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.
if we are drawing conclusions from "God's creation"... how do you feel about anti-biotics, eye glasses, computers, and synthetic fibre clothing? Since God's design is clearly for us to exist naked and toolless in tropical areas, is it fair to conclude you are a sinner for going against his design?
No my argument as I have said before doesnt extend to condemnng homosexuals at all, I have already told you I have good friends who are gay and lesbian and that I socialise with them.
That's pretty condemnatory.
Which is, precisely my problem... you simply quote bible text, without considering the broader context from whence it comes. You believe that "the bible SEZ!" is a reason in its self. I do not believe this. If the context of a Bible verse is markedly different to the context we are in today, it is appropriate to look at deeper meanings behind it, what motivated the authors to write what they did.
Same question back atcha... you interpret the Bible the way that makes most sense to you, I interpret it the way that makes most sense to me.
Okay, i'll bite. what does romans 1 mean to you?
Could you post some examples of contradictions and inconsistencies, please? Take care.
be mindful of sinning, using what were, in Paul's opinion, sins as an example. They are not meant as either a comprehensive, nor definitive list of INHERENTLY sinful activities.
Well, people who say "homosexuality is bad cos of Leviticus", who then say that other things in Leviticus don't apply to them because of the new covenant.
Paul did not do it, your erroneous conclusions have done that speaking for Paul. You have no proof that those two words go together, which has been proven over and over that they are SEPARATE words.
paul's opinion has been proven authoritative, unless you want to throw out most of the NT. What you are referring to is misconceptions moreso than a contradiction or inconsistency.
same answer as above.
I think your basis is incorrect here. You pose this statement as if you believe that Paul and Jesus are at odds with each other. I read the scripture as a whole, and Paul's writings and teachings are indeed in line with those of Christ. Luke most likely scribed for paul in some(or even most) of his letters, and luke also wrote a gospel in which Jesus speaks. So its kind of hard to put them at odds with one another.
If you refuse to see the contradictions in such hypocracy, its kind of hard to point it out to youhi ep
paul's opinion has been proven authoritative, unless you want to throw out most of the NT. What you are referring to is misconceptions moreso than a contradiction or inconsistency.
same answer as above.
I think your basis is incorrect here. You pose this statement as if you believe that Paul and Jesus are at odds with each other. I read the scripture as a whole, and Paul's writings and teachings are indeed in line with those of Christ. Luke most likely scribed for paul in some(or even most) of his letters, and luke also wrote a gospel in which Jesus speaks. So its kind of hard to put them at odds with one another.
I'm not refusing to see anything, I just don't see them. I also have no motive for unbelief, because I believe in this passage:
I accept that all scripture is, in the appropriate context, useful for teaching.
But the contradiction is on the part of the person and not on the scripture itself.
There's cherrypicking on both sides. The fundamentalists may focus more on homosexuality than divorce, while the liberals cut and paste the God is Love message without ever emphasizing that God is many other things also, which need to be known as well.
Which was, if you look back at the post to which you were initially responding, my point.
This is an illogical statement. Luke for example didnt encouter Jesus yet record what Jesus says as the record fromthe eye witnesses and the community. Paul however encountered the risen Lord and didnt receive his revelation from man but from Jesus.
No, I'm sticking with my original statement, though its nice to know you think I know what I mean better than I do.
