Homosexuallity is the same as polygamy

[BigChrisfilm]

More people trying to juctify their own sins, by exposing the sins of others. As if two wrongs make a right. You are only doing this because you feel bad about what you are doing, so you have to make others feel bad as well. As if you can prove all men are sinners, it's going to prove that God wanted it that way or something. The main reason any of these discussion are even taking place are that WE believe the Bible is 100% accuarte and you don't. You can't! If you did, you would be against everything you are doing, and therefor, you have searched for scripture, and man made doctrine that will go along, and not judge you on your sinfull ways. Therefor, you search this doctrines out, and hold on to them, hoping they will save you from God on judgement day. No man made doctrine is going to save you from judgement day. You can argue with me all you want, but you won't last 10 seconds with God. You will be on your knees, praying for forgiveness, and you will not recieve any. It will be too late. Oh, what a horrible day that is going to be. Is there anything in scripture that says I have to be there to watch that? I hope not, because it will be one of the worst things we will ever see.

 

[BigChrisfilm]

Davedjy said
"You don't technically need a verse in the Bible to know that women were not equal to men, in Biblical times, and in the early Church days."

In other words, it's not really in there.

 

[davedjy]

Davedjy said
"You don't technically need a verse in the Bible to know that women were not equal to men, in Biblical times, and in the early Church days."

In other words, it's not really in there.

Is that your way of dodging the fact that in Early Biblical and Church times that there was clear mistreatment of women? but you use the homosexual verses against us gays, but cherry pick what is OK for you who have a straight orientation? OK, I think I get it now.

 

[Full_Moon]

You don't technically need a verse in the Bible to know that women were not equal to men, in Biblical times, and in the early Church days. The early Church just followed the same logic, about keeping your woman under control, and not allowing her to speak till she gets home, and all that jazz.

If I am going to take more than a minute I might as well post those 3 questions for you on the other forum Dave... But hey. My wife says you are picking on her (she was somewhat joking). But I do see that you are trying to argue that the bible forbids her to vote etc as a way to win her over to your beliefs. Now she is asleep and I will answer you. Unfortunately for your methods, if the bible said she could not vote then she would not vote. If the bible forbade her to speak in church she would not speak in church. If the bible tells her that she cannot wear pink then she would not wear pink. But it is a sad thing when people go by their own interpretation for their own agenda and try to corrupt others by it.

We read together in 1 Cor 2:13-16

13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Here I see you mocking scripture from beginning to end. Paul explains this being a result from the fact that they are spiritual words with spiritual meaning requiring spiritual discernment. Someone who looks with worldly eyes at scripture will find it to be foolishness. How many times have we heard of all the "biblical contradictions", "mistaken" words of Paul, or Moses, or Jesus. It is ironic how a self-proclaimed Christian will mock the scriptures, contradict good doctrine, speak against the authority of scripture and do all this by arguing from scripture itself.

On the one hand you have teachings apparently derived from scripture. On the other hand you deride scripture wherever it disagrees with your teachings. Who is the authority in your religion? If it were Jesus then you would listen to Him.

Fortunately for you (as with me) it is not up to us as to whether we are saved or not. Only because I love you do I point out that it is you who cherry pick.

P.S. I heard you liked the shirt. She has good taste eh?

Have a good night.

 

[Mother Vashti]

Let me guess: in Leviticus, because Jesus wrote Leviticus?

(I'm not kidding, folks: I have actually seen statements from people that Jesus wrote the entire Bible, which is how I think BigChrisfilm is making this stretch.)

Jesus wrote the recipe for communion wafers too

I'm lovin' it

 

[Der Alte]

...
I have seen no evidence that Paul considered his OWN writings to be scripture... I certainly see no reason to consider them inerrant and universally applicable.

I think you ignored my previous post. Do you accept the writings of Peter as scripture? If not, what do you accept as scripture? If, so then why don't you accept Peter's word that Paul's letters were scripture?

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles [brother Paul, vs. 15], speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.​

 

[davedjy]

If I am going to take more than a minute I might as well post those 3 questions for you on the other forum Dave... But hey. My wife says you are picking on her (she was somewhat joking). But I do see that you are trying to argue that the bible forbids her to vote etc as a way to win her over to your beliefs. Now she is asleep and I will answer you. Unfortunately for your methods, if the bible said she could not vote then she would not vote. If the bible forbade her to speak in church she would not speak in church. If the bible tells her that she cannot wear pink then she would not wear pink. But it is a sad thing when people go by their own interpretation for their own agenda and try to corrupt others by it.

We read together in 1 Cor 2:13-16


Here I see you mocking scripture from beginning to end. Paul explains this being a result from the fact that they are spiritual words with spiritual meaning requiring spiritual discernment. Someone who looks with worldly eyes at scripture will find it to be foolishness. How many times have we heard of all the "biblical contradictions", "mistaken" words of Paul, or Moses, or Jesus. It is ironic how a self-proclaimed Christian will mock the scriptures, contradict good doctrine, speak against the authority of scripture and do all this by arguing from scripture itself.

On the one hand you have teachings apparently derived from scripture. On the other hand you deride scripture wherever it disagrees with your teachings. Who is the authority in your religion? If it were Jesus then you would listen to Him.

Fortunately for you (as with me) it is not up to us as to whether we are saved or not. Only because I love you do I point out that it is you who cherry pick.

P.S. I heard you liked the shirt. She has good taste eh?

Have a good night.

Tulip is your wife? I AM either confused or tired! LOL


My point is the MISTREATMENT of women was known as well as the slavery. If they were wrong on certain levels, it is easy to see they could be wrong on something like this, and I don't mean intentionally. THe Church DOES NOT represent the heart of God necessarily 100%, as it did even less back then. DOCTRINE represents the churches..the intepretations of the Scriptures.

 

[Full_Moon]

Tulip is your wife? I AM either confused or tired! LOL


My point is the MISTREATMENT of women was known as well as the slavery. If they were wrong on certain levels, it is easy to see they could be wrong on something like this, and I don't mean intentionally. THe Church DOES NOT represent the heart of God necessarily 100%, as it did even less back then. DOCTRINE represents the churches..the intepretations of the Scriptures.

So you DO exercise your right to vote.

Why would you disobey Paul and the Early Church Fathers?
...........................................
DOCTRINE represents the churches..the intepretations of the Scriptures.

From what you say Paul and the Early Church Fathers forbid my wife from voting. According to your interpretation of scripture that is...

So do you agree with your interpretation of scripture and tell women not to vote etc (as you did my wife, knowing that she is a bible-believing Christian)? Or do you disagree with your interpretation of scripture and say it is ok (thus, in your view, telling people to disobey scripture)?



You may want to consider what 'Sola Scriptura' means to you. (as in your profile)

 

[davedjy]

From what you say Paul and the Early Church Fathers forbid my wife from voting. According to your interpretation of scripture that is...

So do you agree with your interpretation of scripture and tell women not to vote etc (as you did my wife, knowing that she is a bible-believing Christian)? Or do you disagree with your interpretation of scripture and say it is ok (thus, in your view, telling people to disobey scripture)?



You may want to consider what 'Sola Scriptura' means to you. (as in your profile)

No, I'm trying to prove that she needs to stay consistent in reasoning. I believe the Bible has errors in it, that we do not apply today, but people want to justify something as "historical context" for those days, while they say "this DOES apply to, today for sure". It is cherry picking.

I have nothing against women voting, I believe women are equal to men, I'm just trying to make a point on consistent arguments.

 

[BigChrisfilm]

No, I'm trying to prove that she needs to stay consistent in reasoning. I believe the Bible has errors in it, that we do not apply today, but people want to justify something as "historical context" for those days, while they say "this DOES apply to, today for sure". It is cherry picking.

I have nothing against women voting, I believe women are equal to men, I'm just trying to make a point on consistent arguments.

And that is why we differ. Because I believe that even though the Bible condemns things I like doing, I accept it as truth, because the Word of God is NOT error filled. I am error filled, and it is pridefull for man to claim that the Bible is wrong just because it doesn't agree with their sinfull nature.

 

[davedjy]

And that is why we differ. Because I believe that even though the Bible condemns things I like doing, I accept it as truth, because the Word of God is NOT error filled. I am error filled, and it is pridefull for man to claim that the Bible is wrong just because it doesn't agree with their sinfull nature.

So you believe it is absolute truth to stone to death a rape victim, and force a woman to marry her attacker for life? Please explain that to me.

 

[Full_Moon]

No, I'm trying to prove that she needs to stay consistent in reasoning. I believe the Bible has errors in it, that we do not apply today, but people want to justify something as "historical context" for those days, while they say "this DOES apply to, today for sure". It is cherry picking.

I have nothing against women voting, I believe women are equal to men, I'm just trying to make a point on consistent arguments.

So basically you are using one part of the bible that you consider prohibits women from voting to support your argument that another part of the bible which you interpret as prohibiting homosexual acts is not necessarily true?

I find this to be a funny argument. Perhaps you mean to make a different argument but that would just make it funnier (funny as in strange). First of all that you claim you believe in 'Sola Scripture, yet you are obviously submitting the truth of scripture to your own pre-determined understanding of what is good or bad. For example you believe that women are equal and should be able to vote. Therefore when the bible, in your understanding, speaks differently you reject the bible. Likewise with homosexual behavior, you already believe that it is right and so you reject the bible when it says it is wrong.

Or do you have another point? Because my wife said that what the bible says is what matters? So you say that the bible is wrong in other things therefore wrong with homosexuality? Funny because you always argue from the bible that it doesn't prohibit homosexuality.

Tell me one thing, THIS IS ONE QUESTION FOR YOU ABOVE ALL OTHER COMMENTS PLEASE. If you spend so much effort trying to argue from the bible in defending homosexual behavior, then why do you argue against the bible regarding homosexual with the supported argument that you believe it is wrong about women?

I believe you just admitted you know the bible condemns homosexual behavior. Otherwise there is no reason for you to discredit the bible in your argument for homosexual behavior.

You were trying to convince my wife that the bible is flawed to support your homosexual argument. BUSTED

 

[Full_Moon]

One more way to drive this point home.

If you are to argue that the bible doesn't prohibit homosexuality, then it is in your partisan interests to support the credibility of the bible.

Were someone to agree with the validity of your argument about the bible and homosexuality, then they could weaken it by discrediting the bible and suggesting that it is wrong to NOT condemn homosexual behavior.

You've contradicted yourself badly here.

 

[davedjy]

You've contradicted yourself badly here.

I don't see how even in the slightest way, I would
suffice to say you have confused me badly here!

 

[davedjy]

If you spend so much effort trying to argue from the bible in defending homosexual behavior, then why do you argue against the bible regarding homosexual with the supported argument that you believe it is wrong about women?

The Bible isn't perfect, and isn't right about everything is my point of argument. THAT'S IT! Dont' read anything else into that statement, because I mean what I say!

 

[Full_Moon]

I don't see how even in the slightest way, I would
suffice to say you have confused me badly here!

You responded within a minute of me posting.

I suggest re-reading it and thinking about it. Don't make me break it down into a math problem for you, you should be able to put it together unless you are very weak with reason.

 

[Full_Moon]

The Bible isn't perfect, and isn't right about everything is my point of argument. THAT'S IT! Dont' read anything else into that statement, because I mean what I say!

You didn't pull this point out of the blue. It was in response to my wife saying that what the bible says is what matters.

 

[Full_Moon]

Tulip said this:

You both have to be kidding me. Didn't Jesus say I and the Father are one? Father, Son, Holy Spirit - One God now and forever....If the Father and Son are one, doesn't that mean Jesus is the Father and wrote and inspired the Bible?

No, that means that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are the trinity. It does not mean what you say, tho., not in the least.

I have already confirmed my beliefs w/the Bible, but I don't believe it is a perfect Book, there are quite a few things, if we took literally would make us go insane to this day.

Let's not forget the mistreatment of women, clearly!
You have cherry picked that out, you are a woman are you not?
As a woman, you were an inheritance, almost like property, and you were forced to marry your rape predator/attacker FOR LIFE!

So you tell her that is not what that scripture verse means and then tell her the bible is wrong in many instances somehow in support of your point. It was more indirectly related to homosexuality but it is still the same logical contradiction.

You can't argue that the bible says one thing and then support your argument by saying the bible is wrong.

Fact is it was JESUS who claimed to be One with the Father. So Tulip has made a very important observation on the Inspiration of the bible.

If you are going to argue what the bible really MEANS to say by discrediting it and saying it is wrong.... is absurd.

 

[davedjy]

Tulip said this:

You both have to be kidding me. Didn't Jesus say I and the Father are one? Father, Son, Holy Spirit - One God now and forever....If the Father and Son are one, doesn't that mean Jesus is the Father and wrote and inspired the Bible?




So you tell her that is not what that scripture verse means and then tell her the bible is wrong in many instances somehow in support of your point. It was more indirectly related to homosexuality but it is still the same logical contradiction.

You can't argue that the bible says one thing and then support your argument by saying the bible is wrong.

Fact is it was JESUS who claimed to be One with the Father. So Tulip has made a very important observation on the Inspiration of the bible.

If you are going to argue what the bible really MEANS to say by discrediting it and saying it is wrong.... is absurd.

Well then, maybe we should go back to ALL the old ways of the Bible then, and what it says. YOU are the one who cherry picks the Bible. You say "that was for a different audience, that was for then", and then you say "this is for now". CHERRY PICKING with a CAPITAL C!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It is impossible to argue the Bible with someone that doesn't believe the Bible is 100% accurate.

Please feel more than free to explain the apparent errors in the Bible then. Convince me it is 100% accurate... I'll be open minded...