon?
God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.
Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind And the evening and the morning were the third day (Genesis 1:11-13), versus And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life And God created - great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly And the evening and the morning were the fifth day (Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before vegetation and life appeared on land.
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made every thing that creepth upon the earth after his kind " (Genesis 1:24-25). Science contends that reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously.
ThyNeighbor said:This is the last post that I will be making in these forums. My intention was never to debate or attempt to change anyone’s mind on whether homosexuality is a sin or not. Rather, I was hoping to get some people to examine their hearts.
I am a gay man, but I am a Christian first and foremost. I am one of the “lucky” few who never lost faith in God. But I see so many that have. They hate Christians because of the way Christians have treated them and, in turn, hate God. Some of these gay men and women were once believers.
Mat 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who trusts in me to lose faith, it would be better for that person to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck.
Lydiajane said:god loves you if you gay,
he loves you if your straight,
he loves you if oyu have brown eyes,
he loves you if they are blue,
he just hopes you love him too
crumbs2000 said:Perhaps Paul had such homophobia because he may have latent homosexual urges. I can't confirm it now but I'll dig up the study that found most violent homophobes are in fact latently gay.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?