What - Precisely - Are Christians Attempting To Save Homosexuals From ...?

[Wiccan_Child]

False teachers and false teachings is what "Christians" (followers of Christ Jesus) are tying to save "homosexuals" from.

Which begs the question: which teachings are false? Which teachers are false? How does one discern a 'false' teaching from a 'true' one? It's all very well appealing to the Bible, but which interpretation of which translation of which Bible?

That said, does it matter? Surely Jesus came down to save everyone, regardless of sexual orientation (or any other arbitrary characteristic, for that matter)?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_Child,

Which begs the question: which teachings are false?

Any teaching contrary to the Biblical teaching given.

It's all very well appealing to the Bible, but which interpretation of which translation of which Bible?

Have you got any examples of what you mean by differences in translations and interpretations as I dont see any with this issue.

That said, does it matter? Surely Jesus came down to save everyone, regardless of sexual orientation (or any other arbitrary characteristic, for that matter)?

It matters because Jesus came down to make the way to salvation for all from the sins such as those which are related to sexual oreintation. Besides which translation are you using for your statement?

 

[Morrigu]

To Wiccan_Child,
Any teaching contrary to the Biblical teaching given.
Have you got any examples of what you mean by differences in translations and interpretations as I dont see any with this issue.

It matters because Jesus came down to make the way to salvation for all from the sins such as those which are related to sexual oreintation. Besides which translation are you using for your statement?

out of topic: are you aware that your nick name is "bright lucifer"?

Back to the topic:
C'mon, hundreds of years have passed, you really believe that what it says in the bible is 100% loyal to the original meaning, to what they said in the original languages the scriptures were written...

You can not even translate from spanish to english, or english to french, or french to spanish without loosing some of the original meanings, without something being lost in translation.... You can't passs the context of one use of the language to another without loosing something with current dialects, and you expect loyal translations of dead tongues?

you think that after all this time, and all of the translations, manipulations the bible is still what it was when it was written????

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Any teaching contrary to the Biblical teaching given.

Well yes, but which Biblical teaching? There are a fair few, and not all of them are compatible. Some Christians see the Bible as condemning a particular thing, some as condoning it, and some as neither. This is true for sexuality, race, religion, gender, slavery, etc. Some Christians see Hell as alegorical, literal, redundant, etc. Some believe in both God's omnipotence and their own free will, some reject one or both.

Like I said, it's all very well appealing to the Bible, but the Bible is far from clear. Is it pro-gay? Anti-gay? Neither? Did the Flood happen, or did it not?

Have you got any examples of what you mean by differences in translations and interpretations as I dont see any with this issue.

Some people translate Leviticus 18:22 in such a way that it clearly condemns male-male sex. Others translate it such that it only condemn male-male sex in a woman's bed (i.e., the bed reserved for her husband and herself). Others still see the entire set of laws and commandments given in Leviticus to be summarised by Jesus' "Love thy God and love thy neighbour as thyself"; any interpretation that doesn't fall under this is non-Biblical.

Within the 'gay' issue alone, there are a large number of opinions.

It matters because Jesus came down to make the way to salvation for all from the sins such as those which are related to sexual oreintation. Besides which translation are you using for your statement?

John 3:17, 1 John 3:5, Luke 4:18, 19:10, Heb. 2:17, etc.

 

[KCKID]

out of topic: are you aware that your nick name is "bright lucifer"?

Back to the topic:
C'mon, hundreds of years have passed, you really believe that what it says in the bible is 100% loyal to the original meaning, to what they said in the original languages the scriptures were written...

You can not even translate from spanish to english, or english to french, or french to spanish without loosing some of the original meanings, without something being lost in translation.... You can't passs the context of one use of the language to another without loosing something with current dialects, and you expect loyal translations of dead tongues?

you think that after all this time, and all of the translations, manipulations the bible is still what it was when it was written????

Precisely. One thing for sure is that there is not such a person as a Bible expert. And yet . . .SO many believe that they ARE Bible experts and can ACTUALLY speak for God.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_Child,

out of topic:

No its not out of topic, if you are making a claim please present some evidence because on your point you have made I think you are just plain wrong

. are you aware that your nick name is "bright lucifer"?

Are you aware that it isn’t Revelation 22:16.

C'mon, hundreds of years have passed, you really believe that what it says in the bible is 100% loyal to the original meaning, to what they said in the original languages the scriptures were written...

yep, as I said have you got any examples of what you mean by differences in translations and interpretations as I dont see any with this issue.

You can not even translate from spanish to english, or english to french, or french to spanish without loosing some of the original meanings, without something being lost in translation....

As I don’t see any with this issue your point isn’t yet relevant, I will respond to it when you have given examples of what you mean from the Biblical translations.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_Child,

Well yes, but which Biblical teaching?

Any. You tell me which ones you have in mind on this topic.

Some Christians see the Bible as condemning a particular thing, some as condoning it, and some as neither.

But what does the Bible say, read what the Bible says and see which ones are right.

Like I said, it's all very well appealing to the Bible, but the Bible is far from clear. Is it pro-gay? Anti-gay? Neither?

The Bible is clear about the union of man and woman and not other unions as we have seen from the passages frequently quoted. That some don’t believe what they say is also clear. You tell me whether you think the Bible is anti-gay or pro-gay with the relevant passages to support your view.

Some people translate Leviticus 18:22 in such a way that it clearly condemns male-male sex.

Which is what it says.

Others translate it such that it only condemn male-male sex in a woman's bed (i.e., the bed reserved for her husband and herself).

But it doesn’t say that so they aren’t really translating it rather they are mistranslating it.
It can be translated
Thou shalt not lie (8799) with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Or
'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Now you show me which translation you are referring to, where does it say anything about a woman’s bed? .

Others still see the entire set of laws and commandments given in Leviticus to be summarised by Jesus' "Love thy God and love thy neighbour as thyself"; any interpretation that doesn't fall under this is non-Biblical.

Well Jesus did summerise the law like that but do these people who think this therefore see all the command in Leviticus 18 as appropriate or inappropriate?

Within the 'gay' issue alone, there are a large number of opinions.

there are only two, either people believe what the Bible says and the condemnations or they don’t, they don’t even have any scriptures to countenance homosexual practice and unions.

John 3:17, 1 John 3:5, Luke 4:18, 19:10, Heb. 2:17, etc.

I asked which translation. But what is your point? I agree these passages show that Jesus takes away sin, are you saying anyone can now do what they want and it isn’t sin? Sorry you have lost me completely here.

 

[morningstar2651]

Are you aware that it isn’t Revelation 22:16.

The Bible doesn't use the word lucifer in Rev. 22:16.

ego Iesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego sum radix et genus David stella splendida et matutina.

I would assume that the meaning is more or less the same, though. It'd be a reference to the planet Venus, if I'm not mistaken.

Weirdest thing...I ran the Greek through Google's translation and it said something about Jesus being breakfast.

 

[KCKID]

Which begs the question: which teachings are false?

Any teaching contrary to the Biblical teaching given.

Okay, here are a couple of easy ones. I put my child to death because he was insolent and disobedient. Have I behaved contrary to biblical teaching?

I was SO insensed that my neighbor blatantly disregarded the Sabbath every week that I had no other alternative but than to kill him. Have I behaved contrary to biblical teaching?

Do I need to go on ...and on ...?

Oh, by the way, since you seem to like Leviticus so much, have you read the rest of the 'do's' and the 'don'ts' that it talks about? Why simply concentrate on the 'man lying' part?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

Okay, here are a couple of easy ones. I put my child to death because he was insolent and disobedient. Have I behaved contrary to biblical teaching?

Contrary to the teaching of Christ, are you thinking about the OT law? If so which passages?

I was SO insensed that my neighbor blatantly disregarded the Sabbath every week that I had no other alternative but than to kill him. Have I behaved contrary to biblical teaching?

Contrary to the teaching of Christ, are you thinking about the OT law? If so which passages?

Do I need to go on ...and on ...?

you need to be a bit clearer in what you mean.

Oh, by the way, since you seem to like Leviticus so much, have you read the rest of the 'do's' and the 'don'ts' that it talks about? Why simply concentrate on the 'man lying' part?

Well I don’t like Leviticus so much but it looks like you do.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

Okay, here are a couple of easy ones. I put my child to death because he was insolent and disobedient. Have I behaved contrary to biblical teaching?

Contrary to the teaching of Christ, are you thinking about the OT law? If so which passages?

I was SO insensed that my neighbor blatantly disregarded the Sabbath every week that I had no other alternative but than to kill him. Have I behaved contrary to biblical teaching?

Contrary to the teaching of Christ, are you thinking about the OT law? If so which passages?

Do I need to go on ...and on ...?

you need to be a bit clearer in what you mean.

Oh, by the way, since you seem to like Leviticus so much, have you read the rest of the 'do's' and the 'don'ts' that it talks about? Why simply concentrate on the 'man lying' part?

Well I don’t like Leviticus so much but it looks like you do.

 

[KCKID]

To KCKID,
Contrary to the teaching of Christ, are you thinking about the OT law? If so which passages?

You mean that insolent, disobedient children don't need to be put to death any more? That's great news ...but, are we not told that God never changes?

Contrary to the teaching of Christ, are you thinking about the OT law? If so which passages?

You mean that Sabbath abrogators don't need to be put to death any more? That's great news ...but, are we not told that God never changes?

you need to be a bit clearer in what you mean.

Excuse me ...? I was merely quoting the scriptures. How much clearer do you want me to be?

Well I don’t like Leviticus so much but it looks like you do.

YOU are the one who quoted the 'man lying' text from Leviticus in one of your posts. I don't care for Leviticus at all. It's full of strange and archaic references that have no place in modern thinking. It's certainly foreign to me. I prefer someone's calling a spade a spade in a vernacular that I understand.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

You mean that insolent, disobedient children don't need to be put to death any more?

I don’t mean anything, I refer you to Jesus Christ’s teaching in response to your ideas. For example
Matthew 18:14 “ In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.”
Luke 18:16 “But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

That's great news ...but, are we not told that God never changes?

He doesn’t. What made you think He did? Are you getting confused by different covenants He has made with His people? As I asked, are you referring to the OT? Yes or No? If so which passages.

Excuse me ...? I was merely quoting the scriptures. How much clearer do you want me to be?

Which scriptures please?

 

[Morrigu]

The Bible doesn't use the word lucifer in Rev. 22:16.

I would assume that the meaning is more or less the same, though. It'd be a reference to the planet Venus, if I'm not mistaken.

Well yes, in the hebrew tradition hte morningstar (Venus) was considered The fallen angel lucifer, a lesser deity trying to take over the sky and failing, later demonized by christianity to the point of making him "The source of all evil"... I think at least, i really need to do some research, but I am sure that lucifer means morning star.

Weirdest thing...I ran the Greek through Google's translation and it said something about Jesus being breakfast.

ahm.... what?
that is weird

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Morrigu
I accept what you are saying and in fact considered that when I chose it but brightmorningstar alludes to Revelation 22
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

 

[Morrigu]

To Wiccan_Child,
No its not out of topic, if you are making a claim please present some evidence because on your point you have made I think you are just plain wrong
Are you aware that it isn’t Revelation 22:16.

huh, what do you know, there are other judeo-christian traditions for the meaning of the morningstar.... any way check Isaiah 14:12,
also: Lucifer is the latin word for "light-bringer" commonly asociated with the morning star, the planet venus. Also there was some mythology about lucifer rissing to heaven (the sky) at the moment of dawn and being cast down, asociated with the moment that venus shines at dawn... but i can't recall it well.

yep, as I said have you got any examples of what you mean by differences in translations and interpretations as I dont see any with this issue.

As I don’t see any with this issue your point isn’t yet relevant, I will respond to it when you have given examples of what you mean from the Biblical translations.

Why don't you put your hands over your ears and star shouting, seems easier.

You have how many people now? trying to show you that it is just a book, and there for it can and will contain errors.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Morigu,

huh, what do you know, there are other judeo-christian traditions for the meaning of the morningstar.... any way check Isaiah 14:12,
also: Lucifer is the latin word for "light-bringer" commonly asociated with the morning star, the planet venus. Also there was some mythology about lucifer rissing to heaven (the sky) at the moment of dawn and being cast down, asociated with the moment that venus shines at dawn... but i can't recall it well.

As I said I accept what you are saying but the reference I intend is to Jesus the bright morning star. This isn’t on topic but thanks anyway.

You have how many people now? trying to show you that it is just a book, and there for it can and will contain errors.

And you have many people telling you it isn’t just a book as such but the word of God given to humankind.
I don’t believe it contains errors, I do believe there are some discrepancies, such as with figures and dates, but if you believe it contains specific errors about the issue in question please state them. At present we have yourself and others claiming things without evidence and assuming others must accept what you say.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

You mean that insolent, disobedient children don't need to be put to death any more? That's great news ...but, are we not told that God never changes?

yet God "changed His mind many times in the Tanakh (Old Testament)> Remember Ninevah?

You mean that Sabbath abrogators don't need to be put to death any more? That's great news ...but, are we not told that God never changes?

It is called "Good News" or "Evangel," otherwise known as The Gospel. Where, marriage is between a man and a woman. On some things God hasn't altered His plan.

Excuse me ...? I was merely quoting the scriptures. How much clearer do you want me to be?

God "turned" from His fierce anger several times in the Bible. The biblical story is one of relationship. Right and wrong relationship.

YOU are the one who quoted the 'man lying' text from Leviticus in one of your posts. I don't care for Leviticus at all. It's full of strange and archaic references that have no place in modern thinking. It's certainly foreign to me. I prefer someone's calling a spade a spade in a vernacular that I understand.

Comparing wrongs only proves what is wrong.

It is wrong to say that marriage can be between same-gender people. Some things remain the same from Old Testment to New. Same goes for sodomy and sodomites.

Reference Jeremiah 23 and Jude 1.

That's a whole lot of history (as in time) between those two, and yet the same consistent massage.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

To Morrigu
I accept what you are saying and in fact considered that when I chose it but brightmorningstar alludes to Revelation 22
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

BMS,

Be aware of Gay Debate Tactics 101 to derail the thread and spin off topic.

This is the answer to the OP What - Precisely - Are Christians Attempting To Save Homosexuals From ...? :

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

In liberal, progressive and gay circles, they have gathered around them many new teachers to do just as Paul predicted they would. Paul was giving Godly "Christian" advice to a "young" Pastor.

And look where we are today.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp fan,
Yes I fully agree with all you say. We can see they wont put up with sound doctrine as the dispute the scriptures and instead of offering scripture to back up their case they offer sayings which please their ears from other teachers who also dont believe the scriptures