This is Pathetic

[*Starlight*]

Wow, this thread is crazy. Some people actually think that "you know in your heart that I'm right and you're wrong, you just don't want to admit it" is a valid debate argument. Is it even possible to have a discussion with someone who says something like that?

 

[invisible trousers]

Is Paul God?

Eating Lobster/shellfish isn't good for you anyway typically, because they go to the bathroom in their shells all their lives, that is why God told them not to eat shellfish.
it's probably still not a good idea, but again we are not under the Jewish Law. But again, that doesn't mean that we can live in sin.

Well, that's kind of the point. Back then there was a lot of unclean stuff that could kill you, like pork, seafood, and anal sex. Nowadays, not so much.

God states the criteria, not man. We are merely sharing what He has said, so that people don't listen to the wrong people and end up following "another Jesus" one different from the one whom Paul preached and end up where they don't want to go.

No, you're interpreting. Every time you read the bible you're interpreting. It's very dishonest to claim otherwise.

 

[IamRedeemed]

God created them MALE and FEMALE from the beginning, and told them to be fruitful and multiply. God's purpose for man has not changed.

And Romans is quite clear for ALL generations.

Can one of you put all Romans 1 in proper context for me?

Not the "21st century western" context but the "time and culture in which it was written" context?

 

[*Starlight*]

God created them MALE and FEMALE from the beginning, and told them to be fruitful and multiply. God's purpose for man has not changed.

If God's purpose for every person is to "be fruitful and multiply", then celibacy would be just as bad as homosexuality. But if you don't believe that celibacy is bad, then it's illogical to use this argument against homosexuality.

 

[ContentInHim]

Alright. Three questions:

1. Who are the people mentioned in verses 18-23?

2. How were their actions relevant to what was going on in that city at the time?

3. How can the bible "speak" against homosexuality when the concept of sexual orientation didn't exist at the time?

It can speak of homosexuality by describing the act - men lusting after men! How is this so hard to believe? It's hard to believe because you do not want to believe it. I didn't like believing what I was doing was sin either - but being convicted, I gave it up.

 

[invisible trousers]

So when Paul was writing specifically about temple prostitutes, he was actually lying and meant that the behavior of the temple prostitutes was applicable to everyone ever?

edit:

ContentInHim, please justify your statement that the concepts of homosexuality and sexual orientation, which didn't exist until recently, actually did exist back then.

 

[ContentInHim]

Wow, this thread is crazy. Some people actually think that "you know in your heart that I'm right and you're wrong, you just don't want to admit it" is a valid debate argument. Is it even possible to have a discussion with someone who says something like that?

Because this is how homosexuals argue about it all the time. The Bible is not evidence enough so they find all the liberal theologians who talk about luuuuuuv as though the NT didn't have 3-5 words for different types of love. Love does not make an act righteous.

 

[*Starlight*]

It can speak of homosexuality by describing the act - men lusting after men! How is this so hard to believe? It's hard to believe because you do not want to believe it. I didn't like believing what I was doing was sin either - but being convicted, I gave it up.

But homosexuality isn't about "men lusting after men", but about two people of the same sex falling in love and forming a relationship which is identical to a heterosexual relationship

 

[ContentInHim]

So when Paul was writing specifically about temple prostitutes, he was actually lying and meant that the behavior of the temple prostitutes was applicable to everyone ever?

edit:

ContentInHim, please justify your statement that the concepts of homosexuality and sexual orientation, which didn't exist until recently, actually did exist back then.

Please, pray tell me, where is any reference to temple prostitutes? Paul is very clear about his audience in other letters - why in Romans do you believe that he's obscure?

 

[ContentInHim]

But homosexuality isn't about "men lusting after men", but about two people of the same sex falling in love and forming a relationship which is identical to a heterosexual relationship

Baloney - it's about lust that God says is not good. Same as with sex outside of marriage. Your definitions have absolutely no Biblical basis.

 

[*Starlight*]

Because this is how homosexuals argue about it all the time. The Bible is not evidence enough so they find all the liberal theologians who talk about luuuuuuv as though the NT didn't have 3-5 words for different types of love. Love does not make an act righteous.

I disagree with you opinion... I believe that sin is something opposite to love, so love can't be sinful, in the same was as light can't be black

 

[ContentInHim]

If God's purpose for every person is to "be fruitful and multiply", then celibacy would be just as bad as homosexuality. But if you don't believe that celibacy is bad, then it's illogical to use this argument against homosexuality.

And Paul said not to marry. Many people marry, have children and are widowed or divorced and do not marry again. So what?

 

[*Starlight*]

Baloney - it's about lust that God says is not good. Same as with sex outside of marriage. Your definitions have absolutely no Biblical basis.

But the lust in a homosexual relationship is no different than the lust in a heterosexual relationship.

 

[ContentInHim]

I disagree with you opinion... I believe that sin is something opposite to love, so love can't be sinful, in the same was as light can't be black

If you ever read the Bible, you might discover that you are wrong. Yours is a typical New Age belief which doesn't surprise me.

 

[ContentInHim]

But the lust in a homosexual relationship is no different than the lust in a heterosexual relationship.

Lust is wrong - sex within the context of marriage is love!

 

[*Starlight*]

And Paul said not to marry. Many people marry, have children and are widowed or divorced and do not marry again. So what?

What do you mean? If someone doesn't marry again after getting divorced, then I guess it's good for them. What does it have to do with what I said?

 

[ContentInHim]

I'm heading out to dinner - I'll try to get back later.

 

[invisible trousers]

Please, pray tell me, where is any reference to temple prostitutes? Paul is very clear about his audience in other letters - why in Romans do you believe that he's obscure?

There were people who were doing exactly what he was describing. Those people were temple prostitutes. Just because he doesn't mention them in the letter doesn't mean they don't exist.

Anyway, I hope in the future when a non-believer who is on the fence about becoming a christian yet happens to be gay isn't pushed away by the beliefs of some of the people here.

edit: alright, peace out ContentInHim

 

[*Starlight*]

If you ever read the Bible, you might discover that you are wrong. Yours is a typical New Age belief which doesn't surprise me.

The Bible says that the whole law can be summed up as "love your neighbor as yourself". It seems that it's the spirit of the law. Homosexual relationship doesn't break that in any way.

Lust is wrong - sex within the context of marriage is love!

Well, since homosexual and heterosexual relationships are the same, then there's love in both kinds of relationships.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Is Paul God?

Did someone say Paul was God?

2 Corinthians 11:3-4
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."


Well, that's kind of the point. Back then there was a lot of unclean stuff that could kill you, like pork, seafood, and anal sex. Nowadays, not so much.

No, you're interpreting. Every time you read the bible you're interpreting. It's very dishonest to claim otherwise.


And you are deceiving and being deceived.

Romans 1:24-32

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:


Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:


And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

As I said before, it is not the parts that are unclear that I believe those who want to remain in their sins are having trouble understanding.