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?Yes I agree Mercyburst. I think it is common sense and what Paul was referring to in Romans 1, it is evident from God’s creation
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.Or does your argument from design only extend to condemning homosexuals?
merely note that there same-sex union and thinking is contrary to God's word
That's pretty condemnatory.filth and perversion is same-sex sex
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.Well everyone can see that I have frequently simply quoted the Bible text
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.What have you got to base you views on apart from personal feelings or another god's promouncements?
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?
Or does your argument from design only extend to condemning homosexuals?
Okay, i'll bite. what does romans 1 mean to you?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.
Could you post some examples of contradictions and inconsistencies, please? Take care.If you are happy using your interpretation even with its contradictions and inconsistencies, well, good luck to you. But why are you so adamant that I shouldn't use mine?
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.Okay, i'll bite. what does romans 1 mean to you?
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.Could you post some examples of contradictions and inconsistencies, please? Take care.
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.Dear Davedjy,
Yes you can, Paul has done it. The problem for you is that in Matthew 19 Jesus affirms God’s creation purpose for man and woman in faithful union and the fornication (pornos) and adultery (miochos) break that. So that rules out all sex outside marriage. In 1 Cor 6:9 this is affirmed once again. When you say it doesn’t rule out all same-sex sex, yes of course it does. Imagine if a paedophile took the same approach and said all paedophilia must therefore be ok as the verse doesn’t even mention paedophilia at all.
As to the meaning, well the meaning of the words arsen and koites are known and were know. So it is kind of obvious with male bed in conjunction with pornos and moichos that this would have to be same-sex sex. But 1 Tim 1 refers to the law and thus Lev 18 & 20 pretty much confirms it. For one to say rule out all same-sex sex one must be looking at the text from a same-sex viewpoint or approach, one really needs to look at the text objectively to see what revelation and truth God is imparting, if we are looking for something that isn’t there or looking to avoid what the text is saying we may miss the truth,
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.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.
same answer as above.People who say things like "homosexuals are bad, if Jesus approved of them he would have said", then say "TV, computers, antibiotics and democracy are good, if Jesus disaproved of them, he would have said"
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.People who think anything written by Paul trumps anything said by Jesus.
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:If you refuse to see the contradictions in such hypocracy, its kind of hard to point it out to you
I accept that all scripture is, in the appropriate context, useful for teaching.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:
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
But the contradiction is on the part of the person and not on the scripture itself.I accept that all scripture is, in the appropriate context, useful for teaching.
That doesn't mean that its all literally correct, or that without deeper examination, it isn't contradictory.
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.But people who use double standards... THAT is a contradiction... people why cherry pick verses while condemning others for it, theres another example
Which was, if you look back at the post to which you were initially responding, my point.But the contradiction is on the part of the person and not on the scripture itself.
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.People who think anything written by Paul trumps anything said by 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.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.
So you would still be wrong to say people are wrong to say 'anything said by Luke trumps anything said by Jesus' but it would be better than what you have written.
That is all they can do 'cuz they don't have a leg to stand on.Then what, pray tell, is Paul saying here when he uses those words? And where is all you pro-homosexuals' references and proof for your claims..jet-a-jockey posted his; all you guys do is say "nope your wrong it doesn't mean that"..your will doesn't make it so..PROOF does..
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?