M
MrPirate
Guest
Sins have a start date and an expiration date?
And no proof they didnt. There is as much evidence for a relationship between these two as for any relationship in the bible
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.
Sins have a start date and an expiration date?At the time of Adam and Eve incest wasn't yet a sin, was it?
There is no proof that David and Jonathon had a homosexual relationship.
Friend - a third time your failed to READ THE ENTIRE SENTENCE. It did not say "I do not read with the eyes"[/color][/font][/size]
Sorry - I do not read/comprehend each word of it literally.
"Proved my point again there, friend. I never said anything about not using eyes. Please go back and read again - slowly, carefully."
The first part of your sentence says "I do not read the Bible with the eyes," you later go on to specify which eyes, but I found the humor in the first part of your statement. This is really a dead issue and does not need further discussion.
Nope, you'd still be either a homosexual or a heterosexual... thats just what you ARE even if you aren't actively thinking about someone at the time..."you don't have to be with ANYONE to be homosexual... you could be the last person on the planet and still be a homosexual"
If you were the last person on the planet, exactly who would you be attracted to that was of the same sex? Also, the verses we are quoting seem to focus on the act of homosexual sex, moreso than having a different sexual orientation. The fact that Adam and Eve went forth, became fruitful and multiplied, strongly suggests that they were not homosexual. There's just no way for you to prove your assertion that either Adam or Eve could be homosexual and I think this whole thing is a strawman constructed by you to take away from the issue being discussed here.
Remember Jesus also said that any man that looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew5:27-28. Why would the same condemnation of lustful thoughts not apply to a man looking at another man with lust in his heart or a woman looking at another woman with lust in her heart?
well heres a real kicker... the Bible doesn't actually specify what a marriage IS... so I guess technically, any marriage like relationship qualifies... you know, loving, committed, mutually supporting sort of thingA marriage-like relationship? What kind of relationship is that exactly? Sex outside of marriage is adultery, regardless of your sexual orientation.
if you believe that adam and eve were the only 2 humans on earth at the time, its impossible for them to be homosexual. Asexual is a possibility though, but how could adam know he was homosexual if he never saw another man?
I honestly believe a large portion of the arguments all involve one thing. That is, the problem with us identifying ourselves by our sexual preference. That's one reason why I don't like the term "Gay Christian", it implies to me that one's sexuality comes before or is equal with their faith. A follower of Christ is simply that, a follower of Christ, whether he be black white red green gay straight transexual circus clown or elephant man.
Someone can be a homosexual without knowing it. In my experience, most homosexuals only realise that they're homosexual around their mid-teens, when puberty kicks in. So that's around fifteen years or so that they've been homosexual without knowing it.
"Is there any other reason?"Is there any other reason?
Yeah right tell us another one.
An unfounded claim
The action is rape. Which has no more to do with gay sex than rape has to do with straight sex.
Unless you follow all the laws of Leviticus then yes you are cherry picking and choosing.
As noted male on male rape is no more the defining factor of a same sex relationship that male on female rape is the defining factor of an opposite sex relationship
Changing the goal posts again I see
Good luck with that
"Nope, you'd still be either a homosexual or a heterosexual... thats just what you ARE even if you aren't actively thinking about someone at the time..."Nope, you'd still be either a homosexual or a heterosexual... thats just what you ARE even if you aren't actively thinking about someone at the time...
Michael Collins on Apollo 11... the record holder for the greatest distance from another living human in history... was STILL (presumeably) heterosexual, even when he was a quarter million miles away from the nearest woman.well heres a real kicker... the Bible doesn't actually specify what a marriage IS... so I guess technically, any marriage like relationship qualifies... you know, loving, committed, mutually supporting sort of thing
"Friend - a third time your failed to READ THE ENTIRE SENTENCE. It did not say "I do not read with the eyes"Friend - a third time your failed to READ THE ENTIRE SENTENCE. It did not say "I do not read with the eyes"
The complete sentence talks about reading with the eyes OF A LITERALIST.
This is why I made the correct assumption that your own literal reading cripples you...it does so because it is painfully obvious that you were, even after 2 helping posts, unable to grasp the intention of the post.
Please do not read that as an insult. I only offer it as an example of the incredible problems that proceed from literalist readings of anything, let alone scripture.
A. Who says Collins wasn't attracted to Armstrong or Aldrin? Thats information not in evidence... but either way, no... Collins stayed in orbit while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the Lunar surface... so at times he had the entire moon between him and the nearest living human being.Michael Collins was presumably surrounded by other men on the Apollo 11 mission, wasn't he? As he was clearly not attracted to them, it is safe to conclude that he was not homosexual. This isn't about sexual orientation, it's about actions. Sin can be committed in thought and in action. Homosexual relations you can try and explain away, but you're just as guilty of lusting after another person outside of wedlock as heterosexual people are. The orientation does not define the sin. The action or thought life of the individual does. Sin is an issue relevant to a person, not to a group.
"A. Who says Collins wasn't attracted to Armstrong or Aldrin? Thats information not in evidence..."A. Who says Collins wasn't attracted to Armstrong or Aldrin? Thats information not in evidence... but either way, no... Collins stayed in orbit while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the Lunar surface... so at times he had the entire moon between him and the nearest living human being.
Still doesn';t change what his sexuality was. Isolated as he was, he was still either homosexual or heterosexual.
I don't know, nor really care. I just don't like the way you instantly assume Collins couldn't have been attracted to his crewmates.Was Collins married at the time of the mission? Did he ever get married later, if he wasn't at the time of the mission? That would be your evidence to the contrary about his alleged homosexuality.
*As nicely as possible*He knew what he was before he went into orbit, because he had been surrounded by males and females prior to going and knew which sex he was attracted to. How does this help your claim that Adam and Eve could have been homosexual though? I see that you have not answered that question, although it has been posed to you by two different people now.
there are certainly genes which seem to pre-dispose us to certain behaviours that some consider sinful... howevber I don't see any reason to regard homosexuality as sinful.There is no homosexual gene....unless you think there is a sin gene?
they've been posted in other threads? I've never seen any... link me to one?They have been posted by others in various threads on this subject.
Regardless, the Bible does say it is a sin, as heterosexual immorality is sin. The question is, bottomline, are we going to give into our flesh and sin or are we going to obey God. Are we going to deny our flesh and walk in the Spirit?
I don't know, nor really care. I just don't like the way you instantly assume Collins couldn't have been attracted to his crewmates.
He may have been, he may not have been, but either way, you are making an assumption and promoting it as fact.*As nicely as possible*
If you are homosexual, you are omosexual. If you are heterosexual, you are heterosexual. Its just the way you are, same as being dark skined, blue eyed, or red haired.
It doesn't matter if you KNOW what you are, you still ARE... for example, in the history of the world, most people didn't KNOW they had a pancreas, or what it was for, but they still had one.
So yes, Adam and/or Eve could have been homosexual, without ever knowing it.
Indeed, if you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, then its looking pretty good that one of them at least must have, at the very least, been a carrier of the genes that give one homosexual tendencies... otherwise where'd the gene come from?
"I don't know, nor really care. I just don't like the way you instantly assume Collins couldn't have been attracted to his crewmates."
"*As nicely as possible*
If you are homosexual, you are omosexual. If you are heterosexual, you are heterosexual. Its just the way you are, same as being dark skined, blue eyed, or red haired."
"It doesn't matter if you KNOW what you are, you still ARE... for example, in the history of the world, most people didn't KNOW they had a pancreas, or what it was for, but they still had one."
"Indeed, if you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, then its looking pretty good that one of them at least must have, at the very least, been a carrier of the genes that give one homosexual tendencies... otherwise where'd the gene come from?"
Leviticus cuts no ice, because we are under the New Covenant, rather than the old, right?We have shown multiple times from Leciticus, Romans, and 1 Cor that it is a sin, no matter how we try to justify it. That is the bottomline.
Yeah... I'm going to go ahead and disagree there... I mean, if your body is made in such a way that you are compelled to behave in a certain fashion, are you really responsible for it?The problem with the gene, and the "I was made this way", argument is that we are new creations in Christ. We are not bound to our sinful flesh. Remember, there's people who claim that they were made/born as pedophiles, thieves, psychopaths and on and on. Biblically, the excuse doesn't wash. Christ's blood does wash and the Holy Spirit empowers us to live godly lives.
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?