what would you do?

[ChaliceThunder]

Wow. How are you gonna preach a Gospel about release from sin without talking about sin? You act like it's wrong for a church to preach about man's need for a savior from that which leads to destruction.

Did I say that? No, I did not. Of course we need a Savior. But from your preaching, most people would walk away knowing that they sin, but there is little or no hope.

You guys who focus on God's love while leaving out his wrath against sin are preaching a false gospel. But that's your choice.

blah blah blah - very helpful comment.

 

[Zaac]

It isn't right, it is the truth according you to your uneducated opinion of what you believe God's Word to be.

Sure it is. It read as it was inteneded to be read.

As you said, you are willing to trust false translations, even though, translation to translation there are extreme inconsistencies, and they don't agree with each other.

Stop bearing fasle witness. I trust God's Word over your commentative word studies taken from a bunch of biased gay people who want to justify their right to have sex with people of the same sex.

 

[davedjy]

Sure it is. It read as it was inteneded to be read.



Stop bearing fasle witness. I trust God's Word over your commentative word studies taken from a bunch of biased gay people who want to justify their right to have sex with people of the same sex.

This does not refute my post in the least.
Reread what I said: translation to translation there are inconsistencies, and they don't all translate out as "Homosexual", there are some that say male prostitute, and nobody is certain what the word "arsenokoitai" means. If you trust what you believe God's Word, you have already lost the argument, since your own Bibles are not universally agreed upon a translation either.


Btw, the only ones biased are the religious party. Every credible mental health foundation in America has already agreed that homosexuality is not an illness nor is it changeable/cureable, and any attempt to change it would be dangerous.

 

[Zaac]

Did I say that? No, I did not. Of course we need a Savior. But from your preaching, most people would walk away knowing that they sin, but there is little or no hope.

Not so. I preach the FULL Gospel that exposes sin for what it is while showing the One who can save us from that sin. You have to preach and point out sin to show the sinner the need for a savior from the death and destructionthat result from sin.

In this forum yall ain't looking for no hope because a large chunk of you don't think that what's being done is a sin. Thus all you want to hear about is the "love and compassion" of Jesus. You can't have His love without His wrath and to preach about one without the other would amount to false teaching.

There can be presented no answer to the One who can save you from sin if you don't think what you're doing is sin.

blah blah blah - very helpful comment.

Thank you. I thought so too.

 

[Zaac]

This does not refute my post in the least.

I wasn't looking to refute your post. I don't have to. Again, I'm gonna tell you what God's Word says. I'm not here to convince you that you're wrong. God's Word exposes your wrong for what it is so there's no need for me to say anything else about it.

Reread what I said: translation to translation there are inconsistencies, and they don't all translate out as "Homosexual", there are some that say male prostitute, and nobody is certain what the word "arsenokoitai" means. If you trust what you believe God's Word, you have already lost the argument, since your own Bibles are not universally agreed upon a translation either.

Reread what I said. Your bias commentary from equally biased gay commentators who are searching for sin justification and not truth means nothing to one who satnds with Christ.

Btw, the only ones biased are the religious party. Every credible mental health foundation in America has already agreed that homosexuality is not an illness nor is it changeable/cureable, and any attempt to change it would be dangerous.

What's a religious party? And why are we talking about mental health and changing/curing something that God does not say is sin?

 

[davedjy]

I wasn't looking to refute your post. I don't have to. Again, I'm gonna tell you what God's Word says. I'm not here to convince you that you're wrong. God's Word exposes your wrong for what it is so there's no need for me to say anything else about it.




Reread what I said. Your bias commentary from equally biased gay commentators who are searching for sin justification and not truth means nothing to one who satnds with Christ.




What's a religious party? And why are we talking about mental health and changing/curing something that God does not say is sin?

I'm tired of the way you quote and answer my posts.

1) You have cherry picked a translation to support your argument of Scripture, yet you haven't recognized or admitted to it

2) YOU have yet to prove any argument I have made is "bias". Calling something "bias" does not refute it in the least.

2) Calling something a "justification for a sinful lifestyle", does not refute these interpretations in the least either. I can easily say that you are trying to justify your prejudices with an interpretation that has been translated out in Scripture.

3) You keep saying that the ones who are "bias" are the people who are looking for a justification for a "sinful lifestyle". I have just proven that it is the anti-gay religious people, as every credible mental health foundation in America has said it is not a disease, and not curable. They also say the best thing for a gay or lesbian, is to live out their life AS A GAY OR LESBIAN.

4) You fail to see the difference between a translation and God's Word.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Not so. I preach the FULL Gospel that exposes sin for what it is while showing the One who can save us from that sin. You have to preach and point out sin to show the sinner the need for a savior from the death and destructionthat result from sin.

In this forum yall ain't looking for no hope because a large chunk of you don't think that what's being done is a sin. Thus all you want to hear about is the "love and compassion" of Jesus. You can't have His love without His wrath and to preach about one without the other would amount to false teaching.

There can be presented no answer to the One who can save you from sin if you don't think what you're doing is sin.



Thank you. I thought so too.

No - there is no hope in what you preach.

And that's a pity.

 

[Zaac]

I'm tired of the way you quote and answer my posts.

You're tired that I don't play games and debate that with you that doesn't need to be debated.

1) You have cherry picked a translation to support your argument of Scripture, yet you haven't recognized or admitted to it

I don't argue Scripture. I just quote it. If a person doesn't want to accept it,oh well

2) YOU have yet to prove any argument I have made is "bias". Calling something "bias" does not refute it in the least.

Not attempting to prove it.

2) Calling something a "justification for a sinful lifestyle", does not refute these interpretations in the least either. I can easily say that you are trying to justify your prejudices with an interpretation that has been translated out in Scripture.

Not attempting to refute your interpretations.

3) You keep saying that the ones who are "bias" are the people who are looking for a justification for a "sinful lifestyle". I have just proven that it is the anti-gay religious people, as every credible mental health foundation in America has said it is not a disease, and not curable. They also say the best thing for a gay or lesbian, is to live out their life AS A GAY OR LESBIAN.

Then pat yourself on the back. God's Word STILL says what it says and same sex fornication is STILL a sin.

4) You fail to see the difference between a translation and God's Word.

God's Word is STILL God's Word.

 

[Zaac]

No - there is no hope in what you preach.

And that's a pity.

For there to be hope, there would have to first be an acknowledgement that you need to be saved from something.

The pity is that you don't get that.

 

[davedjy]

You're tired that I don't play games and debate that with you that doesn't need to be debated.

You confuse God's Word, with a translation of Scripture, there are 2 reasons you do this:

1) they support your lazy, uneducated assertions that homosexuality is a sin

2) you confuse a translation with "God's Word" believing they are one and the same.

The funny thing, is that you if you lived at the time of Martin Luther, you would've had a completely different translation of 1 Cor. 6:9, and you would've believed that instead, and said "that is God's Word".

 

[Zaac]

You confuse God's Word, with a translation of Scripture, there are 2 reasons you do this:

1) they support your lazy, uneducated assertions that homosexuality is a sin

there you go bearing false witness in order to try and make your lie truth. You have seen nowhere in 3000+ posts where I have said anything about God calling homosexuality a sin.

But you seem to be getting really good at witnessing lies.

2) you confuse a translation with "God's Word" believing they are one and the same.

The funny thing, is that you if you lived at the time of Martin Luther, you would've had a completely different translation of 1 Cor. 6:9, and you would've believed that instead, and said "that is God's Word".

God's Word is STILL His Word.

 

[davedjy]

there you go bearing false witness in order to try and make your lie truth. You have seen nowhere in 3000+ posts where I have said anything about God calling homosexuality a sin.

"homosexual fornication", not much of a difference.

God's Word is STILL His Word.

So by that token, you have freely admitted that God's Word has changed with the translations. Preposterous.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

"homosexual fornication", not much of a difference.




So by that token, you have freely admitted that God's Word has changed with the translations. Preposterous.

There is very much difference.. One requires the act of sex..

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Absolutely Jet. There would be no reason to assume that they are having sex.

But let me ask this question. You say they are an openly gay couple. Can you understand why a Church that believes what God says about a man uniting with a wife and becoming one flesh would not want to appear to be endorsing such behavior?

I agree, but that is a tough issue to really speak on. To be fair you'd have to address all unmarried hetero couples as well, since the days of arranged marriages are long gone.

With all of the different false doctrines floating around, as well as antichristian agendas, its hard to justify the reason for this type of weeding out, so to speak. Why dwell on the splinter when it is in the shadow of a sea of planks?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I'm tired of the way you quote and answer my posts.

1) You have cherry picked a translation to support your argument of Scripture, yet you haven't recognized or admitted to it

2) YOU have yet to prove any argument I have made is "bias". Calling something "bias" does not refute it in the least.

2) Calling something a "justification for a sinful lifestyle", does not refute these interpretations in the least either. I can easily say that you are trying to justify your prejudices with an interpretation that has been translated out in Scripture.

3) You keep saying that the ones who are "bias" are the people who are looking for a justification for a "sinful lifestyle". I have just proven that it is the anti-gay religious people, as every credible mental health foundation in America has said it is not a disease, and not curable. They also say the best thing for a gay or lesbian, is to live out their life AS A GAY OR LESBIAN.

4) You fail to see the difference between a translation and God's Word.

You sound like a record

Just because of their translational discrepancies, are we to disregard them in their entirety?

Keep in mind that during the ancient times that this blessed book was written, that homosexual relationships were not exclusive as they are today. I assume its because it was not acceptable to society, as I am sure there were homosexuals then as there are now. But seeing as how people were not classified as homosexuals, its easy to see why they were not specifically regarded in the text. That being said its easy to see why specific homosexual acts are condemned, as they regarded all people as heterosexuals. From all that I've read, homosexual actions were considered a form of depravity.

And further into speculation, biblically speaking, it seems to me like those who partake in homosexual action are first guilty of another sin, sexual obsession.

With that line of thought, though, one can regard the similarity between arsenkoites and homosexuality.


In an attempt to ward off the PROVE IT monster, I'll once again state that this is speculation on my part.

 

[OllieFranz]

Keep in mind that during the ancient times that this blessed book was written, that homosexual relationships were not exclusive as they are today. I assume its because it was not acceptable to society, as I am sure there were homosexuals then as there are now. But seeing as how people were not classified as homosexuals, its easy to see why they were not specifically regarded in the text. That being said its easy to see why specific homosexual acts are condemned, as they regarded all people as heterosexuals. From all that I've read, homosexual actions were considered a form of depravity.

I'm confused. Everything you say in the above-quoted paragraph seems to be making the argument that we should disregard any Scripture on man-sex, becuase the authors were wrong about homosexuality. But (1) that is not the position that you usually take on the issue; (2) there is no indication that you are quoting/paraphrasing someone else that you disagree with and (3) there does not seem be be any sarcasm hidden in the paragraph. So I have no idea what to make of it.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I'm confused. Everything you say in the above-quoted paragraph seems to be making the argument that we should disregard any Scripture on man-sex, becuase the authors were wrong about homosexuality. But (1) that is not the position that you usually take on the issue; (2) there is no indication that you are quoting/paraphrasing someone else that you disagree with and (3) there does not seem be be any sarcasm hidden in the paragraph. So I have no idea what to make of it.

Hello Ollie,
I was just trying to explain my idea of the reasoning behind the way that scriptures are worded in regards to same-sex sex, due to societal restrictions at their time. I still think homosexual action is sinful.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

and i agree that my post doesn't make sense, now that I'm re-reading it lol

 

[davedjy]

You sound like a record

I sound like a record because I'm having to repeat myself due to circular arguments made by the referenced poster. Calling something God's Word that is merely a translation is not a debate point, unless you can back it up somehow.

Just because of their translational discrepancies, are we to disregard them in their entirety?

Using the word "homosexual" in the Bible is a breaking of Biblical Exegesis, so yes. A word that broken a part merely means "man" and "beds", does not equate "homosexual".

Keep in mind that during the ancient times that this blessed book was written, that homosexual relationships were not exclusive as they are today. I assume its because it was not acceptable to society, as I am sure there were homosexuals then as there are now. But seeing as how people were not classified as homosexuals, its easy to see why they were not specifically regarded in the text. That being said its easy to see why specific homosexual acts are condemned, as they regarded all people as heterosexuals. From all that I've read, homosexual actions were considered a form of depravity.

You are assuming too much. A lot of things that were written in the Bible were all part of historical context, as I've said, but you have brought this point up before, which is pure speculation. As we know, marriage was about inheritance more than anything else, and women were required to marry their rape attacker. Slave masters were not punished even if they beat them to death as long as they lived for a day or two, after the beating occurred. (Exodus 21:20-21) Again, you must take historical context into account. Men were expected to take the role of the aggressor back then, and it was unlawful to play a passive role in a relationship.

And further into speculation, biblically speaking, it seems to me like those who partake in homosexual action are first guilty of another sin, sexual obsession.

Sexual obsession? where is your proof of this?

With that line of thought, though, one can regard the similarity between arsenkoites and homosexuality.

There isn't any similarity between those two words. "Man" and "beds", does not equate "homosexual". The translation I've seen that makes the most sense, is a man who jumps from bed to bed, or a male prostitute.

In an attempt to ward off the PROVE IT monster, I'll once again state that this is speculation on my part.

Indeed.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

You are assuming too much. A lot of things that were written in the Bible were all part of historical context, as I've said, but you have brought this point up before, which is pure speculation. As we know, marriage was about inheritance more than anything else, and women were required to marry their rape attacker. Slave masters were not punished even if they beat them to death as long as they lived for a day or two, after the beating occurred. (Exodus 21:20-21) Again, you must take historical context into account. Men were expected to take the role of the aggressor back then, and it was unlawful to play a passive role in a relationship.



Sexual obsession? where is your proof of this?



There isn't any similarity between those two words. "Man" and "beds", does not equate "homosexual". The translation I've seen that makes the most sense, is a man who jumps from bed to bed, or a male prostitute.


Indeed.

Hola dave,
I was stating the assumption that in those times homosexuality was not indicative of a persons sexual orientation, but seen more as an expression by someone who is sexually obsessed. What I mean by sexually obsessed is a pattern similar to something like theft, start out small and then keep getting bigger and bigger. This is not my personal opinion on homosexuality, it is the way I think that homosexuality was viewed by the people in ancient times.

I have no proof that they believed that homosexual action is a fruit of sexual obsession, like I said it is speculation on my part.