Homosexuality

[Phinehas2]

Avneil,

You do understand that even if it is not clear(even though I think its clear) that doesnt mean its not true. Right now you are gambling are you sure you want to gamble with your eternal life?

Thats right, we have faith that what the Bible says is correct, the pro-gay side has faith that what the Bible says is not correct.

I think this is a fundamental question about the nature of Christianity.

 

[Phinehas2]

onemorequestion,
thats true, the pro-gay argument based on assumption by teaching others imposes that risk on others

 

[onemorequestion]

onemorequestion
Not sure how much debate their can be between someone who asks what the Bible says and a reply that refers to what the Bible doesn’t say

Obvioulsly a lot. Haven't I proven that?

I don’t see how what the Bible doesn’t say can help any Christian who can see what the Bible does say. Can you?

First and most importantly, it exposes a person to the truth. And we are called to judge that. Be excited that we have the opportunity to engage these kinds of people. maybe some of them are sincere.

The Bible doesn't say we are not to stone adulterers. So Jesus, using conservative theology, holds out that mercy can be applied to individuals that seem "guilty as sin." In fact, His great, great grandparents Judah and Tamar are just such a case.

There are some issues the Bible isn't all that focused on. Like a hermaphrodite for example. What if two of them want to get married and yet, they change gender identities on and off over the years. They are still "man" and "woman" but, just switched from time to time. I mean, I wouldn't want them running a marriage class at my Church, but they are sticking to the definition of marriage as Jesus taught it right?

Freaky huh? But obvioulsy something we DO have to deal with. I'm sure with enough study I may find something on that, but for now I'll stick with that strange analogy.

 

[onemorequestion]

onemorequestion,
thats true, the pro-gay argument based on assumption by teaching others, imposes that risk on others

May God have mercy on them for being caught up in the powers of this age.

That I mean sincerely.

We must keep up the good fight even against those that say they are our brothers and sisters in this matter. How many souls are lost when we give up.

 

[Lively Stone]

Well then, what happens if one person believes that the Holy Spirit has taught them one thing, but another person believes that the Holy Spirit has taught them something different?

What do you think? He will have to work more on the one who isn't listening.

 

[Lively Stone]

Personally, I'm tired of the circular logic used in this thread. If anyone wants to continue discussing this with me, they can send me a PM, or engage in any of the several other threads on this topic! But I'm going to have to excuse myself from this thread, because I really feel like I'm wasting my time.

When presented with the unbending truth of the Word of God and His people, it is a good thing to throw one's hands up and yield.

 

[Lively Stone]

No He hasn't ...what?

The Holy Spirit HAS NOT CLEARLY told Seventh-day Adventists that mainstream Christianity's blatant non-observance of the 7th-day Sabbath (Friday sundown/Saturday sundown) will figure very predominantly and negatively toward them (mainstream Christianity) in last day events involving 'the Mark of the Beast'.

 

[Jase]

The Holy Spirit HAS NOT CLEARLY told Seventh-day Adventists that mainstream Christianity's blatant non-observance of the 7th-day Sabbath (Friday sundown/Saturday sundown) will figure very predominantly and negatively toward them (mainstream Christianity) in last day events involving 'the Mark of the Beast'.

Prove it.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jase,
who claimed the Holy Spirit had told this? Have you any scripture to support the idea?
We need to look at what the scripture says, I will start with where Jesus and His disciples were accused on not keeping the Sabbath.
your turn

 

[kirmac]

Things get tiring when people profess to believe in Jesus and at the same time reject the Word of God which Jesus refers to time and time again to validate his ministry and his stance on pretty much everything. You either believe in both, or believe in neither.

 

[Avniel]

Jase,
who claimed the Holy Spirit had told this? Have you any scripture to support the idea?
We need to look at what the scripture says, I will start with where Jesus and His disciples were accused on not keeping the Sabbath.
your turn

I am just looking for Biblical proof that homosexuality isn't against God, so far they have yet to give any other then their language theory(which they dont even know if it was true that cant even prove it).

We have used OT NT what else do we want to use?

Their entire hypothesis involves to points 1) OT God was unjust 2) The Bible wasnt divinely influenced by God.

1) Who are you to say what God did was just or unjust? 2) Prove it, I need proof!! Because I believe that God is so mighty he wouldn't allow His word to changed into a lie. But prove it!!................

Yea no proof thanks

 

[Jase]

Things get tiring when people profess to believe in Jesus and at the same time reject the Word of God which Jesus refers to time and time again to validate his ministry and his stance on pretty much everything. You either believe in both, or believe in neither.

You do realize that based on the bolded statement, you have indicated that the written paper Bible, that I could right now tear up and throw in the fire, is the exact same thing as Yeshua ha'Mesiach described in John 1 right? In other words, you are worshipping the Bible with your statement.

I think the only thing that disappoints me almost as much as misrepresenting Biblical verses to condemn a minority is idolizing the Bible.

 

[addo]

H Octorock,
Its not circular logic, its what the scripture says, according to Christ's teaching His disciples seek to obey His teaching and the Holy Spirit He promised and sent reminds disciples of what He taught.
Simple. Its easy to tell what isnt of the Holy Spirit when it completely contradicts what the Bible consistently says.

And besides obeying, also teaching his teachings and commandments: "Teach them to do everything I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:20) Usually this is done by the greater light (apostles, teachers, pastors) but if it is not available for some reason the lesser light (Christian who is not the previous) can do the job, or at least, this is what I believe.

The Holy Spirit HAS NOT CLEARLY told Seventh-day Adventists that mainstream Christianity's blatant non-observance of the 7th-day Sabbath (Friday sundown/Saturday sundown) will figure very predominantly and negatively toward them (mainstream Christianity) in last day events involving 'the Mark of the Beast'.

Prove it.

Jase,
who claimed the Holy Spirit had told this? Have you any scripture to support the idea?
We need to look at what the scripture says, I will start with where Jesus and His disciples were accused on not keeping the Sabbath.
your turn

Please leave it here. This will lead the thread off-topic.

 

[Jase]

I am just looking for Biblical proof that homosexuality isn't against God, so far they have yet to give any other then their language theory(which they dont even know if it was true that cant even prove it).

You've been given evidence countless times that at the very least should give you pause to examine your beliefs and admit that you may have your understanding of the issue wrong. But all I've seen is people here sticking their finger in their ears and saying, "nuh uh, the Bible is perfect in English!"

These arguments are pointless when apparently one side is completely incapable of being wrong in their mind.

Their entire hypothesis involves to points 1) OT God was unjust 2) The Bible wasnt divinely influenced by God.

Why are you misrepresenting our position? Our position is that the English translation your side holds as infallible, is not so clear cut in Hebrew and Greek.

1) Who are you to say what God did was just or unjust?

Where did God say we can't question his actions? And if humans, bestowed with a supposedly objective moral system created by God can declare something inhumane and sadistic, then how much more humane must God be?

2) Prove it, I need proof!! Because I believe that God is so mighty he wouldn't allow His word to changed into a lie. But prove it!!................

Key words here are you believe. This is an issue of faith, not of evidence. Because there is no evidence supporting the Bible being perfect. Nor is there any indication that God ever intended it to be flawless. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anything less is purely belief.

 

[addo]

Do I really have to do this again?

Leviticus 15:

25 " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

Leviticus 19:

19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

23 " 'When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. [b] For three years you are to consider it forbidden [c] ; it must not be eaten. 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the LORD. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the LORD your God.

26 " 'Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.

27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Leviticus 20:

9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.


Oh, and well, this one was in there too, although I don't think anybody here ever obeys this commandment to it's full extent:

13 " '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.

So, let me ask everyone in this thread; who can say that they themselves don't "pick and choose" what they themselves follow from the scriptures? Would it be "rationalization" to ignore any of these clear-cut commandments?

We killed Christ in their stead. We were also required to make sacrifices. We don't disobey the commandment, but it's just that we already did it: we sacrificed Christ in stead. In a similar way, we killed in Christ in the stead of the adulteress, for example, or in the stead of the Sabbath breaker. So we don't disobey: we already kept them. But the commandments forbidding the actions remain. For example, even though we don't stone adulteresses anymore, it is still forbidden to commit adultery. Even though we don't kill very disobedient children anymore, children are still forbidden to disobey their parents (if what they command is not again one of God's commandments). And even though we don't kill practicing homosexuals anymore (Leviticus 20), homosexual behavior is still forbidden by God.

EDIT:

Paul said that since one (Christ) died for all, then all are considered dead. That means that the adulteress or homosexual He died for is considered dead for the Law, and this means that she is dead in the eyes of the Law, so how can you kill which is dead? You cannot, for only what is alive is able to be killed. Can you re-execute a dead criminal (which was sentenced to death)? All sinners are under penalty of death. But now that (s)he is dead, Christ resurrects her and she is a new person: she is not herself but Christ lives within her and she doesn't leave her old life (as an adulteress or practicing homosexual or liar or thief, etc.) anymore but a new life for the glory of God.

EDIT 2:

I found the verse:

"For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf." (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)

​

 

[Phinehas2]

Jase,

You do realize that based on the bolded statement, you have indicated that the written paper Bible, that I could right now tear up and throw in the fire, is the exact same thing as Yeshua ha'Mesiach described in John 1 right?

Not if the Bible has been thrown in the fire, if it has there is no way of seeing if Yeshua said that.

In other words, you are worshipping the Bible with your statement.

So in other words you are potentially worshipping something or someone other than the one whose testimony is the Bible.

I think the only thing that disappoints me almost as much as misrepresenting Biblical verses to condemn a minority is idolizing the Bible.

Apart from denying Bible verses so as to promote the sin those verses condemn; its called disbelief.

You've been given evidence countless times that at the very least should give you pause to examine your beliefs and admit that you may have your understanding of the issue wrong.

Chapter and verse please, we haven’t seen any of your evidence.

These arguments are pointless when apparently one side is completely incapable of being wrong in their mind.

God might be a Beligian Chocolate, of course the Bible indicates God isnt a Belgian chocolate, but we could be wrong. Happy?

Where did God say we can't question his actions?

Many places, its a central theme of the Bible, follow His ways and live. Raises another core question about the nature of Christianity.

Key words here are you believe. This is an issue of faith, not of evidence. Because there is no evidence supporting the Bible being perfect.

There is, the testimonies of the writers of what they have seen and heard from God. There is is no faith at all in your argument. Which raises another core question about the nature of Christianity.

 

[addo]

I remember a post that complained that God was unjust when ordering the killing of the previous owners of the promised land. I don't remember where it was, thus I can't quote it.

But should I remember them that those people burnt their babies alive in fire in honor of one of their false God? Should I remember them that they committed bestiality, adultery, fornication, "men with men and women with women" (homosexuality), were drunkards, raped women, raped men, were full of idols, were thieves; were unjust, disregarded and dishonored and were unjust with the poor and did a lot more of abominable things? I think these people just prefer to think those nations were some kind of holy nations of God which God just wanted to exterminate for no reason. But is it so? Isn't it written?

"After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." (Deuteronomy 9:4-5)
​

Those nations were not holy. Not even Israel, who He chose, was "righteous". Those nations were wicked.

And besides, even if they wouldn't have done all these things, they were sinners. Sinners are basically under penalty of death. They are in prison on death row. But the thing is that the judge can decide when the death will occur. They are all under death penalty. Doesn't the Judge have the right to kill whomever He wants? Aren't all at His mercy? They all sinned thus they must all die. The question is: why isn't that God didn't exterminate the whole earth yet? He has the right, so why not? We should be grateful that we still live.

 

[Jase]

I remember a post that complained that God was unjust when ordering the killing of the previous owners of the promised land. I don't remember where it was, thus I can't quote it.

But should I remember them that those people burnt their babies alive in fire in honor of one of their false God? Should I remember them that they committed bestiality, adultery, fornication, "men with men and women with women" (homosexuality), were drunkards, raped women, raped men, were full of idols, were thieves; were unjust, disregarded and dishonored and were unjust with the poor and did a lot more of abominable things? I think these people just prefer to think those nations were some kind of holy nations of God which God just wanted to exterminate for no reason. But is it so? Isn't it written?

"After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." (Deuteronomy 9:4-5)
​

Those nations were not holy. Not even Israel, who He chose, was "righteous". Those nations were wicked.

And besides, even if they wouldn't have done all these things, they were sinners. Sinners are basically under penalty of death. They are in prison on death row. But the thing is that the judge can decide when the death will occur. They are all under death penalty. Doesn't the Judge have the right to kill whomever He wants? Aren't all at His mercy? They all sinned thus they must all die. The question is: why isn't that God didn't exterminate the whole earth yet? He has the right, so why not? We should be grateful that we still live.

All nations are wicked, and always have been. People still burn babies, rape, murder, steal, etc. That doesn't mean any sane individual would advocate the entire slaughter of every citizen of these countries - men, women, and children.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jase,

All nations are wicked, and always have been. People still burn babies, rape, murder, steal, etc. That doesn't mean any sane individual would advocate the entire slaughter of every citizen of these countries - men, women, and children.

Yes they murder babies in the womb and call it abortion.
But you see Christ saves from eternal death, if you dont believe homosexuality is wrong why do you expect others to agree with you that for example stealing is wrong?

 

[addo]

All nations are wicked, and always have been. People still burn babies, rape, murder, steal, etc. That doesn't mean any sane individual would advocate the entire slaughter of every citizen of these countries - men, women, and children.

Let's see ... do you understand what "under penalty of death" or "deserving death" means?