One Jesus, two testimonies?

[Floatingaxe]

Matthew 15:16-17[/bible]

I must say find it odd that you use this verse, that says what goes in the mouth does not pollute the body, to argue that homosexual practices are sinful. I don't believe that we can use this verse to argue homosexuality, but in both its tone and in the most obvious possible reference, if one tried to use it, it would be more natural to use it to argue against your claim.

Figures! There is no verse in the bible to argue against "my" claim!

The verse is telling you that you are dealing with a HEART issue. Sinful hearts deny the Word of God and indulge in sin...simple. The evil heart is the originator of the evil act.

 

[Floatingaxe]

There isn't any discrepancy over the fact that it has to do with some form of sexual intercourse. The compound words STILL together do not form "homosexual"!

Gimme a break!

Males + coitus = Homosexual sex

So, do you admit that God considers us all morons who need it distinctly spelled out for us? Hardly. when you meet God through His Son, Jesus and the Holy Spurit moves in on you--you know.

In your case, if you think you know Christ, you would know His desire for you, but you deny.

 

[davedjy]

Gimme a break!

Male + coitus = Homosexual sex

So, do you admit that God considers us all morons who need it distinctly spelled out for us? Hardly. when you meet God through His Son, Jesus and the Holy Spurit moves in on you--you know.

In your case, if you think you know Christ, you would know His desire for you, but you deny.

Uhhh no....Male + Male + sex = homosexual sex


You are making a translation out of something that isn't there.


The ad hominem attacks are not going to work, so please stop the comments aimed at me, this is a debate forum.
This coming from the same person that believes that it was translated as homosexual always, but yet, at the time of Martin Luther, arsenokoitai was universally translated as those who touch.

Don't pretend to know more than the scholars!

 

[Floatingaxe]

Uhhh no....Male + Male + sex = homosexual sex


You are making a translation out of something that isn't there.


The ad hominem attacks are not going to work, so stop making this a personal thing, this is a debate forum.
This coming from the same person that believes that it was translated as homosexual always, but yet, at the time of Martin Luther, arsenokoitai was universally translated as those who touch.

Don't pretend to know more than the scholars!

OK I edited.



Yep, homosexual always. Understood homosexual always until the modern age came along with their superior intellect and decided that they were going to sodomize no matter what the established Word of God says. They were going to rewrite the bible!

Hah! I do know more than ignorant evil men, because I know the Creator.

Don't you go pretending that you know more than God Himself. He will not have it. You will pay for such arrogance. Be forewarned.

 

[davedjy]

OK I edited.



Yep, homosexual always. Understood homosexual always until the modern age came along with their superior intellect and decided that they were going to sodomize no matter what the established Word of God says. They were going to rewrite the bible!

Hah! I do know more than ignorant evil men, because I know the Creator.

Don't you go pretending that you know more than God Himself. He will not have it. You will pay for such arrogance. Be forewarned.

God did not write false translations, yet you love to conveniently confuse the two.
The translators are NOT the Apostles, nor can they speak for God...they are mortal men who within themselves have contradicted themselves with numerous inconsistencies.

Ignorance? please let's not even go there....

Bible translation to translation there are flaws and inconsistencies even in your so-called "modern translations"...your debate holds up like the way Thelma and Louise drove the car off the cliff.

Evil men? the only evil prevailing is in those who judge others calling their acts evil (and them ignorant on a shallow dumbfounded basis), while using the Bible to justify bigotry. "Let's use the same book that endorsed slavery and polygamy to condemn same sex, monogamous, loving relationships", as if that makes even an ounce of sense.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Davedjy,
Sorry but can you clarify this please as I am having trouble making sense of it.

God did not write false translations, yet you love to conveniently confuse the two.

The Bible is written by men not God.

The translators are NOT the Apostles, nor can they speak for God...they are mortal men who within themselves have contradicted themselves with numerous inconsistencies.

Well if you don’t believe the reliability of the Bible that’s up to you, we who do, do.

Evil men? the only evil prevailing is in those who judge others calling their acts evil (and them ignorant on a shallow dumbfounded basis), while using the Bible to justify bigotry.

Hang on, if you don’t believe the Bible why would you be bothered about people using it to justify something. Incidentally if you don’t think same-sex acts are wrong there is nothing stopping you doing them but don’t try and stop others quoting and citing the Bible and God’s word.

"Let's use the same book that endorsed slavery and polygamy to condemn same sex, monogamous, loving relationships", as if that makes even an ounce of sense.

Well it does if you believe the Bible as you will know that those who ‘used’ it to support the slave trade actually rejected what the Bible says, those who are promoting same sex, monogamous, loving relationships are doing the same.

 

[GenemZ]

There isn't any discrepancy over the fact that it has to do with some form of sexual intercourse. The compound words STILL together do not form "homosexual"!

Amazing how homosexual expression was so wide spread throughout the Roman Empire, yet Paul makes no mention of it.

If I write in a book today that someone is gay?

3000 years from now?

Someone who reads my words to translate for another? Says that I was speaking about was a homosexual.

The other asks annoyingly where he sees the word 'homosexual' anywhere. That I was really writing about a gleeful person. Obviously, its in the concordance for 20th century English! Gay means gleeful! Happy! A good time!


The argument ensues.

 

[Phinehas2]

Amazing how homosexual expression was so wide spread throughout the Roman Empire, yet Paul makes no mention of it.

homosexual is a modern word meaning having same-sex attraction, homosexual expression therefore should means same-sex sex. The Bible refers to same-sex sex by describing it and calling it arsenokoites as in a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman. There is no doubt therefore that The Bible refers to homosexual expression, the debate is with people who try and syatematicaly deny all the verses mean what they say. its called disbelief.

 

[MercyBurst]

Back to the favorite subject of every Christian Brother and Sister -- the Holy Spirit that dwellls within us.


Here, I joined Brothers-Keepers, though I'm not gay or bi-sexual.


I am sincerely interested in supporting by Brothers in Jesus Christ as they try to live for Him.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brothers-Keepers/

Really nice picture of Jesus loving a man the appropriate way.

Please join me in celebrating their decisions for the Lord.


Here's my invite letter:

We have received your request to join Brother's Keepers and you are invited to become an active member. We are trying to foster a safe environment where men can build meaningful relationships and experience personal support in their struggle with homosexuality. B-K is for men who are serious about living free of homosexuality. Please note that new subscribers to Brothers Keepers should not have in their yahoo profiles anything of a homosexual nature including nude pictures, gay interest groups or links which would be inappropriate for our members who are striving to live a pure life. If the homosexual things are not removed, it is an indication that you are not yet committed to living free of homosexuality and so are not ready to be a part of our group.

Hmmm, so porn is a big gay problem is it? That doesn't sound very healthy for the spirit.

Members in Brother's Keepers are encouraged to be actively involved. This means posting of messages and reading and responding to the posts of other members on an informal basis. Openness and candor are the very foundation of our group, for without them there would be no discussion.

Yes indeed, sounds like some of the guys here need to join up.

The way each member is involved with the group is an individual matter and the degree to which you are transparent about your own life is up to you, but as a minimum involvement, we hope you will respond to what others are writing and give your own feedback to the issues being discussed.

I seriously doubt they are debating their decisions to go ex-gay.

The more you share, the more others are likely to share and the more you participate, the more response from others you will receive. All posts are to be kept confidential within the group. If you are concerned about the privacy of your identity, it is acceptable to use a nickname. Most members choose to use their real names.Each man is at a different place in his quest to be free from homosexuality.

Gee, but I've been told how immutable it is.

We are on a journey. No matter where you are on your journey, we invite you to be open and honest as you share what's on your heart. We are here not to criticize or judge but to encourage.

Sounds like a great place, a friendly atmosphere, loving, receptive, open, candid, and gay-free.

What more could a struggling Christian ask for?

 

[RMDY]

Amazing how homosexual expression was so wide spread throughout the Roman Empire, yet Paul makes no mention of it.

If I write in a book today that someone is gay?

3000 years from now?

Someone who reads my words to translate for another? Says that I was speaking about was a homosexual.

The other asks annoyingly where he sees the word 'homosexual' anywhere. That I was really writing about a gleeful person. Obviously, its in the concordance for 20th century English! Gay means gleeful! Happy! A good time!


The argument ensues.

Hebrew marriage back in the days of Jesus was between only a man and a women. I don't know about those gentile, pagan Romans though
Do you really want to use Pagan lifestyles as a good example on how a Christian should live?

I do know that Paul said that a man should have his own wife and a woman should have her own husband and they should set themselves apart for one another. Paul also stressed that it is better for people to be like him, set apart for the work of God. Paul also talks about times where married couples sanctify themselves apart from one another so they can devote themselves towards God in prayer and fasting. I believe Paul also talked about a married man will have his devotion towards God divided between God and his wife. So you see why Paul mentions that it would be better being single and devoting yourself towards God: simple! No distractions!

So you see.

Furthermore, the apostles made it their point to others that no one should stop them from having a wife.

Paul and Jesus also made a lot of comparisons between Man-Women relationships and the relationship between God and the church.

I find more evidence that Jesus and Paul were pro Man-Woman relationship than a homosexual-styled one, considering that they existed in a Romanized, pagan world of homosexuality.

 

[MercyBurst]

Thanks again! Of course Sodom was destroyed because of not taking care of the poor and of oppressing weaker people. So it's good not to do that.
tulc(trusts Gods judgement, so is unafraid of anyone elses)

Would Sodom be a good place for a GAY PRIDE parade, exuding with confidence? Maybe not....

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear tulc,

Of course Sodom was destroyed because of not taking care of the poor and of oppressing weaker people

Of course thats a gay and lesbian argument. its based on Ezekiel at the expense of Jeremiah, Isiaah, 2 Peter and Jude, and of course at the expense of the Genesis account itself which all refer to or describe sexual immorality. It also ignores Matthew 10 & 11 which indicate one of the sins being inhospitality.
No tulc, the sins of Sodom were sexual immorality as well as in adultery and same-sex sex, the wicked act of the men wanting sex with the men is a condmenation of same-sex sex.

 

[MercyBurst]

Dear tulc,
Of course thats a gay and lesbian argument. its based on Ezekiel at the expense of Jeremiah, Isiaah, 2 Peter and Jude, and of course at the expense of the Genesis account itself which all refer to or describe sexual immorality. It also ignores Matthew 10 & 11 which indicate one of the sins being inhospitality.
No tulc, the sins of Sodom were sexual immorality as well as in adultery and same-sex sex, the wicked act of the men wanting sex with the men is a condmenation of same-sex sex.

Also, Gomorrah and the neighboring towns were destroyed as well, and this was explained in Jude. Ezekiel made no mention of those, and they were destroyed just the same.

 

[Phinehas2]

Ah yes indeed, thanks Mercyburst

 

[MercyBurst]

Ah yes indeed, thanks Mercyburst

Well, as long as the gay spin machine is running, we can dream up any account of Sodom we want to. How do you like my account?

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40495210&postcount=509

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Mercyburst,
yes its a good point, the dictioanry definition of Sodomy as with the translations have always recognised Sodomy as being same-sex sex. This is why what we have is gay and lesbian thinking and theology which is based around sexual identity and sees the world through this even to the point of re-writting history and changing the meaning of words.

 

[tulc]

Would Sodom be a good place for a GAY PRIDE parade, exuding with confidence? Maybe not....

Probably not, it wasn't about being gay, it was about showing others who was boss.
tulc(sipping another great cup of coffee)

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear tulc,

Of course Sodom was destroyed because of not taking care of the poor and of oppressing weaker people

May I ask you, is this referring to Ezekiel 16. I note that Ezekiel 16 says Sodom was also guilty of abominations 'tow`ebah ' the same as the abominations in Leviticus 18?
For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people.
Are you merely eliminating and ignoring anything that might speak against same-sex sex?

 

[tulc]

Are you merely eliminating and ignoring anything that might speak against same-sex sex?

Nope, mearly pointing out Sodom wasn't destroyed for "being gay" which is what you all seem intent on saying.
tulc(see the difference?)

 

[Phinehas2]

Well tulc my friend, I am not only pointing out to you that you are wrong but I am pointing out to you why you are wrong.. thus...
May I ask you, is this referring to Ezekiel 16. I note that Ezekiel 16 says Sodom was also guilty of abominations 'tow`ebah ' the same as the abominations in Leviticus 18?