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.
nonsense.is that there is a concerted effort to change the landscape of the nuclear family in America,
Aside from the Levitical laws? no there arent.2) There are plenty of old and new testament verses that identify the homosexual act as sinful.
nonsense.
Homosexual people have NO problem with people who want to live in nuclear families living in nuclear families. None at all, zero, zip, zilch.
The whole "the evil homosexual conspirators are coming to get you" is scare mongering of the worst ilk.
Aside from the Levitical laws? no there arent.
I never condemned anyone or judged anyone for that matter...only stating that homosexual acts are sinful. (which is what this thread is about) I never said it was a sin to have the inclination to be homosexual. But, as is revealed to us through the Church...i meant down here on earth.
because i have a right to. and i can't stand watching people condemen something or someone that they have no right to if they've never gone through it themselves. how about living up to that tilte you have there about not judgin people?
it's not that they say it. it's how they say it and the condemnation that tends to go along with it.
Ah. Paul's meandering rants against, well, everything."For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
—Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)
"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"
—1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)
Paul's MEANDERING RANTS????? Good grief! You sure don't mind his teachings on salvation by GRACE do you?Ah. Paul's meandering rants against, well, everything.
Let me break it down for YOU:OK, let me break it down for you...
MORAL LAWS from the Torah continue to stand today. The other laws you quote there are from the civil & ceremonial laws of the Torah - there are 3 sections of the law/categories if you will.Leviticus says homosexuality is abomination. It also says women wearing men's clothes is abomination and shellfish, and 4 footed birds are an abomination. So either, homosexuality is no longer a sin under Levitical law, OR people should get just as worked up about women wearing jeans as they do about men sleeping with men
He WAS speaking agaisnt homosexality. Romans 1:18-32 cannot be any clearer than it is in its direct definition & detail of a man with man & woman with woman "exchanging the NATURAL function" & use.Paul CAN be interpreted as speaking against homosexuality, depending on the translation you use.
JESUS Himself defined lawful marriage in God's eyes:Not to mention, of course, that Paul was writing AFTER Jesus' time, could not referdirectly to Jesus for clarification, and explicitely states that while he believes he is correct in his writings, it is ONLY his opinion
The upshot is, homosexuality IS SINFUL - it's unlawful union in the eyes of GOD because God made the prototype at the beginning of creation: male and female, (and HE SAYS) FOR that very reason, they are to become one union. Not 2 men, not 2 women.So, the upshot is, homosexuality isn't sinful.
And by who's authority do you believe that He does this? His own or by Gods authority?
I never condemned anyone or judged anyone for that matter...only stating that homosexual acts are sinful. (which is what this thread is about) I never said it was a sin to have the inclination to be homosexual. But, as is revealed to us through the Church...
Ah. Paul's meandering rants against, well, everything.
I've never understood why supposedly "Bible-believing" Christians insist on perpetuating this anti-Scriptural bit of teaching. The "sin of Sodom" for which it was destroyed is identified clearly in the Bible (Ezekiel 16:49, among other places) and it is not homosexuality.God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this very act. For it is an abomination in Gods eyes.. Because from the beginning God created them Male and female..This was Gods plan this was His intent..That is why we have the different shaped bodies.. After the fall is when the enemy perverted everything that God had intended.. This was not Gods plan.. This didn't come from God.. Jesus came to bring us back to the Father. Not accept the the perversion. For from the beginning God made them male and female..This is the union that God had created. Men in their fallen nature has perverted this union.. When we come to Christ we are to turn from our sin and turn unto Him..Letting go of our own thoughts of right and wrong and taking on His thoughts of right and wrong.. Making Him Lord...
1st off, why equate "supposedly Christian" with people who attach homosexuliaty w/ Sodom?I've never understood why supposedly "Bible-believing" Christians insist on perpetuating this anti-Scriptural bit of teaching. The "sin of Sodom" for which it was destroyed is identified clearly in the Bible (Ezekiel 16:49, among other places) and it is not homosexuality.
Um, wrong. But hey, feel free to try to prove me mistaken.God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this very act
Well his own, obviously. How could he possibly be writing with God's authority AFTER the time of prophets and AFTER the time of Christ's incarnation?And by who's authority do you believe that He does this? His own or by Gods authority?
I would assume with the same authority as the apostles spoke with after the resurrection.Well his own, obviously. How could he possibly be writing with God's authority AFTER the time of prophets and AFTER the time of Christ's incarnation?
Um, wrong. But hey, feel free to try to prove me mistaken.
Well his own, obviously. How could he possibly be writing with God's authority AFTER the time of prophets and AFTER the time of Christ's incarnation?
Especially since he actually states that the opinions are expressed are his own.
Paul is interesting as a comentator. Some of his writings have merit, sure. But to assume that they are somehow inerrent is unsupported. Paul was human, with human biases and prejudices. To accept his writings without question is flawed.Paul's MEANDERING RANTS????? Good grief! You sure don't mind his teachings on salvation by GRACE do you?
really? well, despite asking about a zillion times, I am yet to have anyone explain to me how anyone knows which laws can be considered cultural and which ones can be considered moral. It really does rather sound like an exercise in excusing the practice of picking and choosing the bits of Leviticus one wishes to obey. For me, I'll take the "all or none" approach... we either enforce Levitical law without exceptionThe other laws you quote there are from the civil & ceremonial laws of the Torah - there are 3 sections of the law/categories if you will.
Indeed? in which translation?He WAS speaking agaisnt homosexality. Romans 1:18-32 cannot be any clearer than it is in its direct definition & detail of a man with man & woman with woman "exchanging the NATURAL function" & use.
There's no "room" in Jesus teaching for internet usage, working single mothers, IVF programs and universal healthcare either. Does that mean he was against them? Should we just abandon any and all practices that Jesus did not explicitly condone "just to be safe"?Notice there's NO room given for man and man? Woman with woman?
Gee, could THAT be why Jesus didn't address it specifically? Because the issue simply was never raised in the presence of his biographers?Always remember, HOMOSEXUALITY WAS NOT AN ISSUE OF THEIR DAY in Israel!
Prove it and I'll reform my wicked ways at once. But your proof will have to be internally consistent...The upshot is, homosexuality IS SINFUL
Gee, the Bible doesn't say anything like this. I wonder where you get the idea that "He says" anything of the kind?it's unlawful union in the eyes of GOD because God made the prototype at the beginning of creation: male and female, (and HE SAYS) FOR that very reason, they are to become one union. Not 2 men, not 2 women.
Um, hate to be pedantic, but there is no such thing as an "OT saint", and whether or not any of the NT authors considered themselves "Christian" rather than "Jewish" is seriously debateable.By the way, maybe you can show me in the Bible where all the many Gay examples of Christians & OT saints that were GAY who led the people???
Uh, who said it was common?If it was SO lawful & common
your logic is flawed. There aren't many Biblical examples of women teachers or leaders, or black teachers and leaders, or Chinese teachers and leaders... that does not equate to God not approving of them...there will SURELY be many Godly gay examples
of elders, shepherds, priests, prophets & teachers in our bible that display God's pleasure with homosexuality.
Not really. I'm not saying Paul doesn't have value in his writings, I just think they are over emphasised in theology, usually by people looking for loopholes.First of all, read Romans 14, and then tell me Paul disapproves of everything. And, I think that is a ridiculous statement. Care to debate Paul sometimes EnemyPartyII?
Sorry you consider it slander, that is NOT my intent. However, I see nothing anywhere that leads us to believe that Paul considered his writings inerent or "God Breathed". Yes, I KNOW that he says "all scriptre is good for teaching" in Timothy, I just qyestion the idea that Paul ever considered his own works as part of scripture?And secondly, Paul only says "he writes this" in one or two minor places. When Paul writes that, that does not mean all his epistles. No, when Paul writes that it's in regards to a few sentences only. Please re-read the epistles before slandering Paul.
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?