HelloToAll
Well-Known Member
- Sep 20, 2005
- 1,487
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
HunterRose said:
We as people commit sins, and we must repent of them. Period.
Upvote
0
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:People are not sins
HunterRose said:Is the rule about not wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics irrelevant?
What about the rules about eating shellfish, irrelevant? Or the rule about shaving is that irrelevant?
Amazing how only rules that suit the lifestyle of Christians get justified away
Sexual sins of any kind are considered "abominations" to the Lord. See Leviticus 18: 18 - 30, paying particular attention to verses 27 - 30, which refer to "all these abominations" -- after various kinds of sexual activities apart from marriage have been mentioned.
A similar list is repeated in Leviticus 20, concluding that God's people ought not to do these things "after the manner of the nations which I cast out before you." We find that the levitical laws also forbade remarriages of divorced couples, calling such an act an "abomination." Deuteronomy 24: 1 - 4.
Dishonest business practices are named as an "abomination" in Deuteronomy 25: 13 - 16, Proverbs 11: 1 and Proverbs 20: 10.
It seems that scrupulously honest business practices are required of any professing to be the Lord's people.
That includes borrowing office supplies, making personal phone calls, doing personal business on company time and *horrors* being anything less than faultlessly honest on income taxs. How many can say their work practices pass?
These six things doth the LORD hate:
yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Proverbs 6:16-19
Who can claim innocence from all these "abominations"? Are all the sure dispensers of judgments on gay people free from a "proud look" (are you feeling just a little superior to those loathsome gays?...
well its an abomination) or presenting "false witness" about homosexuals? (Claiming that homosexuals already have equal rights is false witness. Claims that homosexuals molest children or even comparing gays and lesbians to child molesters is a lie. Claims that homosexuals are diseased are a lie. Claims that homosexuals have shorter life spans is another common lie.)
Another thread in this forum details how the Christian organization Focus on the Family has lied and misrepresented the research of social scientists.
AIDS disproportionately affects Blacks .so what does this say about Gods opinion of people with dark skin?
genez said:[/font][/size]
You confuse civil law with religious law, and ceremonial law. Law designed to teach principles of spirituality and sin.
In the Torah there were different sections for different aspects of ancient Jewish culture. For example, there were laws for diet. And, there were laws for criminal activity. Once you make them into one and the same, you come up with unbalanced conclusions as you have.
To murder was wrong then, and it still is today. Yet, there were laws that were shadows of the spiritual realities that were realized with the advent of the Church age. They have been set aside.
And, its the execution of the civil Law of Israel that remains intact in the principle behind the original mandates.
Here is an example.
Romans 1:32 nasbPaul does not say that they must be executed. For Paul knows that the Law of Israel was not mandated for the Gentile lands. Yet, God's principle of law does not change! For, Paul says that those who know God's law (ordinances) know that these men were worthy of death!
"And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."
If a land chooses to live by this law, God's blessing will be on the land. But, they must choose to follow God's Law. It was not mandated for any nation except ancient Israel. Each nation must choose to follow God's laws for civil decency.
Psalm 33:12 niv
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance."
Correct. So? Which ones are OK for today? Incest? Bestiality? Homosexuality?Human sacrifice? Adultery? God now says they are OK? No? But, only homosexuality now is??? Why is that? Is God gay?
Romans 1:32 nasb
"And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."
That's what we have today. What God says is worthy of death? Men in their degeneracy give hearty approval.
If people are dulled by immorality it makes no difference what they do. God's law was to try to prevent immoral degeneracy from having its way. If a man divorces his wife? And she remarries, and has sexual relations with another man in her second marriage? That says the first husband is not to take back his first wife if she becomes single again.
Even common sense today tells you that it can not be good. Its only frustration seeking happiness where its already died to the chance of realization. It becomes a frantic search for happiness.
Now! It does not say if they separated and both remain chaste, that they are not to remarry each other. There is the difference.
I am not sure if you see what its actually saying. Its because the divorced wife shared the bed of another in a second marriage that the first husband is not to have her back again. It only makes good sense.
God finds thievery and cheating of others in business as being an abomination. You do not?
I think, simply "honest" would suffice.
I think those thing are wrong. But, that is not what is being spoken of in those passages. That would be like asking a butcher for two pounds of chops, and he pushes down on the scale with his thumb when weighing them. Its that kind of cheating God finds to be an abomination. Robbing another with what should be a scale with a standard that is universal!
Proverbs 11:1 (New American Standard Bible)That would be like somone fixing the pumps so you get a third less per gallon, yet charging you $3.00 a gallon. Or, in other countries, according to the highest price in their currency.
"A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight."
I noted the last one especially. "He that soweth discord among brethren.
God hates that. So do, I.
One big difference... Those abominations did not carry the death penalty. Did they?
I think you are missing something vital about how God feels towards this particular abomination along with only a very few others worthy of death in God's eyes. Context tells me you are attempting to obfuscate the true meaning of how God views homosexuality.
So what? There were Nazis that escaped after WW11 and lived to ripe old ages. God did not strike them dead. Did he? God will deal with them after death, and then it will be justice.
Who cares? The issue is, its sin. That reality is denied by those who cherish their homosexuuality.
I do not think the color of the skin is the issue here. If any group behaved immorally in the same fashion, it would reap the same results. Yet, a good many blacks are moral. They are not having this problem. Are they? Those blacks who reject God's morality have created a culture of immorality. They are simply reaping what they sow.
Gays have been well known to be very promiscuous. I have known gays. Some appeared to be moral. But, there is a prevailing culture of instability and immorality amongst many of them which caused the rapid spread of AIDS amongst the male gay population in the early eighties.
Where there is a culture of immorality? God's punishment will eventually be called down from Heaven. For any group. Even the ancient Jews, who faced God's rod when they formed a culture of immorality in Jeremiah's day. The entire nation was crushed and taken into captivity. God is no respector of persons. Each group reaps what they sow.
In Christ, GeneZ
genez said:[/font][/size]
You confuse civil law with religious law, and ceremonial law. Law designed to teach principles of spirituality and sin.
In the Torah there were different sections for different aspects of ancient Jewish culture. For example, there were laws for diet. And, there were laws for criminal activity. Once you make them into one and the same, you come up with unbalanced conclusions as you have.
To murder was wrong then, and it still is today. Yet, there were laws that were shadows of the spiritual realities that were realized with the advent of the Church age. They have been set aside.
And, its the execution of the civil Law of Israel that remains intact in the principle behind the original mandates.
Here is an example.
Romans 1:32 nasbPaul does not say that they must be executed. For Paul knows that the Law of Israel was not mandated for the Gentile lands. Yet, God's principle of law does not change! For, Paul says that those who know God's law (ordinances) know that these men were worthy of death!
"And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."
If a land chooses to live by this law, God's blessing will be on the land. But, they must choose to follow God's Law. It was not mandated for any nation except ancient Israel. Each nation must choose to follow God's laws for civil decency.
Psalm 33:12 niv
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance."
Correct. So? Which ones are OK for today? Incest? Bestiality? Homosexuality?Human sacrifice? Adultery? God now says they are OK? No? But, only homosexuality now is??? Why is that? Is God gay?
Romans 1:32 nasb
"And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."
That's what we have today. What God says is worthy of death? Men in their degeneracy give hearty approval.
If people are dulled by immorality it makes no difference what they do. God's law was to try to prevent immoral degeneracy from having its way. If a man divorces his wife? And she remarries, and has sexual relations with another man in her second marriage? That says the first husband is not to take back his first wife if she becomes single again.
Even common sense today tells you that it can not be good. Its only frustration seeking happiness where its already died to the chance of realization. It becomes a frantic search for happiness.
Now! It does not say if they separated and both remain chaste, that they are not to remarry each other. There is the difference.
I am not sure if you see what its actually saying. Its because the divorced wife shared the bed of another in a second marriage that the first husband is not to have her back again. It only makes good sense.
God finds thievery and cheating of others in business as being an abomination. You do not?
I think, simply "honest" would suffice.
I think those thing are wrong. But, that is not what is being spoken of in those passages. That would be like asking a butcher for two pounds of chops, and he pushes down on the scale with his thumb when weighing them. Its that kind of cheating God finds to be an abomination. Robbing another with what should be a scale with a standard that is universal!
Proverbs 11:1 (New American Standard Bible)That would be like somone fixing the pumps so you get a third less per gallon, yet charging you $3.00 a gallon. Or, in other countries, according to the highest price in their currency.
"A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight."
I noted the last one especially. "He that soweth discord among brethren.
God hates that. So do, I.
One big difference... Those abominations did not carry the death penalty. Did they?
I think you are missing something vital about how God feels towards this particular abomination along with only a very few others worthy of death in God's eyes. Context tells me you are attempting to obfuscate the true meaning of how God views homosexuality.
So what? There were Nazis that escaped after WW11 and lived to ripe old ages. God did not strike them dead. Did he? God will deal with them after death, and then it will be justice.
Who cares? The issue is, its sin. That reality is denied by those who cherish their homosexuuality.
I do not think the color of the skin is the issue here. If any group behaved immorally in the same fashion, it would reap the same results. Yet, a good many blacks are moral. They are not having this problem. Are they? Those blacks who reject God's morality have created a culture of immorality. They are simply reaping what they sow.
Gays have been well known to be very promiscuous. I have known gays. Some appeared to be moral. But, there is a prevailing culture of instability and immorality amongst many of them which caused the rapid spread of AIDS amongst the male gay population in the early eighties.
Where there is a culture of immorality? God's punishment will eventually be called down from Heaven. For any group. Even the ancient Jews, who faced God's rod when they formed a culture of immorality in Jeremiah's day. The entire nation was crushed and taken into captivity. God is no respector of persons. Each group reaps what they sow.
In Christ, GeneZ
There is no differentiation between the many laws of the old testament, no labeling of so called moral laws and so called ceremonial laws. They are all moral laws. You seem to wish to justify their personal prejudices by pretending that some sort of division in old testament moral law exists. I suppose this gives you the benefit of ignoring laws that one might find inconvenient and use laws found right next to ignored laws when they wish to condemn others.genez said:[/font][/size]
You confuse civil law with religious law, and ceremonial law. Law designed to teach principles of spirituality and sin.
In the Torah there were different sections for different aspects of ancient Jewish culture. For example, there were laws for diet. And, there were laws for criminal activity. Once you make them into one and the same, you come up with unbalanced conclusions as you have.
Last time I looked the United States is not Israel. If said laws were not mandated for Gentile lands why bring them up to condemn others?Paul does not say that they must be executed. For Paul knows that the Law of Israel was not mandated for the Gentile lands. Yet, God's principle of law does not change! For, Paul says that those who know God's law (ordinances) know that these men were worthy of death!
And what does this say for the United States that whole freedom of religion thing definitely goes against Gods lawIf a land chooses to live by this law, God's blessing will be on the land. But, they must choose to follow God's Law. It was not mandated for any nation except ancient Israel. Each nation must choose to follow God's laws for civil decency.
Human Sacrifice?Correct. So? Which ones are OK for today? Incest? Bestiality? Homosexuality?Human sacrifice? Adultery? God now says they are OK? No? But, only homosexuality now is??? Why is that? Is God gay?
That's what we have today. What God says is worthy of death? Men in their degeneracy give hearty approval.
Are you free form the abominations I mentioned?God finds thievery and cheating of others in business as being an abomination. You do not?
Wow am I impressed. You know the mind of God and are willing to impart your wisdom with us mere mortals.I think those thing are wrong. But, that is not what is being spoken of in those passages. That would be like asking a butcher for two pounds of chops, and he pushes down on the scale with his thumb when weighing them. Its that kind of cheating God finds to be an abomination. Robbing another with what should be a scale with a standard that is universal!
So they are all right to engage in? or are you choosing only to condemn others when the prospect of the death penalty is present?One big difference... Those abominations did not carry the death penalty. Did they?
How God feels or how you wish God to feel?I think you are missing something vital about how God feels towards this particular abomination along with only a very few others worthy of death in God's eyes. Context tells me you are attempting to obfuscate the true meaning of how God views homosexuality.
So what? There were Nazis that escaped after WW11 and lived to ripe old ages. God did not strike them dead. Did he? God will deal with them after death, and then it will be justice.
Who cares? The issue is, its sin. That reality is denied by those who cherish their homosexuuality.
But you happily make a blanket condemnation of gay men based on the existence of a virus.I do not think the color of the skin is the issue here. If any group behaved immorally in the same fashion, it would reap the same results. Yet, a good many blacks are moral. They are not having this problem. Are they? Those blacks who reject God's morality have created a culture of immorality. They are simply reaping what they sow.
genex said:There comes a point when others stop praying and throw up their hands to God. They let go, and leave God to put an end to it. AIDS comes to mind on this one. Yet, God was causing some to die who partook of the Communion with disrespect continuously. God shows no favoritism.
Your statements here say otherwise.Gays have been well known to be very promiscuous. I have known gays.
So what is causing todays rapid spread of HIV among heterosexuals? Does said rapid spread justify prejudice against heterosexuals? If not can you explain why you are suing the spread of a virus twenty years ago to justify prejudice now?Some appeared to be moral. But, there is a prevailing culture of instability and immorality amongst many of them which caused the rapid spread of AIDS amongst the male gay population in the early eighties.
eastcoast_bsc said:You state you have known gays, It could not have been as friends.
You make comments such as, gays are well known to be promiscuous, can you you back up those allegations, with good solid statistics?
Are not heterosexuals , just as promiscuous?
You make the statement :Some gays appear to ne moral" Are you stating that gays are void of ant Moral qualities? How about matthew Shepard? Was he void of any Human qualities?
Could the total dehumanization of gays , with such comments as "they appear to be moral" have any impact with the degenerates that killed him?
I am just curious, usually when we completely dehumanize another, bu suggesting they are void of any morals or humanity, violence is sure to follow.
I am just curious, usually when we completely dehumanize another, bu suggesting they are void of any morals or humanity, violence is sure to follow.
HunterRose said:There is no differentiation between the many laws of the old testament, no labeling of so called “moral” laws and so called “ceremonial laws.
They are all moral laws. You seem to wish to justify their personal prejudices by pretending that some sort of division in old testament moral law exists.
I suppose this gives you the benefit of ignoring laws that one might find inconvenient and use laws found right next to ignored laws when they wish to condemn others.
A good example of this involves Leviticus 20:13 and Leviticus 20:9 the first is an often used condemnation of gays and lesbians which of course is put into the fictitious “moral” law category yet a mere three verses preceding it is a “moral” law detailing one of the many reasons you may use to murder your own child.
You claim some kind of division exists between these two laws, making one a moral law you happily use and a non-moral law you avoid.
Can you share with us exactly where this division between the two is? No where in verses 10, 11 or 12 is there a sign post saying….non-marl laws stop here….and were back to morel laws again.”
Of course pretending there are divisions in old testament law and declaring that SOME laws affecting people the accuser doses not like are “moral” laws (by strange coincidence these so called moral laws are more often than not used to condemn others)
The Mosaic Law is divided into three parts.
http://www.versebyverse.org/doctrine/mosaiclaw.html
- Codex I - the moral code: the decalogue or ten commandments.
- Codex II - the ceremonial code: A complete and elaborate system of Christology and soteriology as portrayed via the tabernacle, Levitical priesthood, sabbaths, offerings, sacrifices, and feasts.
- Codex III - the social code: diet, hygiene, quarantine, taxation, laws of evidence, crime, land conservation, slavery, the poor, the military, and the economy.
Wow…am I impressed. You know the mind of God and are willing to impart your wisdom with us mere mortals.
Sounds like you didn’t know them at all. Your current attitude is one of refusing to look past a stereotype, why would anyone expect such to be different in the past.genez said:Some were friends.....In Bible College. Some I did not know they were gay until afterwards. But, I did get to know some quite well. And, I worked with gays.
Convenient.Stats? They are long gone.
And where is it now?I once did have a chart from the Red Cross concerning the number of cases of AIDS, according to local. Now, mind you. This was back in the eighties like I said.....
The highest concentration in the state of Massachusetts, was not Boston with its millions. It was on a tiny spot on the map at the tip of Cape Cod. Provincetown. In that small area there were more cases of AIDS reported than the entire state combined. It is a well known haven for gays.
I would ask for evidence for your claim of this “norm” but I don’t believe you would bother to back it upMultiple partners in one day? I think the AIDS scare has greatly put a damper on what once was the norm for many gays.
And straights are not?That restraint we now see was because of the fear of death. Not from a sense of morality. Again, reports were stating that gays were having unprotected sex in spite of the AIDS fear.
You took the thread on a tangent when you attempted to use a virus to justify prejudice. You don’t you answer eastcoast-bsc’s questionWhat has human qualities, and being moral, have to do with one another?
You're off on a tangent. Start another thread. Its sidetracking this one.
Well…you are…I suppose dehumanizing and vilifying an entire minority helps justify prejudice…just not justify it very wellWho is dehumanizing who, here?
Violence comes in many forms form physical assault to attempts to dehumanize to justifying prejudice.There will always be some with a predilection for violence towards gays. No amount of reasoning will get them to see it as normal.
How are your dehumanizing efforts and attacks doing anything but justifying and applauding said violence?So? In the mean time? The only thing one should do is lie about gays? And make them all sound like wonderful morally straight people? That will stop the violence?
But it is obvious you were and are unwilling to look past your own stereotypes and justifications to actually know them.Like I said...... I have known gays. And, yes. I was surprised to find out who some were after I had known them.
To paraphrase you:They were nice people for the most part. Yet, what they do for sexual expression is sin. Its a distortion of God's design. God create man in his image. Male and female. Male with female. That is what is in his image. But, if you want to argue over that point, feel free. I just do not feel a need to argue with anyone's denial of what the Word says. If you can show me chapter and verse where God suddenly had a change and declared homosexuality to have his blessings? Then you will get me to change my mind.
And they were given to Jews middle easterners and people of Mediterranean decent. Are you suggesting that they have no application to Blacks or Orientals or Native Americans? Or do you wish to continue to selectively apply the bible based on your whims?Instructions in marriage in the NT were always given to husbands and wives.
Another attack against a minority without anything at all to back it up. I have personally seen instability in heterosexual relationships…is this then justification for prejudice?With the greater instability in gay relationships (I have witnessed to this first hand).
Nice twisting there.For gays? If God now accepts such a "loving and caring" relationship? It would only be expected that God's Word would spend more time in instruction in such relationships. Much more than done with husbands and wives.
To see the total lack of such instruction in God's Word? Well.... I think that tells us something with a very deafening silence.
In Christ, GeneZ
In case you missed it Hunter.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".
Actually there is such a way…if one were to actually look at the maps key it would differentiate.genez said:[/size][/font]
On a map. There is no differentiation made between names to tell us if they are cities, towns, or villages. There is no differentiation between the names of states in relation to cities, towns, and villages. Yet, when looking at a map we tend to see what they are by the order of things. But, they are all on the same page!
I did not use the word "moral." I used the words "civil' law, in relation to ceremonial law. And, its true.
So you are admitting that you cannot actually show the supposed division of the civil and ceremonial and religious laws in Leviticus but instead of admitting this you are just engaging in an attack on me…basically saying that I am to stupid to see things your way and you can tell I am stupid because I don’t instantly agree with your proclamations. Does that sum things up?This is going nowhere because you really have no understanding what it is you are arguing about. If you did? You would see no point in arguing over this point.
Can you point out what verse declares this to be civil law?" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."That was civil law to the Jews. Death penalty was
civil law. Yet, in future, other cultures had this passage take on a new meaning as it evolved into a sense of moral law. Future societies had adapted Christian principles into their cultures in the form of morality.
And just where in Leviticus is the handy key to differentiate between your so called civil and ceremonial and religious laws?I still do not see what your point is. Even though I believe you do not know what it is you are dealing with.
Here. I did not make this up.....
Proselyte said:Hello friends. A discussion has opened up between my non-Christian friends and I regarding some issues. One of them is the topic of homosexuality.
As we all know, the Bible is clear on being against this lifestyle. What I need is some other reasons to use with my friends on this topic. The reason being is that they don't believe the Bible, or in Jesus. If I just say the Bible says so, that's not going to help their understanding. Topics like murder, aldutery, abortion to some extent are easier to debate due to the effects they have on other people. But how about homosexuality?
I've already taken into account the fact that at its basic level, it doesn't propagate the species. I still think I need something else to go with.
Many of these friends are curious, and I have been opening the door to Christianity with them. My goal is to continue to do so in a caring and loving manner, and not force anything on them, as that isn't always effective.
Thanks!
HunterRose said:Actually there is such a way if one were to actually look at the maps key it would differentiate.
That aside you claimed that the laws of Leviticus are divided into civil law with religious law, and ceremonial law. In the Torah there were different sections for different aspects of ancient Jewish culture. Yet this is not the case.
Your so called ceremonial laws are not separate form your so called moral laws, in fact the only differentiation between them is the differentiation you personally choose to make.
Yet no separation exists between laws you wish to use to justify prejudice and condemn others and laws you would prefer to not apply to yourself. They exist together with no differentiation.
So you are admitting that you cannot actually show the supposed division of the civil and ceremonial and religious laws in Leviticus but instead of admitting this you are just engaging in an attack on me basically saying that I am to stupid to see things your way and you can tell I am stupid because I dont instantly agree with your proclamations. Does that sum things up?
Can you point out what verse declares this to be civil law?
But wait .if this is civil law as you claim why is it applicable today?
That your divisions between your so called civil law and religious law and ceremonial law are fabrications the only difference is how you wish to apply them to condemning others or avoid them when they are inconvenient for you personally.
And just where in Leviticus is the handy key to differentiate between your so called civil and ceremonial and religious laws?
You stopped responding long before you got to some of the more interesting questions:
I am eagerly waiting for your response to: it would seem you are quite content to justify prejudice against homosexuals by using a virus but become uncomfortable about using that same virus to justify racism. Why is that?
Though something tells me I will have a long wait.
And there are those who are skilled who dare to disagree with yougenez said:Likewise... those who are skilled in Bible exegesis, say the same things I have been telling you.
And where is the verse that separates your supposed civil laws from your supposed religious laws and your supposed ceremonial laws. There is no separation.Then, why are not the laws for keeping kosher intermingled freely with the issues concerning bestiality, incest, and homosexuality? Why does it not say you shall not eat shell fish, and then the next verse say a man will not have relations with his sister? And, likewise for the ceremonial regulations for animal sacrifices? There is a categorization in separate sections for different aspects for the Law.
I’m glad you agree that the only differentiation between what you are calling religious law and civil law and ceremonial law is the differentiation you personally choose to make.Fine......
There is no separation between the various kinds of laws you claim. No where in Leviticus does it make a differentiation. I have asked repeatedly for the verse delineating the separation and you have remained silent.I hear words. But I see no substance. Can you back up what you just said with a concrete example of what you just said about me? All I see is you attacking a strawman that you painted my face on.
Yet you have repeatedly declined to show the supposed division of the civil and ceremonial and religious laws in Leviticus instead engaging in an attack on me.
So you admit that you cannot do so.Do I need to? For it is civil law.
You ignored my question. If it is civil law (as you claim but cannot support) why is it applicable today?I have already gone over that. I see you read my posts...
Where is your proof? Where in Leviticus doe it delineate what is and what is not “civil” law?So? I see... Not eating ham was civil law. How to sacrifice a sin offering, was civil law. And? Regulations concerning a woman menstruating? Was civil LAW?????!
But the only differentiation you make is your own personal preference to declare one law “civil” and the law next to in “religious”Does each and every of our civil laws state they are a civil law, in the written law itself? Or, do they *by the nature of the law* end up being understood to be civil laws?
You are not using a puppy to justify your personal prejudice.Does everytime a puppy is born? A veternarian tatoo the word *dog* on its body? So we do not think its a cat? Can you imagine someone challenging you about your dog? "Where on it does it say *dog*? "
If you could not produce the word *dog* on the body? Its therefore not a dog?
Civil law is understood by the very nature of the purpose of that law. Its not one tenth as complicated as you are trying to make it to be.
Daring to disagree with you is not the same as misunderstanding youBecause I saw how well you were understanding what I had written already.
Because of how you tend to distort my words and intent. You seem to have a preconceived notion of what I should be like, and keep attacking that object. All the while. I sit quitely in another part of the room......
Maybe you will. I think that may be a good idea in this case. For you can not discern what civil law is when you see it. And, see it being no different from ceremonial law. Maybe, that's why you will have a long wait.
I think we have no comman ground to begin to work on. You seem intent to distort what I say, or find reason to try and get me to condemn myself, by sidetracking to issues not even being discussed. You switched to baiting me on racial issues when we were discussing what God's Word condemns concerning a certain means for sexual expression. I just think you are searching for something to stick your pin into. Not answers.
Enjoy your long wait......
How can we ever agree on anaything if you do not even know what constitutes civil law versus ceremonial, and dietary laws?
Hey! I'm over here!
Quit attacking that picture you painted on the wall!
Over here, GeneZ
Actually there is a good deal of controversy.PrincetonGuy said:Rom. 1:18-29 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10 incontrovertibly teach that the practice of homosexuality excludes from the kingdom of God those who participate in that sin. Yes, there is a lot of trash on the internet that denies this fact, but there are hundreds upon hundreds of very scholarly exegetical studies of the Greek text of Romans and 1 Corinthians by conservative and liberal exegetes from a vast array of theological positions that agree that Rom. 1:18-29 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10 teach that homosexuality is a sin. Indeed, I do not know of a single one of these studies that denies that Rom. 1:18-29 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10 teach that the practice of homosexuality is a sin, and I have hundreds of these studies right here in my home library.
Share with your friends what Paul wrote, and unless they are brain dead or God has given them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, the Holy Spirit will begin to work in their lives to convict them of the truth of those passages from the New Testament. Pray for your friends and share with them the truth, but do this lovingly and patiently while trusting the Holy Spirit to do His work.
HunterRose said:Actually there is a good deal of controversy.
At issue is the translation of the compound Greek word arsenokoitai to mean homosexual. There is actually no evidence that it does mean this at all. The Ancient Greek language had well known common words meaning homosexual yet Paul did not use these words he used an obscure compound word that no one else seemed to be using to mean homosexual. The meaning Homosexual comes from taking the meaning of root words of arsenokoitai (arsen = men or male and koitai = bed) and declaring it to mean homosexual but just as in English one cannot derive the meaning of a compound word by looking at the definition of its root words. To understand has nothing to do with being upright or being beneath the object/concept you are understanding. Taking the meaning of arsen and koitai together it is equally justifiable to say Paul was condemning the lazy (men who spend to much time in bed) as to say it refers to homosexuals. The meaning of the word arsenokoitai further removes itself from meaning homosexual when one considers the fact that the word koitai is feminine thus the actual compound meaning is a man in a female bed.
The real nail in the coffin for declaring the word arsenokoitai to mean homosexual is the fact that contemporary writings do not use the word to mean homosexuals but rather to mean men who sexually exploit women for money...men who employ prostitutes.
PrincetonGuy said:The Greek word ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) is a compound Greek word formed from two simple Greek words meaning male and intercourse. This Greek word meaning intercourse was used by the Greeks as vulgar slang, but from this word we get the English word coitus (through the Latin coitus, which is the past participle of coire). Since we find this word in our text following the word μαλακοὶ, the Greek word for a young male prostitute, it is possible that Paul here has in mind young male prostitutes and those who participate in consensual sex with those prostitutes. However, in view of what Paul wrote in Rom. 1:27 and the first century Jewish view of homosexual practices, there is no reason to limit the word ἀρσενοκοῖται to any single class of homosexualfrom Pauls point of view, and the first century Jewish point of view, all homosexual practices are grievous sins.
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?