Verses that they can't twist

LambChop316

Newbie
Jul 2, 2007
4
1
✟15,130.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The gays are who so wrapped in proving that the Bible supposedly does not condemn gay sex concentrate on the "gay" part of the phrase. They try to make us forget that there is a "sex" part of the phrase, too.

The Bible forbids all sex outside the marriage covenant. Period.

No half-way. No "Well, we're going to get married, anyway ...eventually, ...maybe." Marriage or nothing. Period.

If both partners (assuming there are only two) are unmarried, it is fornication. If either or both is married, it is adultery. Both are forbidden:

Matt 5:27:32
Matt 15:19
Mark 7:21
Mark 10:11-12
Luke 16:18
Acts 15:20-29 and Acts 21:25
1 Cor 6:9 ("fornicators, idolators, adulterers..." are forbidden, along with the "effeminate, homosexuals..." they try to twist.)
Hebrews 13:4
John 8:3-11

There are lots more verses, but these are the clearest and most direct. They might still try to twist the others.

I only cited New Testament verses, because they will try to claim that the Old Testament verses don't apply any more. But that is easy to disprove because the verses in Acts that say that some Old Testament laws don't apply any more are the very same verses which specifically forbid fornication.

Two men or two women engaging in sex are not married, or if they are, they are not married to one another. They are commiting fornication or adultery. Therefore they are sinning.
 

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟15,630.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The Bible forbids all sex outside the marriage covenant. Period.
Two men or two women engaging in sex are not married, or if they are, they are not married to one another. They are commiting fornication or adultery. Therefore they are sinning.

Which of the three separate things called marriage is the one which changes sex from sin to blessing? Which is it that you claim they can't have?

The promise made between the couple? The contract to be faithful and raise a family together? That is still the Jewish definition of marriage. And two men or two women can and often do commit to one another just as well as a man and a woman.

Or is it the Church ceremony and the blessings and best wishes of their brothers and sisters? There are more and more churches that bless sme-sex marriages or prform "commitment ceremonies" where the state does not recognize their rights. To everyone in those churches, and to all who love them, these couples are married "in the eyes of God."

Or is it the state recognition? Are they not married because the State refuses to grant them a license or to recognize them? Well if they were married in Massachussetts, or in Canada, or an any of the other locations where the State does recognize them, they are married this way too. And the day will come -- you can be certain that it will -- that the United States federal government, and all fifty state governments will recognize them, too.

So, no matter which definition of marriage you cling to, there are already some true same-sex marriages. There are even a few that meet all three definitions. So your assertion is false.
 
Upvote 0

jojored

Junior Member
Jun 22, 2007
9
1
70
✟7,632.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
LambChop316...you picked the Books, Chapters and some of the Verses, but if you read the whole chapters you listed in Matthew, Mark and Luke (The Gospels), they have Jesus addressing divorce...."And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits, adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

So if you know of anyone who has divorced and remarried, except for sexual immorality, although legally married, they are now committing adultery.

In Matthew 19: 11 & 12 there are some who believe that when Jesus mentions.."For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb...." he is referring to gays and that "He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."

It seems most people read the "New King James Version" of the Bible. That's the one I rely on. One needs to remember that this is a translation centuries old and man plays a part in its printing and translation...case in point, I would direct you back to I Cor. 6:9 where it makes reference to "homosexuals"...the term "homosexual" was not coined until the 1870's
 
Upvote 0

IamRedeemed

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.
May 18, 2007
6,078
2,011
Visit site
✟24,764.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He DOES NOT refer to homosexuals as called out by God to be so, that is a nauseating perversion of God's Word. :sick:

It refers to men, who are called by GOD to serve Him from their mother's wombs (born impotent) OR
who choose to be committed to SERVE GOD their WHOLE LIVES and NEVER MARRY and procreate. For KINGDOM purposes, like a MONK does for instance or as Paul did.

Are you a MONK? I didn't think so.


**Other eunuchs were made eunuchs by man in order to protect the Queen and concubines without the worry of them either raping or engaging in any sexual way with them.


LambChop316...you picked the Books, Chapters and some of the Verses, but if you read the whole chapters you listed in Matthew, Mark and Luke (The Gospels), they have Jesus addressing divorce...."And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits, adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

So if you know of anyone who has divorced and remarried, except for sexual immorality, although legally married, they are now committing adultery.

In Matthew 19: 11 & 12 there is some who believe that when Jesus mentions.."For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb...." he is referring to gays and that "He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."

It seems most people read the "New King James Version" of the Bible. That's the one I rely on. One needs to remember that this is a translation centuries old and man plays a part in its printing and translation...case in point, I would direct you back to I Cor. 6:9 where it makes reference to "homosexuals"...the term "homosexual" was not coined until the 1870's
 
Upvote 0

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟15,630.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
jojored --

Here's a website that you might want to check out. It will help you strengthen your arguments about some "eunuchs" really being gay.

http://www.well.com/~aquarius/

Did you know that in the Talmud, the rabbis spoke of two kinds of eunuchs? Man-eunuchs and sun-eunuchs.

Or that the way to tell if a person is a sun-eunuch is that he does not have muchbody hair -- not even much pubic hair (nothing is said about examining anything else in the pubic area) and his voice hasn't deepened as much as "real" men. (In other words a sun-eunuch is a twink.)

Some rabbis thought that a sun-eunuch could be "cured." So, although they are exempt from leverite marriage (marrying the widow of a brother or other close relative who died without children), they still have to go through the loosened shoe ceremony. Man-eunuchs are simply skipped over for the next relative.



Even Clement of Alexandria, the early Church Father who writings are the basis of nearly two thousand years of the Church's rabid anti-gay message recognized the difference between two kinds of "eunuch."
And male and female assistants at the toilet are employed about the ladies—some for the mirrors, some for the head-dresses, others for the combs. Many are eunuchs; and these panders serve without suspicion those that wish to be free to enjoy their pleasures, because of the belief that they are unable to indulge in lust. But a true eunuch is not one who is unable, but one who is unwilling, to indulge in pleasure.(Pedagogue 3.4.26)​
He even thought that the "eunuch" who did not desire women was in some sense truer than one who could not have physical intercourse, but who might sully his mistress' chastity in other ways to satisfy his, and her lusts.






And Clement is not just inventing a hypothetically more perfect guard for the harem. The two types of "eunuch" are common knowledge.
Some men by birth have a nature to turn away from women, and those who are subject to this natural constitution do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs by birth.(Stromata 3.1.1)​
--------

The "eunuchs" that served their kings, not as harem guards, but as viziers and other high officials were almost certainly not all castrati. Think of Potiphar (Genesis 37-39), and Ashpenaz (Daniel 1).

Ashpenaz, especially seems to have had an eye for the laddies. When the king ordered Ashpenaz to supervise the training of "youths in whom was no defect, who were good-looking, showing intelligence in every branch of wisdom," he chose four of the comeliest to take a personal interest in. And Daniel, in particular, found "favor and compassion" in his sight. Ashpenaz was so smitten with Daniel and his friends that he allowed them even to defy Nebuchadnezzar in their refusal of the king's gifts.

Queen Candace's treasurer is another eunuch who probably was not "emasculated or ha[d] his male organ cut off, " (cf: Deut 23:1). He was returning from Jerusalem where he'd worshipped in the Temple.

Acts 8:26-38(New Living Translation) said:
As for Philip, an angel of the Lord said to him, "Go south down the desert road that runs from Jerusalem to Gaza." So he did, and he met the treasurer of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under the queen of Ethiopia. The eunuch had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and he was now returning. Seated in his carriage, he was reading aloud from the book of the prophet Isaiah. The Holy Spirit said to Philip, "Go over and walk along beside the carriage." Philip ran over and heard the man reading from the prophet Isaiah; so he asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" The man replied, "How can I, when there is no one to instruct me?" And he begged Philip to come up into the carriage and sit with him. The passage of Scripture he had been reading was this:

"He was led as a sheep to the slaughter.
And as a lamb is silent before the shearers,
he did not open his mouth. He was humiliated and received no justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.

The eunuch asked Philip, "Was Isaiah talking about himself or someone else?" So Philip began with this same Scripture and then used many others to tell him the Good News about Jesus. As they rode along, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "Look! There's some water! Why can't I be baptized?" He ordered the carriage to stop, and they went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.
The section of Isaiah (chapter 53) is the story of the Suffering Servant. After the death of the Servant, The LORD will honor the sacrifice and prolong the days of the Servant's "offspring" (53:10) and will account many to righteousness. The offspring of the the servant include the barren woman, (54:1-8), the exile (54:11-14,56: 8), the destitute [poor widows and orphans] (55:1-3), the believing foreigner(56:1-3,6-7) and the eunuch (56:3-5).

Philip proclaims that this passage is a prophesy of the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus. He teaches the treasurer that the prophesy has now been fulfilled and that he can rely on the promise of an everlating legacy better than the children he has given up in chosing the lifestyle of a eunuch. As the treasurer comes to believe in the blessings that Philip says he can claim, he is emboldened to ask if there is anything hindering him from accepting baptism and claiming them now. Philip agreed to the immediate baptism.
 
Upvote 0

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟15,630.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
He DOES NOT refer to homosexuals as called out by God to be so, that is a nauseating perversion of God's Word. :sick:

It refers to men, who are called by GOD to serve Him from their mother's wombs (born impotent) OR who choose to be committed to SERVE GOD their WHOLE LIVES and NEVER MARRY and procreate. For KINGDOM purposes, like a MONK does for instance or as Paul did.

Are you a MONK? I didn't think so.

**Other eunuchs were made eunuchs by man in order to protect the Queen and concubines without the worry of them either raping or engaging in any sexual way with them.

Jesus refers to three kinds of eunuch. He refers, first to those "born eunuchs" (sun-eunuchs), then to those who are "made eunuchs" (man-eunuchs), and finally those who "become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

This verse initiates the third kind of eunuch then, a holy eunuch of a kind the world has never seen before, the kind you refer to as "Like a MONK*."

Jojored does not claim to be this kind of eunuch, but rather the first kind.



*BTW, you are aware that it is considered shouting to constantly use all caps, aren't you? And that shouting is not only rude, but often indictes that you have run out of effective arguments.
 
Upvote 0

*Starlight*

Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time
Jan 19, 2005
75,337
1,471
37
Right in front of you *waves*
Visit site
✟133,073.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
There are lots more verses, but these are the clearest and most direct. They might still try to twist the others.
No, having different views on the Bible than you doesn't mean that someone's twisting it. Try again. :p
 
Upvote 0

IamRedeemed

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.
May 18, 2007
6,078
2,011
Visit site
✟24,764.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Please take another look at my post, you will see that SOME words were capped for emphasis, but not whole sentences or the entire post or anything, so there was no netiquette issues or lack of effective input there. Italicizing for emphasis has proven pretty ineffective in my experience. This method has kept me for the most part from having to repeat myself. Unfortunately though, it looks like I still will have to in response to your post, despite my effort.

I covered all three types of Eunuchs. TWO types are unto God, and one type for guard of a Queen or Concubines. The first type would be someone like Jeremiah called as a Prophet of the nations from His mother's womb. Elijah also did not have any wife that I am aware or Elisha. So, I eliminated Jojored's testimony right off the bat right there, as it did not qualify.
The second type would be one who felt led of the Lord to commit
themselves fully such as Paul or a Monk might.

I also doubted Jojored was a MONK, choosing to live a celibate life unto the Lord, but I asked him anyway
tongue in cheek really. Eunuch NEVER DID and NEVER WILL mean homosexual though, regardless.


Jesus refers to three kinds of eunuch. He refers, first to those "born eunuchs" (sun-eunuchs), then to those who are "made eunuchs" (man-eunuchs), and finally those who "become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

This verse initiates the third kind of eunuch then, a holy eunuch of a kind the world has never seen before, the kind you refer to as "Like a MONK*."

Jojored does not claim to be this kind of eunuch, but rather the first kind.



*BTW, you are aware that it is considered shouting to constantly use all caps, aren't you? And that shouting is not only rude, but often indictes that you have run out of effective arguments.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟18,592.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The gays are who so wrapped in proving that the Bible supposedly does not condemn gay sex concentrate on the "gay" part of the phrase. They try to make us forget that there is a "sex" part of the phrase, too.

The Bible forbids all sex outside the marriage covenant. Period.

No half-way. No "Well, we're going to get married, anyway ...eventually, ...maybe." Marriage or nothing. Period.

If both partners (assuming there are only two) are unmarried, it is fornication. If either or both is married, it is adultery. Both are forbidden:

Matt 5:27:32
Matt 15:19
Mark 7:21
Mark 10:11-12
Luke 16:18
Acts 15:20-29 and Acts 21:25
1 Cor 6:9 ("fornicators, idolators, adulterers..." are forbidden, along with the "effeminate, homosexuals..." they try to twist.)
Hebrews 13:4
John 8:3-11

There are lots more verses, but these are the clearest and most direct. They might still try to twist the others.

I only cited New Testament verses, because they will try to claim that the Old Testament verses don't apply any more. But that is easy to disprove because the verses in Acts that say that some Old Testament laws don't apply any more are the very same verses which specifically forbid fornication.

Two men or two women engaging in sex are not married, or if they are, they are not married to one another. They are commiting fornication or adultery. Therefore they are sinning.
We already know all these so-called clobber passages.

There isn't any viable translation of the word "homosexual", and the translators have still unrightfully translated that out in 1 Cor 6:9.

The rest of your verses aren't even used as clobber passages, interesting that you were able to try to use those here.
 
Upvote 0
D

DMagoh

Guest
We already know all these so-called clobber passages.

There isn't any viable translation of the word "homosexual", and the translators have still unrightfully translated that out in 1 Cor 6:9.

The rest of your verses aren't even used as clobber passages, interesting that you were able to try to use those here.

You continue to post, AND continue to avoid my question.

In a different thread, I posted a question for homosexuals, bisexuals, and ex-gays...basically anyone who has ever dealt with being attracted to members of the same sex. Oh you used the thread to start debating whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural, sin or not sin, etc. But that was not the point of the thread.

Why wont you answer the simple question? What are you afraid of?

Here is a link to the thread - read my first two posts, and then unless you are afraid to answer, answer the simple question:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5630139
 
Upvote 0