CF Homosexuality Right or Wrong

Homosexuality right or wrong?
[moved from Exploring Christianity]
Christian Forums > Congregation > Faith Groups > Whosoever Will, May Come - Liberal
Homosexuality right or wrong?[moved from Exploring

Christianity]
Whosoever Will, May Come - Liberal The forum for liberal christians of all denominations.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
18th July 2010, 10:16 PM #1
lucen15 Join Date: 12th June 2010

Newbie Posts: 5
Blessings: 2,508 [Bless]
Reps: 1,539,221,963,424 (power: 0)
Homosexuality right or wrong?[moved from Exploring Christianity]
i hear a lot in the media that all people who are gay are going to go to hell i need to ask if Jesus sacrificed himself for
all of us here on the planet earth to clear us of our sins doesn't that mean that you will go to heaven even if you are
homosexual?
18th July 2010, 10:45 PM #2
Join Date: 16th March 2008

drich0150 Location: Orlando Florida
Regular Member Posts: 2,799
34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
Originally Posted by lucen15
i hear a lot in the media that all people who are gay are going to go to hell i need to ask if Jesus sacrificed
himself for all of us here on the planet earth to clear us of our sins doesn't that mean that you will go to
heaven even if you are homosexual?
How do those in the media know who goes to heaven or hell?
Also know that Homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin. But at the same time like every other sin we must repent
from it. Meaning we must turn 180 degrees from our sin. Otherwise how can one seek redemption from something in
which he covets with his heart? Without true repentance there can not be forgiveness. Unforgiveness of sin will result
in eternal damnation.
__________________
God is my judge.
Last edited by drich0150; 19th July 2010 at 03:39 PM.
18th July 2010, 10:49 PM #3

Newbie Posts: 5
1 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM

Reps: 1,539,221,963,424 (power: 0)
i have to apologize i am not perfect and i do not know the whole bible but where does it say that it is wrong to be
homosexual and homosexuals marrying is another thing in my opinion homosexuals should have the right to
something else marriage was created for a man and a woman.
18th July 2010, 10:50 PM #4

Newbie Posts: 5
Reps: 1,539,221,963,424 (power: 0)
also that does not answer my original question Jesus sacrificed himself for us all doesnt that mean whatever you do
you go to heaven?
19th July 2010, 12:13 AM #5
Join Date: 24th May 2010

razeontherock Location: WI
Broken Posts: 1,892
Blessings: 1,352,824 [Bless]
My Mood
Reps: 197,606,146,531,970,368 (power: 197,606,146,531,972)
No. Next question?
I do agree with drich, how do you hear on the media that all gays go to hell? Do they have a chopper at the gates?
What media are you listening to?
Last I checked all Judgment was given to the Son. Jesus gave very curt answers to those inquiring about others, and it
was always "as for you, you follow Me." The Church today could really use to hear that, if you ask me.
Is the Gospel that He will draw all men unto Himself if we condemn everybody and act condescending to them? No, I
think He said we need to lift Him up to do that! Yes, I'm quite sure of that much.
There are several places that condemn homosexuality in the Bible (Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 for starters) so if you're
wondering, it would not be a good hobby to take up. I'm glad you can see that sanctioning same sex marriage would
not be healthy for our society, yet that doesn't mean we need to deprive them of legal rights either. There's plenty of
middle ground.
__________________
We are no more capable of ridding ourselves of evil desires than we are capable of preventing ourselves from getting
older. So our ridding ourselves of the power exerted by the sinful nature is to the Holy Spirit's credit rather than to
ours. God gives us his own feelings, and made us one with him. For the sincerely regenerated Christian, the sinful
nature has been replaced by the fruit of the Spirit. - Harry3142
19th July 2010, 08:45 AM #6
Join Date: 20th April 2006

98cwitr Location: Raleigh, NC
Member Posts: 965
27 My Mood
Reps: 7,956,431,254,396,827 (power: 7,956,431,254,401)
the practice or action (result) of homosexual desire is a sin. Being homosexual in and of itself is not.
also that does not answer my original question Jesus sacrificed himself for us all doesnt that mean whatever
2 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
you do you go to heaven?
Jesus says that if we love Him we will obey Him. Obtaining salvation does require us to accept Him as our savior and as
the Son of God, in order to truly do this our faith in Christ must be displayed in obedience to Him via the mercy that
he requires. He commands us to love the Lord with all our heart and soul and to love our neighbors as ourselves. We
cannot love God and have our life centered in sin, because:
Galatians 5:
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft;
hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the
like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Cor. 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually
immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy
nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
__________________
Roman 2:6 God will give to each person according to what he has done. (Now read the rest of Romans 2....)
Just a pawn to His good purpose "God, however, does use the wrong, stubborn decisions committed by rebellious
sinners to further His causes" (Isaiah 10:5-11)
Last edited by 98cwitr; 19th July 2010 at 08:58 AM.
19th July 2010, 09:06 AM #7
Join Date: 24th February 2007

texastig Posts: 3,475
The diablo is in the phone booth dialing 911 Blessings: 39,985 [Bless]
My Mood
Reps: 339,247,008 (power: 339,254)
It's not normal for men to have sex with each other or women to have sex with each other. In Mark 10:6 Jesus states
that the man is to leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and it's been that way since the beginning.
Any sex outside of marriage (marriage being between a man and woman) is wrong.
During Jesus ministry on earth He forgave people of their sins and many times said this, "Go and sin no more."
Also, read Romans 1.
Thanks,
TT
__________________
The Bible states that those who fornicate (living that lifestyle) will not inherit the Kingdom of God be it between
homosexuals or men and woman who are not married. (Gal 5:19-21).
Again, I urge anyone who supports homosexual marriage to repent of their sin.
3 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
19th July 2010, 11:09 AM #8

Newbie Posts: 5
Reps: 1,539,221,963,424 (power: 0)
thank you for your answers i then have to ask you by the answers given to me. But if you love Jesus and you are
Christian is it not enough if you commit sins because that is regarded as not loving Jesus? i have friends who are
homosexual (i am not) i am not sure if the practice it and he says that he cannot change that it is the way he is. so
then my question would be if you cannot repent and you are homosexual but not practice it will you be able to get to
heaven or will you be condemned to hell? and if so you cant change since god watches overs us and knows everything
will he let a lost soul go to hell without the possibility of salvation? without a second chance i know that you can say
that everyone can change but some people have it very hard to do so.
19th July 2010, 12:00 PM #9

Broken Posts: 1,892
My Mood
Reps: 197,606,146,531,970,368 (power: 197,606,146,531,972)
Good questions! You've certainly narrowed the focus here.
The state of being a homosexual is not committing any sin. As far as changing ourselves? Please read my tagline. A
good Scripture on this is:
"can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? [then] may ye also do good, that are
accustomed to do evil." Jeremiah 13:23 Also embedded in this is the very major underlying concept that any
question in the OT that goes unanswered is answered by Jesus Himself. Not meaning He necessarily spoke on the
subject, (which in this case He didn't, at least not that we have record of) but that He Himself became the answer.
So this "gets us off the hook" in a sense, and it also leaves us w/o excuse. The real answer here is Pp2:12 "work out
your own salvation with fear and trembling."
My first Pastor sometimes wore a baseball hat that said "let God change you" right on the front, so that sometimes the
best answer was him just looking straight at you (LOL)
May the Lord richly Bless you for caring! Encourage your friends in the Faith, and be sensitive that their lives won't be
any easier for their sexual orientation. Here's something good: "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive
with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." Genesis 6:3
Are your friends 120 years old yet? No? Then G-d hasn't given up on them just yet
__________________
19th July 2010, 03:53 PM #10

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
[quote=lucen15;55273186]
i have to apologize i am not perfect and i do not know the whole bible but where does it say that it is wrong
4 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
to be homosexual
The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans
1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and
disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved
sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that
homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.
If you are truly interested in what the bible says about homosexuality then click on this link:
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?
This where I got the opening paragraph.

__________________
God is my judge.
19th July 2010, 03:58 PM #11

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
also that does not answer my original question Jesus sacrificed himself for us all doesnt that mean whatever
you do you go to heaven?
No. The sacrifice is intended for those who want to have a relationship with Him, but their sins were preventing that
relationship. His sacrifice is not a ticket to do or sin as you please, and get to heaven anyway. If you like I can point to
scripture Paul left us specifically addressing your question.
Also, I did answer the question you asked, just not in the way you were expecting.
__________________
God is my judge.
19th July 2010, 04:20 PM #12

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
thank you for your answers i then have to ask you by the answers given to me. But if you love Jesus and you
are Christian is it not enough if you commit sins because that is regarded as not loving Jesus? i have friends
who are homosexual (i am not) i am not sure if the practice it and he says that he cannot change that it is
the way he is. so then my question would be if you cannot repent and you are homosexual but not practice it
will you be able to get to heaven or will you be condemned to hell? and if so you cant change since god
watches overs us and knows everything will he let a lost soul go to hell without the possibility of salvation?
without a second chance i know that you can say that everyone can change but some people have it very
hard to do so.
You can rest assured that despite what or how others may represent themselves to us (Like your friend not being able
to help liking the members of the same sex.) That even if they have fooled themselves into believing what they want to
be true as the truth, that they will not be able to fool God as to their truest intentions of their hearts. Also know it is
not what we physically do, or are forced to do as sinners that we are judged by. It is to the reason why, or the
intentions of our Hearts that is judged.
Hebrews4:
12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul
5 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13Nothing in all creation is hidden
from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Even Paul in Romans 7 finds himself a slave to the sin nature of the flesh, but in spirit he aligns himself with the will
of God. Meaning even though He sins He hates the sin and the part of him that does it.
So there can be a scenario that an openly/active gay man will find forgiveness. (I would say that this be the exception
and not the rule.)
And that there are men who burn with homosexual desires who never openly act on them that will not be forgiven.
(Mat5)
It is not what you are physically doing that is the determining factor, it is the condition of your heart, and as I said
before even if you can fool yourself and others as to the condition of your heart, just know you (Or your friends) will
not be fooling God on the day of your judgments.
__________________
God is my judge.
19th July 2010, 05:00 PM #13

98cwitr Location: Raleigh, NC
Member Posts: 965
27 My Mood
Reps: 7,956,431,254,396,827 (power: 7,956,431,254,401)
Originally Posted by drich0150
If you can not or have not learn to seperate your self from sin, then yes. Unfortunatly many do hate
themselves because of their sin, but this is not what the bible teaches nor is it what God wants for us.
To separate ourselves from sin would then mean we are sinless (without sin), then there is no need for Jesus and
makes His sacrifice null and void. I keep Jesus in my heart and mind because I need Him to cover my sins...I am in
need of an advocate. I cannot repent without Jesus.
__________________
Roman 2:6 God will give to each person according to what he has done. (Now read the rest of Romans 2....)
Just a pawn to His good purpose "God, however, does use the wrong, stubborn decisions committed by rebellious
sinners to further His causes" (Isaiah 10:5-11)
19th July 2010, 05:13 PM #14

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
Originally Posted by 98cwitr
To separate ourselves from sin would then mean we are sinless (without sin)
Actually no, Paul in Romans 7 Outlines this separation:
14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For
what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in
my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I
want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no
longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good,
evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the
members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work
6 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to
God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
__________________
God is my judge.
19th July 2010, 08:47 PM #15
oi_antz Join Date: 26th April 2010

Newbie Posts: 248
Reps: 1,143,383,710,510,815 (power: 1,143,383,710,511)
To enter heaven Jesus says this is criteria:
Luke 9
23Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross
daily and follow me.
Understand what it means:

deny yourself - whatever you want that is sin, you must give it up.
take up the cross daily - deny sin's power to crush you
follow me - repentance: identify + change = growth
Homosexuality is in fact a stumbling block for Christians. Question is whether it is a burden and that is your own
question to trust unto God. I don't think a Christian would flinch when they learn someone is gay. Sin is between one's
self and God, not between each other.
19th July 2010, 09:03 PM #16
Join Date: 6th July 2004

ebia
Location: A very long way away
Senior Contributor
Posts: 17,408
43 Reps: 71,937,141,464,518,472 (power: 71,937,141,464,542)
Why would you get your theology from the media?

__________________
"Goodness is stronger than evil,
love is stronger than hate,
light is stronger than darkness,
life is stronger than death,
victory is ours through him who loved us."
(+Desmond Tutu)
19th July 2010, 10:57 PM #17
Bryanfromiowa Join Date: 3rd June 2008

servant of the most high god Location: Ottumwa , Iowa
Posts: 111
43 Blessings: 1,032,079 [Bless]
7 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Reps: 613,219,160,009,288 (power: 613,219,160,012)
This has been a good discussion on what can be an explosive topic. I think the bible is clear that homosexual behavior
is a sin. "Galations" 5:16 says
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
so yes someone can consider themselves homosexual and a christian but they should be trying lay this sin at the foot
of the cross. It must very difficult to get to that point as this would mean celibacy, if they believe they are born
homosexual and have no choice .
19th July 2010, 11:20 PM #18

Broken Posts: 1,892
My Mood
Reps: 197,606,146,531,970,368 (power: 197,606,146,531,972)
Originally Posted by oi_antz
To enter heaven Jesus says this is criteria:
Understand what it means:

deny yourself - whatever you want that is sin, you must give it up.
take up the cross daily - deny sin's power to crush you
follow me - repentance: identify + change = growth
Homosexuality is in fact a stumbling block for Christians. Question is whether it is a burden and that is your
own question to trust unto God. I don't think a Christian would flinch when they learn someone is gay. Sin is
between one's self and God, not between each other.
Beautifully put. Does this not declare the whole counsel of God on the matter in one post?
__________________
20th July 2010, 01:59 AM #19
Join Date: 23rd February 2004

Sketcher
Posts: 20,542
Born Imperishable
My Mood
Reps: 55,744,692,919,474,960 (power: 55,744,692,919,501)
Jesus will forgive that and every other sin you commit if you repent.
__________________
Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
- Proverbs 30:5-6
Sovereignty is not racism.
23rd July 2010, 11:54 AM #20
8 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Join Date: 25th June 2003

PegasusOnFire Location: Iowa
Blessed Mommy of 3 girls Posts: 8,897
My Mood
Reps: 385,735,003,207,584,896 (power: 385,735,003,207,600)
MOD HAT ON
This thread is being reopened in Whomsoever Will, May Come- Liberal. Happy posting.
MOD HAT OFF

__________________
Romans 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
Mommy to: Christian (March 16, 2005), Mary (May 16, 2007) and Alice (April 17, 2009).
23rd July 2010, 12:57 PM #21

Supernaut454 Location: Sacramento, CA
Not welcome Posts: 3,031
My Mood
32
Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
Well, now that you have heard from the conservatives, now you may hear from the liberals.
IMO, gays whether practicing or not are in no way condemnable. If they are acting in a way in which they were
created/evolved, then they are acting naturally. If Christ had an issue with gays and gay sex, then He was rather silent
about the issue one way or the other.
Gays deserve equal rights and equal standing in the church in all realms including marriage.
__________________
A religious man is a person who holds God and man in one thought at one time, at all times, who suffers harm done to
others, whose greatest passion is compassion, whose greatest strength is love and defiance of despair.
Abraham Joshua Heschel
Man's sin is in his failure to live what he is. Being the master of the earth, man forgets that he is the servant of God.
23rd July 2010, 01:17 PM #22
9 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Minty Join Date: 6th August 2007

UU and practicing Pagan, too Location: South East London, England
Posts: 6,308
My Mood
Blog Entries: 14
33 Reps: 11,220,681,671,449,236 (power: 11,220,681,671,458)
Originally Posted by Supernaut454
IMO, gays whether practicing or not are in no way condemnable. If they are acting in a way in which they
were created/evolved, then they are acting naturally. If Christ had an issue with gays and gay sex, then He
was rather silent about the issue one way or the other.
Bravo I totally agree

__________________
PLEASE CLICK HERE DAILY
Dear God,
Cancer is unbelievably hard on us ladies, but it must be 200 times harder on husbands/wives, partners,
boy/girlfriends, parents and children as they witness us ladies fight against cancer. May our Dear Lord give them the
strength, peace, bravery, grace, mercy and the light (understanding) as they watch our continuous fight? Help them
have an easier time to remain on our sidelines and be strong enough to
Stand by us consistently, as we ladies need to rely on their love.
Please God, try to cease their guilt "what can I do? I feel so helpless for them" because that can be an unhealthy
consumption of their mind & soul. Cancer or not, we still adore them. Cancer just happened & we can't turn back
time, but gently lead our loved ones to get closer to us throughout our difficult ordeal. In the name of our Father, &
Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen
Signature re-posted in honour of AdJesumPerMariam who passed away after bravely battling cancer for 8+ years.
Rest In Peace, Mama Penguino. Gone, but never forgotten
23rd July 2010, 02:16 PM #23

HELENz Location: Canton, Ohio
Love is the meaning to the world Posts: 777
My Mood
20
Reps: 19,913,659,009,383,252 (power: 19,913,659,009,387)
10 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
were created/evolved, then they are acting naturally. If Christ had an issue with gays and gay sex, then He
was rather silent about the issue one way or the other.
Originally Posted by Minty
Bravo I totally agree
I second this!
Anyone want to put links to the liberal interpretation of the Bible verses supposedly condemning homosexuality? Or
should I?
__________________
Who am I?
I'm a Liberal Christian who loves God and Jesus, but not always the Church. I feel as though we too often try to pretend
we know everything, and are not willing to consider a different point of view. I'm willing to seriously consider a
different point of view. Are you?
::Helen::
23rd July 2010, 02:29 PM #24

My Mood
32
Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
Originally Posted by HELENz
I second this!
Anyone want to put links to the liberal interpretation of the Bible verses supposedly condemning
homosexuality? Or should I?
Feel free! There are many differing interpretations but my fav (one that makes sense) is where "arsenokoitai" is
misinterpreted to mean something for which there were other more fitting words to describe gay sex.
Arsenokoitai=temple prostitution
I know a lot of LGBT and none of which are temple prostitutes.

__________________
Last edited by Supernaut454; 23rd July 2010 at 02:37 PM. Reason: fixed my wording!
23rd July 2010, 02:33 PM #25
11 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM

HELENz Location: Canton, Ohio
Love is the meaning to the world Posts: 777
My Mood
20
Reps: 19,913,659,009,383,252 (power: 19,913,659,009,387)
Feel free! There are many differing interpretations but my fav (one that makes sense) is where
"arsenokoitai" is misinterpreted to mean something for where other more fitting words to describe gay sex.
Arsenokoitae=temple prostitution.
Interesting. I did a paper on this topic, and (my brain is fried) I can't remember what conclusion it came to... I'll have
to look at it later; I should be doing something productive!
I'll post some other articles later, too. If nobody else gets to it.
Where's beanieboy when you need him? Doesn't he have a few?
I know a lot of LGBT and none of which are temple prostitutes.
Haha. This made me laugh!

__________________
Who am I?
I'm a Liberal Christian who loves God and Jesus, but not always the Church. I feel as though we too often try to pretend
we know everything, and are not willing to consider a different point of view. I'm willing to seriously consider a
different point of view. Are you?
::Helen::
Last edited by HELENz; 23rd July 2010 at 04:40 PM.
23rd July 2010, 04:36 PM #26

Posts: 6,308
My Mood
Blog Entries: 14
33 Reps: 11,220,681,671,449,236 (power: 11,220,681,671,458)
I'd be really interested in seeing some links about this topic. Always nice to have ammo in the gun you happen to be
firing back at the other side
__________________
Dear God,
12 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
23rd July 2010, 05:08 PM #27

My Mood
32
Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
Ok....here is some quick info...straight from the most reliable, most beloved conservative christian
website....SOULFORCE!!!
What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality

__________________
23rd July 2010, 05:28 PM #28

Posts: 6,308
My Mood
Blog Entries: 14
33 Reps: 11,220,681,671,449,236 (power: 11,220,681,671,458)
Ok....here is some quick info...straight from the most reliable, most beloved conservative christian
website....SOULFORCE!!!
What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality
Thank you I've just downloaded the free PDF

__________________
13 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Dear God,
23rd July 2010, 06:02 PM #29
bsd31 Join Date: 16th August 2009

Newbie Location: North Shore Mass
Posts: 641
36 Reps: 10,842,362,421,584,010 (power: 10,842,362,421,585)
were created/evolved, then they are acting naturally. If Christ had an issue with gays and gay sex, then
He was rather silent about the issue one way or the other.
What?!
How do you figure He was silent on the matter at any point? He spoke volumes about it. Here's just four but there a
tons more.
'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. - Leviticus 18:22
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the
sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders - 1 Corinthians
6:9
See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights
as the oldest son. Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could
bring about no change of mind, though he sought the blessing with tears. - Hebrews 12:16-17
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually
sins against his own body. - 1 Corinthians 6:18
How can you say He has been silent on the matter?

__________________
How does it feel when you're dead inside
Lost someone to the other side
14 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Felt so bad 'cause you didn't cry

Couldn't shed a tear cause you're dead inside
But by the grace of God I am what I am - 1 Cor 15:10
All are meant to love, but only some are meant to be loved.
23rd July 2010, 06:14 PM #30

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
So the argument is because Jesus didn't saying specific about a given topic then all who did are wrong to do so?
To those who may think this way, i ask are you aware that the ministry or the out reach of Christ was not the primary
purpose of His life here? He preformed Miracles, and spoke about the law as a way to simply establish His authority.
So when he died, we would know that the True Son of God Died on the Cross.
Which means He knew, nor did He intend that is ministry be used as the complete outline for the coming kingdom.
This is why He refers to the importance of, "The One who comes after Him." That being the Holy Spirit. Paul was the
Primary embodiment of the Holy Spirit after the Ministry of Christ was completed. Or so says the Writer who recorded
the Gospel of Luke. Paul speaks out against homosexuality rather boldly. Not as an unforgivable sin, but one like any
other sin needs and requires repentance.
If you insist that Paul has no authority then why even use what Jesus didn't say as a reason to simply do or believe as
you choose to? One of the same writers that verified the ministry and testimony of Christ did the same for Paul. So by
choosing the authority of Paul you also choose to ignore the Authority of the Holy Spirit, By doing so you Are ignoring
something Jesus actually said in lew of something you beleive to be true even though Jesus didn't say anything about
what you believe.
__________________
God is my judge.
23rd July 2010, 06:19 PM #31

My Mood
32 Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
Originally Posted by bsd31
What?!
How do you figure He was silent on the matter at any point? He spoke volumes about it. Here's just four but
there a tons more.
How can you say He has been silent on the matter?
Jesus said nothing on the matter during his brief tenure here on earth.
Paul did not speak directly for Christ. Christ did not speak through Moses in Leviticus.
__________________
15 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Last edited by Supernaut454; 23rd July 2010 at 06:28 PM.
23rd July 2010, 06:26 PM #32

My Mood
32
Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
[quote=drich0150;55310724]
So the argument is because Jesus didn't saying specific about a given topic then all who did are wrong to do
so?
Not entirely if you care to read through a bit more.
To those who may think this way, i ask are you aware that the ministry or the out reach of Christ was not the
primary purpose of His life here? He preformed Miracles, and spoke about the law as a way to simply
establish His authority. So when he died, we would know that the True Son of God Died on the Cross.
His purpose was to announce that the Kingdom of God is here.
Which means He knew, nor did He intend that is ministry be used as the complete outline for the coming
kingdom. This is why He refers to the importance of, "The One who comes after Him." That being the Holy
Spirit. Paul was the Primary embodiment of the Holy Spirit after the Ministry of Christ was completed. Or so
says the Writer who recorded the Gospel of Luke. Paul speaks out against homosexuality rather boldly. Not
as an unforgivable sin, but one like any other sin needs and requires repentance.
Apparently there is a lot of debate between many qualified scholars on Paul's usage of arsenokoitai. As for Paul being
the primary embodiment of the Holy Spirit....that is your opinion. He was no greater and yet no less than any other
christian in light of the Kingdom of God.
If you insist that Paul has no authority then why even use what Jesus didn't say as a reason to simply do or
believe as you choose to?
So...having issue with a mistranslation that occured in the 20th century is the same as declaring Paul has no
authority? Not sure I follow your logic.
__________________
23rd July 2010, 06:29 PM #33

TheManeki Posts: 3,012
Christian Humanist Blessings: 134,672 [Check]
My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
BSD, old bean, it sounds like you're having trouble telling apart actual Scripture from church traditions that were
formulated way back when people didn't know much about what homosexuality is. Perhaps you should brush up on
the source material instead of mindlessly repeating what people tell you.
__________________
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world..and
this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing
for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics;
16 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a
Christian and laugh it to scorn...
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when
they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the
authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try
to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their
position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Last edited by TheManeki; 23rd July 2010 at 07:06 PM.
23rd July 2010, 06:34 PM #34

My Mood
32
Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
Hmm...they left.
__________________
23rd July 2010, 08:53 PM #35

Newbie Posts: 248
Reps: 1,143,383,710,510,815 (power: 1,143,383,710,511)
Originally Posted by TheManeki
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this
world..and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful
and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,
talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn...
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser
brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who
are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously
untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many
passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the
things about which they make assertion.
I like your signature, TheManeki. It is clear to those who know Jesus that He doesn't condone homosexuality, nor did
He make an issue about it, however people have troble distinguishing what point it becomes sin. It certainly isn't sinful
to turn your head when someone of the same sex goes past, however to fantasise and act sexually is the worshipping of
lust. Lust is a sin, very strongly spoken about all through the Bible. I think this is the thing people don't like about
Christianity, they feel they have to lose something they like. That might be true, in fact Jesus said lose your life for my
sake and you will gain it. Our walk with Jesus is sooo extremely personal that no person has the right to tell you that
homosexuality is sin to you, we are meant to assist each other to seek the answers from Jesus.
Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness - this means to describe God to people as He truly is -
everloving and merciful with arms open wide for us to love Him and to receive His unconditional love. We are to
promote His righteousness, God has no husband but His church is His bride. Lust can be used by the enemy to rob our
worship from God and turn our worship to things of the earth. It's up to everyone individually how serious they want to
17 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
be in God's presence in Heaven and thus how much they need to be transformed from their worldly ways of sin, which
could be anything from smoking to stealing to adultery. The fact that it is not in the ten commandments shows us that
adultery is more God's concern than homosexuality and the humans have a tendency to blow it up into a major issue.
Having said that, it is written that homosexuals will not enter heaven, so it is clearly a standard of righteousness that
is required if we are to dwell with God in heaven.
23rd July 2010, 09:26 PM #36
Join Date: 21st February 2003

Jase
Posts: 2,878
Angel of Music
My Mood
27 Reps: 1,412,796,286,125,681 (power: 1,412,796,286,135)
Originally Posted by HELENz
Anyone want to put links to the liberal interpretation of the Bible verses supposedly condemning
homosexuality? Or should I?
Well, the most famous "clobber" passage, Lev 18:22 does not quite mean in Hebrew what it means in English.
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
In Hebrew, there are 2 different words hear that refer to lying. The first, before "with mankind" is Shakab. The
second, "as with" is mishkab.
So right off the bat, there are 2 different meanings here. Shakab, in every case that I've seen when referring to sexual
activity, is used in regard to cases of forced or deceitful sexual behavior; behavior without informed consent like rape
or taking advantage of someone who is drunk.
mishkab in this case refers to laying in a bed.
So a more accurate translation would be: Thou shalt not force oneself on man, as one does in the beds of woman.
In other words. It's a patriarchal society, where men dominate and women are inferior. The sin here isn't that a man
might sleep with another man, it's that one man is forcing another man to be subservient like that of a woman. In
other words a "bottom". This was seen as disgraceful/embarassing for a man in those days, which is why it's seen as
wrong.
__________________
"To love another person is to see the face of God."
23rd July 2010, 09:28 PM #37

Jase
Posts: 2,878
Angel of Music
My Mood
27 Reps: 1,412,796,286,125,681 (power: 1,412,796,286,135)
Having said that, it is written that homosexuals will not enter heaven, so it is clearly a standard of
righteousness that is required if we are to dwell with God in heaven.
Please show me where in Hebrew or Greek, it says homosexuals will not enter heaven. In addition, show me in those
languages where "Homosexuality is a sin" is even written.
__________________
23rd July 2010, 11:12 PM #38
18 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM

My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
I like your signature, TheManeki. It is clear to those who know Jesus that He doesn't condone homosexuality,
nor did He make an issue about it, however people have troble distinguishing what point it becomes sin. It
certainly isn't sinful to turn your head when someone of the same sex goes past, however to fantasise and act
sexually is the worshipping of lust. Lust is a sin, very strongly spoken about all through the Bible. I think this
is the thing people don't like about Christianity, they feel they have to lose something they like. That might
be true, in fact Jesus said lose your life for my sake and you will gain it. Our walk with Jesus is sooo
extremely personal that no person has the right to tell you that homosexuality is sin to you, we are meant to
assist each other to seek the answers from Jesus.
Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness - this means to describe God to people as He truly is
- everloving and merciful with arms open wide for us to love Him and to receive His unconditional love. We
are to promote His righteousness, God has no husband but His church is His bride. Lust can be used by the
enemy to rob our worship from God and turn our worship to things of the earth. It's up to everyone
individually how serious they want to be in God's presence in Heaven and thus how much they need to be
transformed from their worldly ways of sin, which could be anything from smoking to stealing to adultery.
The fact that it is not in the ten commandments shows us that adultery is more God's concern than
homosexuality and the humans have a tendency to blow it up into a major issue.
Having said that, it is written that homosexuals will not enter heaven, so it is clearly a standard of
righteousness that is required if we are to dwell with God in heaven.
Well, I'm flattered that you like the sig, but I'd be even more flattered if you actually followed St. Augustine's advice.
Neither scripture nor real life support your fatuous claims. And your persistence in them, despite all evidence to the
contrary, reflects badly on not just you, but on Christianity in general.
We already went through this same theological mess in the 1950s and 1960s regarding miscegenation, and I'm
constantly surprised at how few Christians seem to have learned anything from it. Time to get with the program.
__________________
24th July 2010, 01:51 AM #39

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
As for Paul being the primary embodiment of the Holy Spirit....that is your opinion. He was no greater and
yet no less than any other christian in light of the Kingdom of God.
Actually no, If you read Acts you will see that "Luke" establishes Paul's Authority in his account of How the Apostle
19 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Came into the Church.
So...having issue with a mistranslation that occurred in the 20th century is the same as declaring Paul has
no authority? Not sure I follow your logic
The chain of logic I use does not include a theory of mistranslation that would allow one the freedom to change the
bible to suit his own personal sense of righteousness. If you or anyone else wishes to acclimate one's self to "My logic"
all you have to do is eliminate the foolish Idea that the bible somehow was mistranslated in the 20th century, and
remains mistranslated even given the availability of all of the source material even the average persons has available to
them.
Here's another tid-bit of logic for you:

If millions of people view a translation as being authentic or correct, and you being the representation of a cultish
off-shoot of the same religion depends on a "20th century mistranslation" in order to establish a sense of
righteousness in your system of belief, then perhaps it is not the millions who have it wrong..
..Or are you saying, your god allow the billions who lived and died in the 20th century, (looking to their mistranslated
bibles to love their God with all of their being,) allow them to parish in the second death, because their translations
would not allow the the same freeing truth your god has personally delivered to you and all who worship your newly
translated bibles?
__________________
God is my judge.
24th July 2010, 02:15 AM #40

My Mood
32
Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
[quote=drich0150;55312948]
Actually no, If you read Acts you will see that "Luke" establishes Paul's Authority in his account of How the
Apostle Came into the Church.
I am familiar with Paul's story on the road to Damascus. That still does not mean that he spoke for Christ 24/7. Start a
new thread in a more appropriate area of CF for this discussion.
If you or anyone else wishes to acclimate one's self to "My logic" all you have to do is eliminate the foolish
Idea that the bible somehow was mistranslated in the 20th century, and remains mistranslated even given
the availability of all of the source material even the average persons has available to them.
So you are telling me that the term homosexual was coined almost two thousand years ago?? Really??

If millions of people view a translation as being authentic or correct, and you being the representation of a
cultish off-shoot of the same religion depends on a "20th century mistranslation" in order to establish a
sense of righteousness in your system of belief, then perhaps it is not the millions who have it wrong..
Millions of Germans viewed the actions of Hitler as being the right way.....should we always be silent in the face of
discrimination?
..Or are you saying, your god allow the billions who lived and died in the 20th century, (looking to their
mistranslated bibles to love their God with all of their being,) allow them to parish in the second death,
because their translations would not allow the the same freeing truth your god has personally delivered to
you and all who worship your newly translated bibles?
Again your logic needs help. Re-read the posts again if you are so inclined.
__________________
20 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Return to Whosoever Will, May Come - Liberal
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
24th July 2010, 02:36 AM #41

Newbie Posts: 248
Reps: 1,143,383,710,510,815 (power: 1,143,383,710,511)
Originally Posted by Jase
Please show me where in Hebrew or Greek, it says homosexuals will not enter heaven. In addition, show me
in those languages where "Homosexuality is a sin" is even written.
1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually
immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor
drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But
you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our
God.
1 Thessalonians 4 (New International Version)
Living to Please God
1Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and
urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. 2For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of
the Lord Jesus.
3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4that each of you should learn
to control his own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not
know God; 6and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish
men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. 7For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a
holy life. 8Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
#42
21 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
24th July 2010, 07:56 AM

My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the
sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves
nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is
what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Thessalonians 4 (New International Version)
Living to Please God
1Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask
you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. 2For you know what instructions we gave you
by the authority of the Lord Jesus.
3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4that each of you
should learn to control his own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5not in passionate lust like the
heathen, who do not know God; 6and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage
of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. 7For God did
not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject
man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
Thank you for starting my day on such a humorous note! It's always funny to see people make the naive jump that
"sexual immorality" could mean nothing but teh ghey; your photo makes you look a little old to be acting so sheltered.
Of course, the real thigh-slapper is how you are waving around 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 like it actually proves something
other than your merely superficial grasp of scripture. No doubt St. Augustine would be facepalming and headdesking
himself were he here today. Your "homosexual offenders" is a translation of the vague Greek word "malakoi," a word
which Paul coined just for his epistle to the Corinthians. While the Corinthians knew what Paul meant, we don't, and
have been unsuccessfully trying to figure it out.
If you consult older translations like the KJV, you find "malakoi" rendered along the lines of "abusers of themselves
with mankind," and from the beginning of the church up until the mid-20th century your silly little clobber passage
was believed to be condemning, not gays, but masturbation. I seriously doubt you knew this; typically people who
make the same error you did are not deliberately spreading falsehoods, but instead are just mindlessly repeating the
same foolishness somebody once told them. But it's time for you to put on your big boy pants, and actually start
studying God's word like you mean it. You'll be amazed at what you'll learn, and one thing certainly will be that all the
stuff you've been told about homosexuality being sinful is pure horse puckey.
__________________
Last edited by TheManeki; 24th July 2010 at 08:21 AM.
24th July 2010, 10:32 AM #43
22 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM

Harry3142 Location: Ohio
Regular Member Posts: 546
My Mood
Reps: 783,442,924,969,274 (power: 783,442,924,974)
Homosexuality is a sin, but so is overeating, driving over the speed limit, and many other actions which are done. If we
had to be sinless to get into heaven, then there would have been no need for Jesus to have come to us in the first place.
The main objection to homosexuality here in the USA is due to certain gay organizations having attempted to overrrule
the Biblical injunction against it. A few years ago the Episcopal Church's presiding group of bishops and lay people in
the USA elected a homosexual to the office of bishop. Within 24 hours of that election, a gay organization was
'armtwisting' those same people in an effort to have them declare that homosexuality was to be recognized as an
alternate lifestyle rather than as a perversion, aka sin. This the bishops and laypeople knew would have been going too
far, so they refused to do it.
But that is exactly what is now being taught in our public schools' social studies classes. My grand-nephew is still in
elementary school, but already he has had his teachers tell him, as part of the class curriculum, that homosexuality is
to be regarded as an alternate lifestyle. It is to be considered as just as normal as heterosexual relationships. This we
Christians will under no circumstances approve of.
24th July 2010, 11:19 AM #44

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
I am familiar with Paul's story on the road to Damascus. That still does not mean that he spoke for Christ
24/7. Start a new thread in a more appropriate area of CF for this discussion.
Whether you believe Paul Spoke for Christ or not, is not the issue. (try and stay on topic) Paul, because of the
authority given Him by the Holy Spirit and the time he spent with Christ gives him the authority to speak to the
church. That Authority make what he says on God's behalf, the Spirit inspired word.
So you are telling me that the term homosexual was coined almost two thousand years ago?? Really??
Do you honestly think Homosexuality is something man first discovered in the 20th century? If not, do you think man
in any language knew of homosexuality but simply didn't have a word for it until the 20th century? If not then maybe
you should go back and reexamine your own thought process that lead to your statement.
My point is that homosexuality has existed for much longer that the politically correct terms we have chosen to give
these acts, in our modern bibles. Despite when you believe the actual term was coined. The ancient texts speaks of
these acts as sin, and like all sin. This sin needs to be forgiven. Why would you teach a new doctrine that allows for
unrepentant sin? Is your pride so great that you can indeed choose to ignore scripture for a version of pop cultural
enlightenment? Jesus spoke great woes to those who taught his people to sin.. Do you simply ignore this part of
scripture as well?
Millions of Germans viewed the actions of Hitler as being the right way.....should we always be silent in the
face of discrimination?
So now your comparing The Holy Spirit of God to Hitler?
There is a relatively large line between discrimination, and Holy discernment. Do you want to guess where that line
begins? It begins in scripture, and is made complete in humble loving heart.
Discrimination is a tool people use to isolate and identify those who are different for the purpose hatred and sin.
23 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Discernment is a diagnostic tool one uses to help another see and repent of the sin that drives a wedge between the
sinners life and God.
The key is in the person heart who is making the discernment or discrimination. Who are you, that you can judge the
heart of another? Your blanket opposition to this command and all who follow it, outwardly shows that you believe
that, for all who discern, do so for the purposes of discrimination. Aren't these actions a form of discrimination
themselves?
You have identified all who believe and employ what Paul says about homosexuality as apparent Nazis. Again, how is
this not description? If this is indeed description then why is it you do not have a problem with it? Why can you only
see a problem with the discriminations that directly speak to your life, or your specific beliefs? Why is it OK for you to
use discrimination in certain instances, and condemn it in others? Does your god teach hypocrisy like this, or is this a
product of personal righteousness and pride? If you are speak from a place of personal or self righteousness and pride
then how is it you can claim that you speak for God? Can you show one instance that Jesus, Peter, Paul or any of the
other contributors of the bible show where a person speaking from a position of personal righteousness and pride
spoke the will of God? Then where does your authority come from?
__________________
God is my judge.
24th July 2010, 12:15 PM #45

My Mood
32
Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)

If millions of people view a translation as being authentic or correct, and you being the representation of a
cultish off-shoot of the same religion depends on a "20th century mistranslation" in order to establish a
sense of righteousness in your system of belief, then perhaps it is not the millions who have it wrong..
In your earlier post you stated that if millions of people believe that such a translation is true.......yada yada
I responded with the comparison of Nazi Germany where millions of people follow blindly and what that can lead to....
And this is your response:
So now your comparing The Holy Spirit of God to Hitler?
There is a relatively large line between discrimination, and Holy discernment. Do you want to guess where
that line begins? It begins in scripture, and is made complete in humble loving heart.
Discrimination is a tool people use to isolate and identify those who are different for the purpose hatred and
sin.
Discernment is a diagnostic tool one uses to help another see and repent of the sin that drives a wedge
between the sinners life and God.
The key is in the person heart who is making the discernment or discrimination. Who are you, that you can
judge the heart of another? Your blanket opposition to this command and all who follow it, outwardly shows
that you believe that, for all who discern, do so for the purposes of discrimination. Aren't these actions a
form of discrimination themselves?
You have identified all who believe and employ what Paul says about homosexuality as apparent Nazis. Again,
how is this not description? If this is indeed description then why is it you do not have a problem with it?
Why can you only see a problem with the discriminations that directly speak to your life, or your specific
beliefs? Why is it OK for you to use discrimination in certain instances, and condemn it in others? Does your
god teach hypocrisy like this, or is this a product of personal righteousness and pride? If you are speak from
24 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
a place of personal or self righteousness and pride then how is it you can claim that you speak for God? Can
you show one instance that Jesus, Peter, Paul or any of the other contributors of the bible show where a
person speaking from a position of personal righteousness and pride spoke the will of God? Then where does
your authority come from?
Your post has gone into attack mode!!! LOL it is too funny! Millions of people are all of a sudden the Holy Spirit!!
When you are wrong, you start flinging false accusations and such.
Then you proceed to make a failed attempt at psychoanalyzing me...
By the way, nice attempt at calling me a nonchristian by using the age old tactic of the lower case "g" in God.
So, by hating on me, are you really showing Christs love? Are you really believing that any will take your post even
remotely serious? Good luck with that!
__________________
25 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
24th July 2010, 12:20 PM #46

My Mood
32
Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
[quote=drich0150;55315140]
Whether you believe Paul Spoke for Christ or not, is not the issue. (try and stay on topic) Paul, because of the
authority given Him by the Holy Spirit and the time he spent with Christ gives him the authority to speak to
the church. That Authority make what he says on God's behalf, the Spirit inspired word.
I am glad you believe that. I too enjoy Paul's letters. Even moreso when put into proper translation and context.
Do you honestly think Homosexuality is something man first discovered in the 20th century? If not, do you
think man in any language knew of homosexuality but simply didn't have a word for it until the 20th
century? If not then maybe you should go back and reexamine your own thought process that lead to your
statement.
Nice one. Earlier we are talking about a word being coined and you cannot distinguish between a word and the
sexuality itself. Again....nice logic.
My point is that homosexuality has existed for much longer that the politically correct terms we have chosen
to give these acts, in our modern bibles. Despite when you believe the actual term was coined. The ancient
texts speaks of these acts as sin, and like all sin. This sin needs to be forgiven. Why would you teach a new
doctrine that allows for unrepentant sin? Is your pride so great that you can indeed choose to ignore
scripture for a version of pop cultural enlightenment? Jesus spoke great woes to those who taught his people
to sin.. Do you simply ignore this part of scripture as well?
And you repeat your "point" again.... Do some of your own research on the Greek to Latin to German to English
translations, please try to keep at least some part of it in context, and get back to me when your posts are on topic.
__________________
24th July 2010, 02:02 PM #47

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
In your earlier post you stated that if millions of people believe that such a translation is true.......yada yada
I responded with the comparison of Nazi Germany where millions of people follow blindly and what that can
lead to....
And this is your response:
Your post has gone into attack mode!!! LOL it is too funny! Millions of people are all of a sudden the Holy
Spirit!!
This is what you think? Ok Let me break it down for you. If Hitler being the leader of the Nazi party controlled the
26 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
way his Germany thought and acted then that would place him in the role of supreme authority over his people.
Like wise if the Holy Spirit is responsible for the way we think and act (in this particular case about Homosexuality
through Paul's writings) Then that places The Holy Spirit in Charge over the authority of His People.
In your Analogy When we as the church blindly follower our "Leader" as the Germans did in the 30's and 40's then you
liken the church to Nazis... That would make the Holy Spirit Hitler in your estimation/analogy.
No wonder your having such a hard time following logic that is not circular in nature.
When you are wrong, you start flinging false accusations and such.
Can you list them?
Then you proceed to make a failed attempt at psychoanalyzing me...
Can you cut and paste any of my comment that Makes you think I have attempted to psychoanalyze you, and I will
help you straighten out your misconception.
By the way, nice attempt at calling me a non christian by using the age old tactic of the lower case "g" in
God.
I did not call you a non christian, I referred to your representation of god with a lower case because I do not know of
the god in which you speak. Because there is only one God I must reserve the "G" for Him.
You are looking too hard into what I write.
So, by hating on me, are you really showing Christs love? Are you really believing that any will take your post
even remotely serious? Good luck with that!
Despite what you think i do not hate you, I have only questioned your doctrines and the processes in which you have
presented them. If you can only associate your "doctrines" with your personal being then so be it.
I asked alot of very direct questions none of which you have answered. It seems that you are trying to lead this
conversation away from my efforts to dissect your system of belief, it's origins, how they relate to what scripture
actually says, and how you choose to relay this information and your motivations in doing so. If you do indeed wish to
stay on topic then as I have, please cut and paste my questions and simply answer them. Or if you do not wish to
defend your position then either remain silent or simply say so. There is nothing "personal" in my efforts I am just
trying to measure/discern your efforts in light of the whole of scripture, and not just part of it. So long as you say
engaged I will assume that you want a response from me.
__________________
God is my judge.
24th July 2010, 02:25 PM #48

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
Nice one. Earlier we are talking about a word being coined and you cannot distinguish between a word and
the sexuality itself. Again....nice logic.
Even though you missed the aim of my intent, at least you can see the point i was making. I believe in your hurried
efforts to skim through my response (like with the Nazis)you misinterpreted my intentions again. Here I was
illustrating that even if The literal Phrasing of the "coined" term was not included in the original script, that the
premise was still very much alive in the script that we derive our 20th century translations from. (the ones you claim
are no good)
27 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Meaning even if you believe that the term "Homosexuality" was unjustly added into our translations. the acts being
described still can be considered homosexual in nature. Either way it is still described as a sin, that one needs to
repent of.
Do some of your own research on the Greek to Latin to German to English translations, please try to keep at
least some part of it in context, and get back to me when your posts are on topic.
The only way it seems that I can conform to this request is to simply agree with whatever crazy thing you conjure
up. Otherwise, no matter how on topic I actually am you just label my efforts not relevant, and seeming the more
accurate my response the more insistent you become that I am the one veering off topic.
Again, if you don't want to discuss your beliefs the remain silent or simply say so. No one is making you do anything.
Don't feel like you have to discredit my efforts to come out on top here. Anyone who cares to read this foolishness can
see where both of us stand. You know what you believe, and I do as well, that means if you do not wish to talk about it
anymore then what more is their to say?
__________________
God is my judge.
24th July 2010, 03:03 PM #49

My Mood
32
Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
[quote=drich0150;55316600]
This is what you think? Ok Let me break it down for you. If Hitler being the leader of the Nazi party
controlled the way his Germany thought and acted then that would place him in the role of supreme
authority over his people.
Like wise if the Holy Spirit is responsible for the way we think and act (in this particular case about
Homosexuality through Paul's writings) Then that places The Holy Spirit in Charge over the authority of His
People.
In your Analogy When we as the church blindly follower our "Leader" as the Germans did in the 30's and
40's then you liken the church to Nazis... That would make the Holy Spirit Hitler in your estimation/analogy.
No wonder your having such a hard time following logic that is not circular in nature.
Therein lies the difference. You believe that you are following the Holy Spirit in the area of discrimination against
homosexuals. I do not believe you are. I am sure you feel that I am not.
My comparison of nazi's is in no way shape or form put against the Holy Spirit. It is against some current church
leaders and their congregants.
I did not call you a non christian, I referred to your representation of god with a lower case because I do not
know of the god in which you speak. Because there is only one God I must reserve the "G" for Him.
I can understand that. My God is the one described by John in his first letter:
1 John 4:16 (New Living Translation)
16 We know how much God loves us, and we have put our trust in his love. God is love, and all who live in love live in
God, and God lives in them.
Despite what you think i do not hate you, I have only questioned your doctrines and the processes in which
28 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
you have presented them. If you can only associate your "doctrines" with your personal being then so be it.
I do not feel that you hate me. I in turn do not feel the same towards you. I have chosen to interpret scripture
differently than you in regards to homosexuals.
It seems that you are trying to lead this conversation away from my efforts to dissect your system of belief,
it's origins, how they relate to what scripture actually says, and how you choose to relay this information and
your motivations in doing so. Or if you do not wish to defend your position then either remain silent or
simply say so. There is nothing "personal" in my efforts I am just trying to measure/discern your efforts in
light of the whole of scripture, and not just part of it. So long as you say engaged I will assume that you want
a response from me.
I have no issue continuing this dialogue if you can keep your questions in context. You do not need to dissect my
system of belief. We are from different denom backgrounds and will find a myriad of differences therein.
As for my motivations in relaying my message of equality is that I do not believe for one second that Jesus would
condemn a monogamous gay couple who love and serve Him.
__________________
24th July 2010, 03:27 PM #50

My Mood
32 Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
[quote=drich0150;55310724]
So the argument is because Jesus didn't saying specific about a given topic then all who did are wrong to do
so?
The arguement is the word that Paul used was translated as masturbation typically up until the 20th century.
If you insist that Paul has no authority then why even use what Jesus didn't say as a reason to simply do or
believe as you choose to? One of the same writers that verified the ministry and testimony of Christ did the
same for Paul. So by choosing the authority of Paul you also choose to ignore the Authority of the Holy Spirit,
By doing so you Are ignoring something Jesus actually said in lew of something you beleive to be true even
though Jesus didn't say anything about what you believe.
The authority of Paul is not what is in question. It is how his words have been translated.
The chain of logic I use does not include a theory of mistranslation
That is the difference. Mine does. We can agree to disagree perhaps.
..Or are you saying, your god allow the billions who lived and died in the 20th century, (looking to their
mistranslated bibles to love their God with all of their being,) allow them to parish in the second death,
because their translations would not allow the the same freeing truth your god has personally delivered to
you and all who worship your newly translated bibles?
Nothing is being newly translated. The mistranslation occured during the 20th century. The prior translation was in
place for centuries prior.
Do you honestly think Homosexuality is something man first discovered in the 20th century? If not, do you
29 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
think man in any language knew of homosexuality but simply didn't have a word for it until the 20th
century? If not then maybe you should go back and reexamine your own thought process that lead to your
statement.
Homosexuality has been a part of nature since the beginning (imo). The word that Paul used was not translated as
"homosexual" and was inferred as being synonymous with gay sex until the 20th century.
Why would you teach a new doctrine that allows for unrepentant sin?
Monogamous gay sex is not a sin, imo.
Is your pride so great that you can indeed choose to ignore scripture for a version of pop cultural
enlightenment?
Not in the least. it is because of a lack of pride and with much humility that share God's love for all.
Jesus spoke great woes to those who taught his people to sin.. Do you simply ignore this part of scripture as
well?
Not at all. He made no reference to homosexuality/gay sex/anything remotely close.
The key is in the person heart who is making the discernment or discrimination. Who are you, that you can
judge the heart of another?
I am in no position to judge anyone nor is anyone else. I will share God's love for all with everyone I come across.
Your blanket opposition to this command and all who follow it, outwardly shows that you believe that, for all
who discern, do so for the purposes of discrimination. Aren't these actions a form of discrimination
themselves?
Then would you say that Jesus discriminated?
Why is it OK for you to use discrimination in certain instances, and condemn it in others?
Who am I discriminating against?
I asked alot of very direct questions none of which you have answered.
Perhaps this can clarify a few points for you. If not, let me know. I would rather work this out than leave with any ill
feelings.
__________________
24th July 2010, 04:38 PM #51
iwannarock Join Date: 23rd July 2010

Newbie Posts: 15
Blessings: 341 [Bless]
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
i will give my 2 cents. i am a christian and heres what it is.
30 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Gay guys are born gay. girls can choose. guys can't. simple as that. i've seen some of the linked mannerisms to
homosexuality and trust me some of the things they do can not be learned lol.
why would god send people to hell for being gay. he is pretty much sending half of ameirca to hell lol. but gays who
do the pride parade probably got to hell. it's funny cz they got away with being gay, now theyr going to burn for a
stupid parade lol. why would you name it after a deadly sin?
im sure i'll get some fame for this but i honesteley think other than marriage is between a man and a women, being
gay wont be the DECIDING facotr if you go to hell. i doubt Rob Halford (singer for judas prist who is christian and gay)
is going to hell if he repents.
this is my thoughts and i do not speak for god. i could be wrong.
it's better to just assume it's bad and repent. better safe than sorry lol.
Last edited by iwannarock; 24th July 2010 at 04:47 PM.
24th July 2010, 05:02 PM #52

Jase
Posts: 2,878
Angel of Music
My Mood
27 Reps: 1,412,796,286,125,681 (power: 1,412,796,286,135)
Originally Posted by iwannarock
Gay guys are born gay. girls can choose. guys can't. simple as that. i've seen some of the linked mannerisms
to homosexuality and trust me some of the things they do can not be learned lol.
Girls are no different than guys - they are also born gay. The difference is, women tend to be more likely to be
bisexual than men do, and women are more expressive of their sexuality than men. The mechanisms controlling both
genders, however, are the same.
why would god send people to hell for being gay. he is pretty much sending half of ameirca to hell lol. but
gays who do the pride parade probably got to hell. it's funny cz they got away with being gay, now theyr
going to burn for a stupid parade lol. why would you name it after a deadly sin?
I don't understand this. What does a parade supporting human rights have to do with hell? By this logic, every
heterosexual is going to hell for participating in Mardi Gras - which is probably worse than most gay pride parades.
__________________
24th July 2010, 05:10 PM #53

Jase
Posts: 2,878
Angel of Music
My Mood
27 Reps: 1,412,796,286,125,681 (power: 1,412,796,286,135)
Originally Posted by Harry3142
Homosexuality is a sin, but so is overeating, driving over the speed limit, and many other actions which are
done. If we had to be sinless to get into heaven, then there would have been no need for Jesus to have come
to us in the first place.
If you would have read my explanation of Leviticus 18 on the last page, you would see homosexuality, as we
understand it, is not listed as a sin in the Bible. Certain behaviors between two people of the same sex are, but that
applies to heterosexuals too. I even asked for oi_antz to quote me where in the original language the Bible says
homosexuality is a sin - he couldn't do it.
The main objection to homosexuality here in the USA is due to certain gay organizations having attempted to
31 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
overrrule the Biblical injunction against it. A few years ago the Episcopal Church's presiding group of
bishops and lay people in the USA elected a homosexual to the office of bishop. Within 24 hours of that
election, a gay organization was 'armtwisting' those same people in an effort to have them declare that
homosexuality was to be recognized as an alternate lifestyle rather than as a perversion, aka sin. This the
bishops and laypeople knew would have been going too far, so they refused to do it.
There is no Biblical injuction on homosexuality in the United States. This is a secular country, not a theocracy. It is
illegal to use the Bible as a law of the land. Gay rights organizations are only pushing for the LGBT community to
receive the same secular rights that every other person is entitled too, the same way MLK Jr. and the Civil Rights
movement pushed for equal rights for African Americans in the 60s.
But that is exactly what is now being taught in our public schools' social studies classes. My grand-nephew is
still in elementary school, but already he has had his teachers tell him, as part of the class curriculum, that
homosexuality is to be regarded as an alternate lifestyle. It is to be considered as just as normal as
heterosexual relationships. This we Christians will under no circumstances approve of.
First of all, the whole "alternate lifestyle" label, is a stereotypical insult from the Christian right in order to demonize
gays further. Gays have the exact same lifestyle as heterosexuals. In most cases, you would never be able to tell the
difference between a gay persons life and a straight persons life.
Second, while I'm highly suspect about what this teacher actually told your grand-nephew, and I think you are
embellishing quite a bit - he is in a public school. There is no reason that schools can't teach people that homosexuals
exist, and they are not evil. It's no different than teaching kids about Black history.
__________________
24th July 2010, 06:44 PM #54

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
I can understand that. My God is the one described by John in his first letter:
The God of scripture is the God the complete scriptures, not just certain portions of scripture. I see and understand
the God of John, but I also see and have Incorporated the side of God Paul describes in his letters and commands as
well. Do you truly think an infinite God is solely and completely defined by one signal verse in the book of John?
This is an accurate portrayal of God, just not a complete portrayal of God. Even in this Understanding God's love goes
beyond your specific definition of love, and permissibility. I would say His love goes all the way to accountability, and
true righteousness. This means that God's love does not allow the impure and unrighteous. This is why He sent his son
to die one the behalf of those who know they are sinners. This is also why we must be bold in identifying sin in our
lives. There can be no forgiveness if one does not seek it.
As for my motivations in relaying my message of equality is that I do not believe for one second that Jesus
would condemn a monogamous gay couple who love and serve Him.
What book chapter and verse do you base that "interpretation of scripture" on?
__________________
God is my judge.
24th July 2010, 07:00 PM #55

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
32 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
The argument is the word that Paul used was translated as masturbation typically up until the 20th century.
The authority of Paul is not what is in question. It is how his words have been translated.
That is the difference. Mine does. We can agree to disagree perhaps.
Nothing is being newly translated. The mistranslation occurred during the 20th century. The prior
translation was in place for centuries prior.
Homosexuality has been a part of nature since the beginning (imo). The word that Paul used was not
translated as "homosexual" and was inferred as being synonymous with gay sex until the 20th century.
Monogamous gay sex is not a sin, imo.
Not in the least. it is because of a lack of pride and with much humility that share God's love for all.
Not at all. He made no reference to homosexuality/gay sex/anything remotely close.
I am in no position to judge anyone nor is anyone else. I will share God's love for all with everyone I come
across.
Then would you say that Jesus discriminated?
The discernment of Christ was evident when he chased out the money changers and his judgment of the
Pharisees. Also when dealing with his disciples,
All of those who do not think as you do. Otherwise why the need to compare all who follow the complete
bible to Nazis?
Perhaps this can clarify a few points for you. If not, let me know. I would rather work this out than leave with
any ill feelings.
Wow, you do not question the authority of Paul, just everything we have written from him..
You have undermined the whole of the new testament with this statement.
In your best estimation why do you think your god or even the God of the bible would preserve the gospel accounts,
and yet allow so much corruption in the rest of the new testament?
33 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Even if there is corruption in the NT what makes you think God will not hold you accountable to the translations we
currently work from?
"We" are told that all of the bible is God breathed.. Which places it's content under His responsibility, and the
following of the word under ours.
__________________
God is my judge.
24th July 2010, 07:04 PM #56

My Mood
32 Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
[quote=drich0150;55318851]
The God of scripture is the God the complete scriptures, not just certain portions of scripture. I see and
understand the God of John, but I also see and have Incorporated the side of God Paul describes in his letters
and commands as well. Do you truly think an infinite God is solely and completely defined by one signal
verse in the book of John?
Of course there are no words fit to describe God. Love covers all things.
What book chapter and verse do you base that "interpretation of scripture" on?
Six Bible Passages
What does the Bible actually say about being gay? / Library / Issues and Analysis / Home - AWID
The Conspiracy To Twist Bible Verses To Suit Their Antigay Agenda - Romans 1:26-27, page 1
Bible verses not taken literally

__________________
24th July 2010, 07:10 PM #57

My Mood
32
Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
[quote=drich0150;55318877]
Wow, you do not question the authority of Paul, just everything we have written from him..
Sounds like you are deliberately taking my words out of context.
You have undermined the whole of the new testament with this statement.
Save the drama.
In your best estimation why do you think your god or even the God of the bible would preserve the gospel
34 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
accounts, and yet allow so much corruption in the rest of the new testament?
Why has much of history been preserved?
Even if there is corruption in the NT what makes you think God will not hold you accountable to the
translations we currently work from?
God knows our hearts. That is enough for me.
We are told that all of the bible is God breathed.. Which places it's content under His responsibility, and
the following of the word under ours.
That is where we differ. Enough said.

__________________
24th July 2010, 07:56 PM #58

Octorock Location: California
Octorockin' Posts: 346
29 Reps: 19,552,806,957,344,184 (power: 19,552,806,957,345)
All of those who do not think as you do. Otherwise why the need to compare all who follow the complete
bible to Nazis?
Was there a proposition that we could vote on that would have made it illegal for people to have opinions that differed
from Supernaut? Otherwise I don't see how it's discrimination against anybody by simply disagreeing with people who
disagree with him. (And if it is, then you are guilty of the exact same thing by simply disagreeing with him as well. :] )
24th July 2010, 08:10 PM #59

My Mood
32
Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
Originally Posted by Octorock
Was there a proposition that we could vote on that would have made it illegal for people to have opinions that
differed from Supernaut? Otherwise I don't see how it's discrimination against anybody by simply
disagreeing with people who disagree with him. (And if it is, then you are guilty of the exact same thing by
simply disagreeing with him as well. :] )
It's a vicious cycle I tell ya!!!

__________________
35 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
24th July 2010, 08:12 PM #60

Jase
Posts: 2,878
Angel of Music
My Mood
27 Reps: 1,412,796,286,125,681 (power: 1,412,796,286,135)
"We" are told that all of the bible is God breathed.. Which places it's content under His responsibility, and
the following of the word under ours.
We are, really? Would that be the verse that Paul never wrote, and didn't apply to the New Testament when it was
written? And by nature of "scripture" would in fact refer to all scripture you do not agree with as God-breathed such
as Enoch, Apocrypha, Maccabees, Gospel of Thomas etc..
__________________
24th July 2010, 09:43 PM #61

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
Was there a proposition that we could vote on that would have made it illegal for people to have opinions that
differed from Supernaut? Otherwise I don't see how it's discrimination against anybody by simply
disagreeing with people who disagree with him. (And if it is, then you are guilty of the exact same thing by
simply disagreeing with him as well. :] )
I guess you stopped reading just before naut likened all who do not think as he does to those who were apart of the
Nazi party. Did you even read the definitions of description and discernment i left? His actions no matter how you
personally portray them fit the definition of discrimination. I am not using the word as an insult here I am matching
his actions to the definition of the word.
Just in case you missed it:

dis·crim·i·na·tion
/dɪˌskrɪm əˈneɪ ʃən/ Show Spelled[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuh n] Show IPA

–noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group,
class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious
intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.

__________________
God is my judge.
24th July 2010, 10:01 PM #62
36 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
We are, really? Would that be the verse that Paul never wrote, and didn't apply to the New Testament when it
was written? And by nature of "scripture" would in fact refer to all scripture you do not agree with as
God-breathed such as Enoch, Apocrypha, Maccabees, Gospel of Thomas etc..
It takes more than age for a text to be considered scripture. When I use that term, it is limited to the canonical texts
that make up the Holy Bible. My statement was to underline that no matter the intent of Paul or to which specific
scripture he was directly referring, that our charge was not to find and worship, the unmentioned text that Paul was
speaking of, but to treat the text that we have been given as "God breathed." How can God hold us responsible for
something that no longer exists? Or that no one knows of? At the same time How can God Not hold us accountable for
what we do have? There are a handful of parables that I can think of that directly speak to this principle.
This is why i can take the phrase "All scripture is God breathed" and apply it to what may not have been written at the
time those words were recorded. Remember even if Paul was limited in knowledge of the future compilation of his
work along with others, the Holy Spirit was not. You should also do good to remember it is the work of the Holy Spirit,
and not Paul that we study.
As I said in the beginning It is God's responsibility to provide us with "scripture" it is our responsibility to live by what
He has provided.
__________________
God is my judge.
24th July 2010, 10:43 PM #63

29 Reps: 19,552,806,957,344,184 (power: 19,552,806,957,345)
I guess you stopped reading just before naut likened all who do not think as he does to those who were apart
of the Nazi party.
Actually, no, I did not see where Supernaut likened those who disagree with him as Nazis. I DID however see him using
the Nazis of an example that a point of view isn't always automatically the correct one simply because a majority holds
it. So, then, where do you get off accusing someone of saying something they didn't even come close to saying?
Did you even read the definitions of description and discernment i left? His actions no matter how you
personally portray them fit the definition of discrimination. I am not using the word as an insult here I am
matching his actions to the definition of the word.
Just in case you missed it:

dis·crim·i·na·tion
/dɪˌskrɪm əˈneɪ ʃən/ Show Spelled[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuh n] Show IPA

–noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on
the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial
and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great
discrimination.
37 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.
Which definition are you accusing Supernaut of?
25th July 2010, 01:33 AM #64

Newbie Posts: 248
Reps: 1,143,383,710,510,815 (power: 1,143,383,710,511)
We are, really? Would that be the verse that Paul never wrote, and didn't apply to the New Testament when it
was written? And by nature of "scripture" would in fact refer to all scripture you do not agree with as
God-breathed such as Enoch, Apocrypha, Maccabees, Gospel of Thomas etc..
Yes, as do all disciples of Christ exhibit the spirit of God breathing, however only few have been selected and approved
to be officially divine, even if your other scriptures display some divinity they will not be as holy as those formally
blessed by Jesus Christ.
25th July 2010, 01:33 AM #65

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
Actually, no, I did not see where Supernaut likened those who disagree with him as Nazis. I DID however see
him using the Nazis of an example that a point of view isn't always automatically the correct one simply
because a majority holds it. So, then, where do you get off accusing someone of saying something they didn't
even come close to saying?
If your explanation of naut intentions were indeed naut's thoughts, then why is it you, that is explaining his intentions
to me, why did naut simply glance over or dismiss what was said in favor of where he ultimately took the argument??
Even given the chance to directly address my very specific questions and concerns he did not raise the alarm or call
any attention to what you have pointed out..
So my question to you is, where do you get off making up possible responses for other people? Who are you to do so?
Are you an advocate for those who miss opportunities in their debates to exploit all possible avenues that one could
needlessly drag out a dead debate?
Or do you simply see a possible opportunity to be right on some level and rather than engaging in the topic at hand,
you have selected an argument that has a greater chance of a positive outcome?
Which definition are you accusing Supernaut of?
When naut compared the followers of the Holy Spirit to the followers of Nazi Germany He full filled the requirements
for definition number 2. In his comparison he over looked the intentions of the individuals in a specific group, and
made a direct correlation between those who lived under Nazi rule and those who simply follow the majority in their
system of belief.
__________________
God is my judge.
25th July 2010, 01:35 AM #66
38 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
God knows our hearts. That is enough for me.
That is where we differ. Enough said.
So I take this to mean we are done here?

__________________
God is my judge.
25th July 2010, 01:48 AM #67

29 Reps: 19,552,806,957,344,184 (power: 19,552,806,957,345)
If your explanation of naut intentions were indeed naut's thoughts, then why is it you, that is explaining his
intentions to me, why did naut simply glance over or dismiss what was said in favor of where he ultimately
took the argument??
Even given the chance to directly address my very specific questions and concerns he did not raise the alarm
or call any attention to what you have pointed out..
So my question to you is, where do you get off making up possible responses for other people? Who are you
to do so? Are you an advocate for those who miss opportunities in their debates to exploit all possible
avenues that one could needlessly drag out a dead debate?
Or do you simply see a possible opportunity to be right on some level and rather than engaging in the topic
at hand, you have selected an argument that has a greater chance of a positive outcome?
I have no idea what you're talking about. All I did was read what he wrote and accepted that he meant exactly what he
said and nothing else.
Hey, by your logic, he hasn't stepped forward and corrected me either, so I guess we're technically both right?
When naut compared the followers of the Holy Spirit to the followers of Nazi Germany
Stop right there. Ne never compared Christians to Nazis.
In his comparison he over looked the intentions of the individuals in a specific group, and made a direct
correlation between those who lived under Nazi rule and those who simply follow the majority in their
system of belief.
You're not making any sense here. All he did was use an example to illustrate that something isn't automatically
correct simply because the majority thinks so. He did not say that those that were in the minority of beliefs (that is,
that the Nazis were wrong) were just "going along with the majority." I'm not trying to read between the lines here
like you are, this is exactly all that he did.
25th July 2010, 02:41 AM #68
39 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
You're not making any sense here. All he did was use an example to illustrate that something isn't
automatically correct simply because the majority thinks so. He did not say that those that were in the
minority of beliefs (that is, that the Nazis were wrong) were just "going along with the majority." I'm not
trying to read between the lines here like you are, this is exactly all that he did.
Again if "this is all he did" Then why did his argument not reflect this intention? I gave couple opportunities for him to
clarify, but he chose to dig in and give counter points to my assertion rather than nullifying this conversation in the
manner you chose to. To be honest I think we are both right here. Perhaps he started out with a neutral assertion, that
had a underlining meaning. When I made mention to that meaning his first response was to defend it rather than to
remain neutral. If he had you and i would not be having this conversation.
__________________
God is my judge.
25th July 2010, 11:31 AM #69

My Mood
32
Reps: 1,090,654,433,887,858,944 (power: 1,090,654,433,887,864)
[quote=Octorock;55320534]
I have no idea what you're talking about. All I did was read what he wrote and accepted that he meant
exactly what he said and nothing else.
And you are correct. It was very obvious what I wrote and what the intent was. I invited the other to reread so that they
may understand for themselves but instead chose not to.
Hey, by your logic, he hasn't stepped forward and corrected me either, so I guess we're technically both
right?
*stepping forward* Octorock has read what I wrote....and understood.
Stop right there. Ne never compared Christians to Nazis.
Exactly....a point that was missed.
You're not making any sense here. All he did was use an example to illustrate that something isn't
automatically correct simply because the majority thinks so. He did not say that those that were in the
minority of beliefs (that is, that the Nazis were wrong) were just "going along with the majority." I'm not
trying to read between the lines here like you are, this is exactly all that he did.
I thought it was said plain enough too!
So I take this to mean we are done here?
Yes we are. Saving my pearls. Take care and God bless!

__________________
40 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Last edited by Supernaut454; 25th July 2010 at 12:11 PM.
25th July 2010, 11:58 AM #70

My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
Again if "this is all he did" Then why did his argument not reflect this intention? I gave couple opportunities
for him to clarify, but he chose to dig in and give counter points to my assertion rather than nullifying this
conversation in the manner you chose to. To be honest I think we are both right here. Perhaps he started out
with a neutral assertion, that had a underlining meaning. When I made mention to that meaning his first
response was to defend it rather than to remain neutral. If he had you and i would not be having this
conversation.
I'm detecting a lack of reading comprehension on your part. First you misread the Bible, leading you to foolishly
believe that it condemns homosexuality.
Then you have trouble reading Supernaut's posts. Unlike the previous case, where allowances could be made, this
seems like a clear misrepresentation of his posts.
One would suspect that you are attempting to sidetrack the discussion to hide your inability to defend your beliefs.
And the more you complain, the more plausible it becomes.
__________________
Last edited by TheManeki; 25th July 2010 at 12:14 PM.
25th July 2010, 01:14 PM #71

My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
Originally Posted by Harry3142
Homosexuality is a sin, but so is overeating, driving over the speed limit, and many other actions which are
done. If we had to be sinless to get into heaven, then there would have been no need for Jesus to have come
to us in the first place.
This argument has several flaws, but I'm just going to point out the chief problem: One of these things is not like the
other. Overeating leads to obesity, which has been shown to cause health problems like diabetes and high blood
pressure. Driving at excessive speeds has been shown to increase the likelihood of automobile accident, injury, and
death. Homosexuality, conversely, has not been shown to cause any such harm. That's the thing about sins -- they are
signposts placed by God to show us where harm lies. There is no innate harm in homosexuality. Two people in a
41 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
same-sex marriage are not at any greater risk than two people in a heterosexual marriage. And there is no sin.
The main objection to homosexuality here in the USA is due to certain gay organizations having attempted to
overrrule the Biblical injunction against it. A few years ago the Episcopal Church's presiding group of
bishops and lay people in the USA elected a homosexual to the office of bishop. Within 24 hours of that
election, a gay organization was 'armtwisting' those same people in an effort to have them declare that
homosexuality was to be recognized as an alternate lifestyle rather than as a perversion, aka sin. This the
bishops and laypeople knew would have been going too far, so they refused to do it.
There is no Biblical injunction; nobody in this thread has been able to show one exists. And it seems like the only
problem you have with these "gay organizations" is that they had the nerve to speak the truth and tell people their
beliefs are wrong. How dare they try to shatter people's blissful ignorance and expect them to act like responsible
adults!
I'm reminded of an excerpt from Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," where Dr. King writes, "You
deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place...But I am sorry that your statement did not express a
similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. I am sure that each of you would want
to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at effects, and does not grapple with underlying causes.
But that is exactly what is now being taught in our public schools' social studies classes. My grand-nephew is
still in elementary school, but already he has had his teachers tell him, as part of the class curriculum, that
homosexuality is to be regarded as an alternate lifestyle. It is to be considered as just as normal as
heterosexual relationships. This we Christians will under no circumstances approve of.
The HORROR! The HORROR! Why, that's like back in the 50s and 60s school children were indoctrinated to think that
their mixed-race classmates were all right, instead of the abominable products of Biblically-forbidden miscegenation!
Of course, everyone realizes now that the furor over interracial marriages was a sad bit of temporary insanity for
Christianity, even though at the time it was considered orthodox by everyone but those stinking dirty liberals. Good
thing for Christianity that we liberals are at the vanguard again, dragging you guys into the present once more
despite all your kicking and screaming. You're welcome, bro.
__________________
25th July 2010, 01:32 PM #72

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
I'm detecting a lack of reading comprehension on your part. First you misread the Bible, leading you to
foolishly believe that it condemns homosexuality.
Then you have trouble reading Supernaut's posts. Unlike the previous case, where allowances could be made,
this seems like a clear misrepresentation of his posts.
42 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
One would suspect that you are attempting to sidetrack the discussion to hide your inability to defend your
beliefs. And the more you complain, the more plausible it becomes.
If it were my intention to side track the thread, then why is it that all of the "superior" intellects that this thread has
attracted, have been subjected to the intentions of one who apparently has little to no literacy skills? Does this
illiterate have that much power over such great minds, as to bend their wills away from a topic that they so
desperately want to discuss? That I have some how rendered you all powerless to ignore a moot point in favor of
continuing to lay out biblical precedent to support your beliefs??
Who is the bigger fool? The fool who can't read, or the one who fawns over what the fool who can't read has written?
My argument is a simple one. If you guys had a scriptural case pointing to where God commands homosexual
behavior, then why spend your time arguing a moot point? Unless that moot point has now come to symbolize victory
in this argument as a whole.
By the hard thought out zinger you put in your final paragraph, it appears the moot point has indeed become the
lynch pin to your victory in this debate. (Any victory is better than no victory right? Even one that carries no weight to
what was actually being discussed.) Just look at the feeble attempt you made trying to draw a correlation between
Nazi Germany, and what the bible says about Homosexuality. Your post screams of a simple man's desperation to win
an argument on any level.
Again if any of you great "thinkers and or theologians" wishes to get back on topic then please feel free to leave book,
chapter and verse that outlines God's homosexual command. If you like, I can show you where we have been
commanded to either abstain from sexual behavior all together or if we "burn with passion" then we are to be married
to one woman. I'll even concede to a mistake in my reading comprehension skills when it came to the bit about the
Germans IF it allows us to get back on topic.
Also note that I am looking for Book chapter and verse. No translation excuses will be considered, nor will any
explanation that requires one to look outside of scripture to come to your understanding. BOOK, CHAPTER, and
VERSE only.
Otherwise if you do not have anything new to add to the topic then let me save you some time coming up with a new
way to win this argument. I will simply pick up my pearls, shake the dust from my feet, and concede this whole
argument to you. The bit about the Germans, and the homosexual stuff as well.. Just know being able to tell yourself
that you pull a win in a debate, it does not change your accountability to God. Nor the Fact that you who have taken on
the role as teachers of God's law will be held to even a higher standard than those who are just trying to find their
way.
__________________
God is my judge.
25th July 2010, 01:42 PM #73

My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
Well, looks like you have decided to rejoin the conversation. 'Bout time!
My argument is a simple one. If you guys had a scriptural case pointing to where God commands
homosexual behavior, then why spend your time arguing a moot point?
...
Again if any of you great "thinkers and or theologians" wishes to get back on topic then please feel free to
leave book, chapter and verse that outlines God's homosexual command.
...
Also note that I am looking for Book chapter and verse. No translation excuses will be considered, nor will
any explanation that requires one to look outside of scripture to come to your understanding. BOOK,
43 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
CHAPTER, and VERSE only.
It looks like Supernaut et al are saying there is nothing in Scripture commanding or condemning homosexual
behavior. And it's impossible for them to point to where something is if it doesn't exist. You did actually read his posts,
right? Maybe you should read them again?
Otherwise if you do not have anything new to add to the topic then let me save you some time coming up
with a new way to win this argument. I will simply pick up my pearls, shake the dust from my feet, and
concede this whole argument to you.
Well, if you can't stick up for your position, conceding is the responsible thing to do. I, for one, look forward to seeing
you again, and hope you can keep your arguments on track better next time.
__________________
25th July 2010, 02:33 PM #74

29 Reps: 19,552,806,957,344,184 (power: 19,552,806,957,345)
If you like, I can show you where we have been commanded to either abstain from sexual behavior all
together or if we "burn with passion" then we are to be married to one woman.
Well, if your best argument against homosexuality is the fact homosexual sex can only take place outside of marriage,
then perhaps if our governments would allow gays to legally marry, it would solve this entire debate!
Also note that I am looking for Book chapter and verse. No translation excuses will be considered, nor will
any explanation that requires one to look outside of scripture to come to your understanding. BOOK,
CHAPTER, and VERSE only.
You don't have the right to limit which arguments that we can use to defend our positions any more than we have the
right to limit which arguments that you can use. This is an absolutely foolish demand and we're not going to play that
game. Sorry.
25th July 2010, 03:03 PM #75

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
44 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
It looks like Supernaut et al are saying there is nothing in Scripture commanding or condemning
homosexual behavior. And it's impossible for them to point to where something is if it doesn't exist. You did
actually read his posts, right? Maybe you should read them again?
Your missing the point. "Nauty" and all who support his position have removed the authority of the bible where
Homosexuality is pointed out as sin, and created a new version of the bible where homosexuality is to be considered a
silent area of the bible. From there somehow they have Incorporated a command that makes homosexuality an
accepted part of the Christian walk. I ask how do we get from a silent or grey area of the bible to forcing christians to
accept the homosexual doctrine?
In actuality if Homosexuality, were indeed not mentioned, it would still fall under the rules/law of our general
sexuality. Again we have commands regulating general sexuality as only being permissible through marriage.
Marriage being a covenant between God, one Man, and One woman. So even if Nauty has striped out the commands
against Homosexuality, it is to be considered a sin. Because Homosexual intercourse could only be sanctified through
the covenant of marriage, Unless you can show me where Homosexual marriage is mandated then AGAIN,
Homosexuality can only be considered a sin, One that needs to be repented of.
Well, if you can't stick up for your position, conceding is the responsible thing to do. I, for one, look forward
to seeing you again, and hope you can keep your arguments on track better next time.
Do you see how this statement doesn't really doesn't follow the flow of the last few? Outside of my comments given for
instructional purposes, I will not address them because truthfully there are meant to detract from the topic at hand. I
say that to show you, how you can possible respond when an illiterate makes a baseless accusation about the Nazi
party, and you being of sound mind and doctrine can move on without it taking the whole thread off topic.
__________________
God is my judge.
25th July 2010, 03:24 PM #76

My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
Your missing the point. "Nauty" and all who support his position have removed the authority of the bible
where Homosexuality is pointed out as sin, and created a new version of the bible where homosexuality is to
be considered a silent area of the bible. From there somehow they have Incorporated a command that makes
homosexuality an accepted part of the Christian walk. I ask how do we get from a silent or grey area of the
bible to forcing christians to accept the homosexual doctrine?
What is this "homosexual doctrine"?
In actuality if Homosexuality, were indeed not mentioned, it would still fall under the rules/law of our
general sexuality. Again we have commands regulating general sexuality as only being permissible through
marriage.
Here I totally agree with you. Guess that adage about stopped clocks is true.
Marriage being a covenant between God, one Man, and One woman. So even if Nauty has striped out the
commands against Homosexuality, it is to be considered a sin.
And where exactly is marriage defined thusly?
So even if Nauty...
"Naughty"? Juvenile name-calling doesn't help hide your many argumentative fallacies, but instead draws even more
attention to them. Keep it adult, and keep it on track.
__________________
45 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
25th July 2010, 03:32 PM #77

29 Reps: 19,552,806,957,344,184 (power: 19,552,806,957,345)
Your missing the point. "Nauty" and all who support his position have removed the authority of the bible
where Homosexuality is pointed out as sin, and created a new version of the bible where homosexuality is to
be considered a silent area of the bible. From there somehow they have Incorporated a command that makes
homosexuality an accepted part of the Christian walk. I ask how do we get from a silent or grey area of the
bible to forcing christians to accept the homosexual doctrine?
In actuality if Homosexuality, were indeed not mentioned, it would still fall under the rules/law of our
general sexuality. Again we have commands regulating general sexuality as only being permissible through
marriage. Marriage being a covenant between God, one Man, and One woman. So even if Nauty has striped
out the commands against Homosexuality, it is to be considered a sin. Because Homosexual intercourse
could only be sanctified through the covenant of marriage, Unless you can show me where Homosexual
marriage is mandated then AGAIN, Homosexuality can only be considered a sin, One that needs to be
repented of.
Do you see how this statement doesn't really doesn't follow the flow of the last few? Outside of my comments
given for instructional purposes, I will not address them because truthfully there are meant to detract from
the topic at hand. I say that to show you, how you can possible respond when an illiterate makes a baseless
accusation about the Nazi party, and you being of sound mind and doctrine can move on without it taking
the whole thread off topic.
I've already made most of my arguments regarding homosexuality, so it won't o much good to repeat them, but I do
have one question: Could you please knock off the name-calling? It's rude, uncalled for, I'm pretty sure it breaks the
forum rules, and it only works against you as it makes you appear like a fool who has to resort to such measures to
have an impact.
25th July 2010, 04:38 PM #78

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
Well, if your best argument against homosexuality is the fact homosexual sex can only take place outside of
marriage, then perhaps if our governments would allow gays to legally marry, it would solve this entire
46 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
debate!
A civil union does not a marriage make my confused brother. A marriage as defined by scripture As a union sanctified
by God between one man and one woman. This is the Oldest religious ceremony/covenant man made with God. As
witnessed by the marriage ceremony between Adam and Eve. One more time, Having the state issue a piece of paper
that recognizes a civil union does not make a marriage. Besides I have absolutely no issues if a couple of cigarettes
want to go to a state that recognizes gay unions so they can collect health benefits or anything else. But, they should
know and well as anyone else who cares that the state does not get to determine that nature of sin to God. God said it
was a sin, one that needs repentance. If a gay couple wants forgiveness of their sin, then them like anyone else will
have to turn from their sin and simply repent.
You don't have the right to limit which arguments that we can use to defend our positions any more than we
have the right to limit which arguments that you can use. This is an absolutely foolish demand and we're not
going to play that game. Sorry.
Perhaps not in an open discussion about homosexuality and it's bearing on popular culture, but in a discussion
about homosexuality being a permissible part of Christianity. Scripture or Rather a demand for Book chapter and
verse is mandated. If you don't want to "play that game" then simply remain silent.
You don't owe me a response.

__________________
God is my judge.
25th July 2010, 04:45 PM #79

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
What is this "homosexual doctrine"?
The doctrine that you've been pushing. That Homosexuality is not a sin.
And where exactly is marriage defined thusly?
In the bible.
I would quote several book chapter and verses, but what would be the point? you would just call the translation into
question.. No, Scripture is reserved for those who seek God's will, and not for those who wish to bend or invalidate
scripture to their own will.. If you want to know then follow this link: BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in
over 100 versions and 50 languages. and type "marriage" into the key word search. There is only 50 or so responses
you have to read through.
__________________
God is my judge.
25th July 2010, 04:58 PM #80

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
Could you please knock off the name-calling? It's rude, uncalled for, I'm pretty sure it breaks the forum
rules, and it only works against you as it makes you appear like a fool who has to resort to such measures to
have an impact.
47 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
"Naughty"? Juvenile name-calling doesn't help hide your many argumentative fallacies, but instead draws
even more attention to them. Keep it adult, and keep it on track.
Now, now both of you guys know very good and well if i did not leave chinks in my arguments to help you divert some
of the hostile "feelings" you may have for me or what i have to say then this stored hostility maybe needless focused on
something truly foolish like say the Nazis or my personal literacy level. truthfully you can rest assured that I harbor no
malicious feelings for Nauty or anyone else, and I am just employing these tactics to help you remain (somewhat) on
topic,and at the same time giving you an opportunity to vent some of your self righteous needs.
If you truly want me to stop then simply respond to the facts as they are presented. Show me you don't need a
distraction to stay on topic with an even keel, and I will take it away.
__________________
God is my judge.
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
25th July 2010, 05:12 PM #81

My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
The doctrine that you've been pushing. That Homosexuality is not a sin.
You've tried, but consistently failed, to provide evidence supporting your claims that it is sinful. In light of this, the
alternative reading that it is neither commanded nor condemned makes far more sense.
In the bible.
I would quote several book chapter and verses, but what would be the point? you would just call the translation
into question..
If you are not prepared to answer obvious questions such as those Supernaut raised, then your arguments need serious
work. Such a problem frequently arises because a person unthinkingly regurgitates clobber passages he or she has been
fed by the similarly misinformed, instead of spending time firsthand studying homosexuality in its scriptural, societal,
48 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
historical and biological contexts.
Study up, and come back. I'll be waiting.
No, Scripture is reserved for those who seek God's will, and not for those who wish to bend or invalidate
scripture to their own will..
And how are we to know that you are not bending scripture to your own ends? A good way to start would be to
demonstrate that you are at least conversant with the broader scriptural and historical context of the passages that you
feel support your beliefs. And this is something, of course, that you are either unwilling or incapable of doing.
__________________
authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to
call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position,
although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
25th July 2010, 07:33 PM #82

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
49 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
[quote=TheManeki;55323109]
You've tried, but consistently failed, to provide evidence supporting your claims that it is sinful. In light of this,
the alternative reading that it is neither commanded nor condemned makes far more sense.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for You to go back and re-read a few posts of your own before you put your foot in your
mouth again.
This is a copy of post #10:

The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans
1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and
disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin
in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual
“offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.
If you are truly interested in what the bible says about homosexuality then click on this link:
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?
This where I got the opening paragraph.
If you are not prepared to answer obvious questions such as those Supernaut raised, then your arguments need
serious work. Such a problem frequently arises because a person unthinkingly regurgitates clobber passages
he or she has been fed by the similarly misinformed, instead of spending time firsthand studying
homosexuality in its scriptural, societal, historical and biological contexts.
Study up, and come back. I'll be waiting.
Or maybe you could possibly share some of this first hand knowledge of first century and older texts that you have
"personally studied" dedicated to first century homosexuality in it's "scriptural, societal, historical and biological
contexts.."
Given the sparsity of any actual first century texts, let alone texts that allow one such as your self puff himself up to
such great heights, it would be impossible for a humble servant of the lord with limited resources to find the magical
texts on his own. So again, perhaps you could at least point me to this wealth of knowledge you speak of. Maybe a link
that has copied these 1st century or any other historical texts and posted them.
And how are we to know that you are not bending scripture to your own ends?
My word was not in question here. This was made evident in the questioning of the 20th century translation of the bible,
rather than a specific denomination or the words of a specific individual
If calling homosexuality a sin was the product of one denomination's efforts you and your buddies would have attacked
this message at the source First. But because it is Spelled out in the bible several times, you have had no choice but to
attack the bible itself. (Unsuccessfully I might add) Now your efforts at questioning my ability to present a proper
exegesis of scripture is a thinly veiled attempt of desperation. You seem to be (by making personal and flamboyant
accusations) in need for a reason NOT to have to answer any of the questions/challenges I presented to you in my last
post.
If this is not the case then perhaps you can point to your responses i must have missed them.
Despite whether or not if you answer any or none of my challenges know, that your efforts will never find legitimacy in
the Christian community in part because, Even if you manage to eliminate the portion of the new testament that openly
calls Homosexuality a sin. you will Never Be Able To Show A Sanctified Context In Which Homosexual Activities Are Ever
Permissible (Ex. with in the Confines of Marriage) Which Would Make Any And All Homosexual Activity A Sin. And Like
Any Other Sin It Needs To Find Repentance, And Redemption. Otherwise Homosexuals like all other unrepentant sinners
will not find a home with the Lord. Is this what you want for these people and all who follow your teachings? And for
what?the sake of your pride and deep commitment to popular correctness?
I have asked you Questions, and made several comments in My Last post that have gone unanswered, and Again in this
one. The sum of those Questions/comments request that you to simply Provide Book Chapter and Verse to show where a
marriage has ever been, or will ever be sanctified by God between two same sex individuals.
And if you can not show a context in which God sanctifies Homosexual marriages, then Show me in a given context
where Homosexuality is mandated by God, as an acceptable life style for the Church and all of it's members to except.
Remember I am looking for BOOK CHAPTER AND VERSE to support this Homosexual Doctrine.
I have purposely not indulged any of your newest distractions/questions/comments until you have directly answered
50 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
mine. You have offered challenges, well I offered you some first. It is time to put up or shut up. Let's see what you got..
By that i don't mean more puff pomp and smoke about being educated in the history of Homosexuality.
Because if you have studied history at all, you will know that most of our historical documents concerning the subject
have been destroyed by members of the early church and societies with a more conservative tastes, and our histories
have been written and in some cases rewritten to exclude any contributions homosexuals may have offered. Although
what the Historical community is now facing is an influx of "secret" documents, book, and journals, that claims
everyone in our past of any importance to be gay. Most of these "accounts" are little more than forged documents and
wishful thinking. A sort of "fan fiction" for the history buffs of the gay community.
__________________
God is my judge.
25th July 2010, 10:29 PM #83
iwannarock Join Date: 23rd July 2010

Newbie Posts: 15
Blessings: 341 [Bless]
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
Girls are no different than guys - they are also born gay. The difference is, women tend to be more likely to be
bisexual than men do, and women are more expressive of their sexuality than men. The mechanisms
controlling both genders, however, are the same.
I don't understand this. What does a parade supporting human rights have to do with hell? By this logic, every
heterosexual is going to hell for participating in Mardi Gras - which is probably worse than most gay pride
parades.
to the first part, your probably right because i am not an expert on, well, anything. my rationality on it was that
sometimes a girl will temporarly swth to other girls based on bad experience with men. it may have nothing to do with
sexualitty. i guy however NEVER has that thought process. the "ive been dumped by so many girls i think ill try men"
thought never occurs in the brain for other guys
to the second part i was poking fun at the fact that they named it after a dealy sin. gay "Pride" parade. they didnt even
try to hide it lol.
25th July 2010, 10:51 PM #84

My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
Yes, I'm very familiar with the standard, substandard misreadings of scripture. Used to believe them, too, until I stopped
unquestioningly accepting whatever an authority figure told me, and started exploring things on my own. You should
give thinking for yourself a shot, too, instead of just repeating someone else's words.
The sin of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality. Ezekiel 16:49 plainly states that the city was punished for
oppressing the weak, such as trying to rape defenseless travellers.
The Levitical passages are very fun from a linguistic standpoint, with the vagueness of the original Hebrew sparking
many discussions among both Jewish and Christian scholars. The most common explanation points to the fact that
Leviticus 18:3 prohibits the Jews from following in the footsteps of the Caananites. 18:21 forbids sacrificing to Molech.
Interestingly enough, another way of worshipping Molech involved gay sex with temple prostitutes, and the very next
verse is your favorite, 18:22. Similarly, chapter 20 begins with another injunction against worshipping Molech like the
Caananites did, and has a similar prohibition.
Finally, the Mosaic Law was rendered obsolete by Jesus. Some people try to divide the Law into arbitrary groupings and
pretend that one group is still in force while the other group can be safely ignored, yet are unable to produce a Biblical
basis for their division.
It is always amusing to see people cite only Romans 1:26-27, because looking at the broader passage (verses 18-32)
51 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
shows that Paul is talking about a specific case -- pagan religious rites that incorporate sexual acts as part of the
worship process. This also resonates with Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 referring to sex in terms of worship practices.
I already debunked the popular superficial misreading of 1 Corinthians 6:9 in post 42, which you are welcome to
reread.
My word was not in question here. This was made evident in the questioning of the 20th century translation of
the bible, rather than a specific denomination or the words of a specific individual
Your words are certainly in question, since you are telling us what you think something means, and you could always be
reading it wrong. And as anyone who has ever studied a foreign language could tell you, translation is a very inexact
science, especially for texts as rich and dense as the Bible, so the choices of translators are always open for discussion.
Furthermore, each new translation is slightly constrained by what has been done before, and departing too much from
the precedents established by older translations (even if they are less than accurate) can lead to criticisms -- all the
retranslations in the NIV caused a bit of a backlash when it first was introduced in the 1970s, for example, and
KJV-onlyists see any departure from their beloved text as a nefarious plot. Additionally, ancient Hebrew and Greek both
were written without punctuation or spaces between words, further complicating things, and the original manuscripts
have not been found. The bottom line is that no translation is perfect; if it were, why do we have so many?
It is very clear that Supernaut, I, and others are pointing out the human factors that have influenced the Bible over time,
and are not "attacking the bible [sic] itself." You can always attempt to press the issue, but you'll just receive more
well-deserved criticism for yet another attempt at sidetracking things.
If calling homosexuality a sin was the product of one denomination's efforts you and your buddies would have
attacked this message at the source
Church traditions are not always based on the best understanding of scripture, and what was once considered orthodox
now may be considered foolish. Examples include a geocentric universe, sanctioning slavery, and opposing interracial
marriage -- traditions all supposedly based on scriptural grounds. Just because one or more denominations clings to an
interpretation of scripture, it does not necessarily mean this interpretation is correct.
And if you can not show a context in which God sanctifies Homosexual marriages, then Show me in a given
context where Homosexuality is mandated by God, as an acceptable life style for the Church and all of it's
members to except. Remember I am looking for BOOK CHAPTER AND VERSE to support this Homosexual
Doctrine.
If you restrict yourself only to actions that are specifically sanctified in the Bible, why are you imperilling your immortal
soul by using a computer? Last I checked, the Bible talks about computers about as much as it talks about gay marriage
-- not a single bit.
Now that I've addressed your copypasta, let's have some fun by adding in history and society. In the ancient world,
children were the only way for the elderly to be supported. No children could mean poverty and starvation for a person,
family, or even a tribe, placing immense pressure on procreation that we do not have today. Because of this pressure,
same-sex relationships outside the confines of temple worship were unknown until the early BC years, and the Greeks
were one civilization that developed many words to describe the different same-sex relationships that people enjoyed.
Considering that this vocabulary was in place, and that Paul was fluent in Greek, it's very interesting that Paul never
used any of these words in the passages where he supposedly condemns homosexuality.
The last layer, and most interesting to me as a scientist, is biology. As we learn more about the human body, we find
more and more evidence that sexuality is biological in origin. Twin studies show that if one identical twin is gay, there is
a high likelihood that the other is also, but this correlation is absent among fraternal twins. On a related note, the more
older siblings a child has is also an accurate predictor of whether or not a child will be gay. Brain studies of gay men
have shown that gay men's brains are more similar to women's brains than those of other men. Finally, it appears that a
gene that makes women more fertile has the side effect of producing gay children. People who claim the Bible
condemns homosexuality claim that, as part of their interpretation, homosexuality is a choice. But real life shows this
prediction to be false, casting further doubt on the beliefs that formulated this prediction.
__________________
52 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
26th July 2010, 01:20 AM #85

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
Manike, Your last post show you have indeed give a great deal of thought to your position, and i respect the time and
effort it takes to compile one beliefs on a subject such as this one. Even so, you must know despite all of your very
lengthy evidence you failed to answer my most basic query.
This query is based in 1Co6:9 as you made mention, but it has very little to do with the interpretation you all have
deemed suspect. 1Co6:9 mentions Homosexuality, but 1Co6:9 is not about the permissibility of homosexuality
specifically. 1Co6:9 set a precedence that forbids any sexual act outside of the confines of a sanctified marriage
relationship. 1Co6:9Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male
prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.
The "Sexually Immoral" is not a gender specific group. It includes anyone involved in any type of sexual activity outside
the confines of a sanctified marriage. that being the case, The whole of the Homosexual argument comes down to one
question: Does God allow or does He sanctify same sex marriages, where sexual activity is permitted?
Which leads back to a question i have asked several times now.
Can you show Book, chapter and verse where God commands, allows or even permits a same sex marriage? If you can
not. Can you give Book chapter and verse as to where the Christian community is to embrace the Homosexual doctrine
that says Homosexuality is permissible in or outside of a sanctified marriage relationship?
I know you have great concern as to my reading comprehension and ability to give a proper exegesis of scripture, but
here in lies the beautiful part of my questions. The burden is not on me to prove you wrong. The burden is on you to
show us the Doctrine in the Bible that allows for the life style that you preach or at the very least stand behind. So
please without anymore commentary or semi persuasive arguments, Please, i ask again, For Book, chapter, and Verse
show us biblical validation for your doctrines.
__________________
God is my judge.
26th July 2010, 02:16 AM #86

29 Reps: 19,552,806,957,344,184 (power: 19,552,806,957,345)
The "Sexually Immoral" is not a gender specific group. It includes anyone involved in any type of sexual
activity outside the confines of a sanctified marriage.
"Sexually Immoral" is a vague term that begs the question of that it's definition is. If you can find the "book, chapter,
and verse" that gives the definition as "sexual activity outside the confines of a sanctified marriage," I might be inclined
to agree with your point.
that being the case, The whole of the Homosexual argument comes down to one question: Does God allow or
53 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
does He sanctify same sex marriages, where sexual activity is permitted?
Which leads back to a question i have asked several times now.
Can you show Book, chapter and verse where God commands, allows or even permits a same sex marriage? If
you can not. Can you give Book chapter and verse as to where the Christian community is to embrace the
Homosexual doctrine that says Homosexuality is permissible in or outside of a sanctified marriage
relationship?
It's right between the book, chapter, and verse where God commands, allows, and even permits miscegenation (that is,
interracial relationships and marriage), and the book, chapter, and verse where the Christian community is to embrace
the doctrine that says miscegenation is permissible in or outside of a sanctified marriage relationship.
26th July 2010, 07:30 AM #87

My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
Can you show Book, chapter and verse where God commands, allows or even permits a same sex marriage? If
you can not. Can you give Book chapter and verse as to where the Christian community is to embrace the
Homosexual doctrine that says Homosexuality is permissible in or outside of a sanctified marriage
relationship?
The Bible is silent on same-sex marriage; it is neither mentioned favorably nor unfavorably. There is no "chapter and
verse" to give you on the subject, because it is a logical impossibility to tell you where something that does not exist it is
located. Furthermore, it is obvious that you do not believe that something has to be expressly permitted by the Bible to
be allowed, because if you did you would not be using a computer.
While the Bible provides no information, we can look at the world around us, opening what classical theologians
referred to as the Book of God's Creation to learn more about God's plan. It tells us that homosexuality is biological in
origin, that God creates people this way. It also tells us that two people in a same-sex marriage are not at a greater risk
of harm than two people in a heterosexual marriage, so there is no reason to forbid it.
This evidence leads to two possible conclusions. One is that God does not prohibit same-sex marriage. The alternative is
that God creates people a certain way, then forbids them from acting according to the way he created them, even
though acting according to their created nature causes no harm. If this second hypothesis is true, it means that God
would have to be arbitrary and a tyrant, which is inconsistent with his character.
__________________
Last edited by TheManeki; 26th July 2010 at 08:43 AM.
26th July 2010, 08:15 AM #88
54 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Join Date: 21st October 2009

singpeace Posts: 216
Member Blessings: 986,290 [Bless]
My Mood
43 Reps: 9,321,959,110,963,656 (power: 9,321,959,110,964)
Lucen,
I can't believe how often this topic is coming up. The issue is very clearly stated in Scripture. I get tired of Christians not
doing their homework and really putting forth an effort to study God's Word. Being gay does not send anyone to hell.
Neither does any other sin. The only thing that prevents one from going to heaven is to never accept Jesus Christ as
Savior. If we refuse to accept His free gift, then die... well, that's it. I believe no one dies without having many
opportunities to accept Christ.
His death paid for ALL sin, not some sins. His blood knows no limits, and there is no sin which is greater than that
blood. That's like saying Satan has one tool he can use against God because God cannot pay its price. He paid the price
and purchased us and set us free from the condemnation of the Law.
If one knows Christ, one will not want to give in to temptation and sin. However, there is no Christian alive capable of
not sinning. If we could live sinless, there would be no need for a Savior in the first place.
I apologize if my words come across harsh. I just want to shake some sense into people.
__________________
SingPeace
26th July 2010, 10:14 AM #89

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
Originally Posted by Octorock;55325652[QUOTE
]"Sexually Immoral" is a vague term that begs the question of that it's definition is. If you can find the "book,
chapter, and verse" that gives the definition as "sexual activity outside the confines of a sanctified marriage," I
might be inclined to agree with your point.
Be careful for what you wish for, because 1 Corinthians 7:2 clearly includes sex before marriage in the definition of
sexual immorality, all of the Bible verses that condemn sexual immorality as being sinful also condemn sex before
marriage as sinful. Sex before marriage is included in the biblical definition of sexual immorality. There are numerous
Scriptures that declare sex before marriage to be a sin (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians
12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7). The Bible promotes complete
abstinence before marriage. Sex between a husband and his wife is the only form of sexual relations of which God
approves (Hebrews 13:4).
That is unless you can provide book chapter and verse that says otherwise.
It's right between the book, chapter, and verse where God commands, allows, and even permits miscegenation
(that is, interracial relationships and marriage), and the book, chapter, and verse where the Christian
community is to embrace the doctrine that says miscegenation is permissible in or outside of a sanctified
marriage relationship.
"It's Right between the Book, Chapter, and Verse" Is not the same as quoting From a Book, Chapter and Verse. I gave an
example of presenting one with Book Chapter and Verse, now it's your turn.
__________________
God is my judge.
26th July 2010, 10:26 AM #90
55 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
The Bible is silent on same-sex marriage; it is neither mentioned favorably nor unfavorably. There is no
"chapter and verse" to give you on the subject, because it is a logical impossibility to tell you where something
that does not exist it is located. Furthermore, it is obvious that you do not believe that something has to be
expressly permitted by the Bible to be allowed, because if you did you would not be using a computer.
While the Bible provides no information, we can look at the world around us, opening what classical
theologians referred to as the Book of God's Creation to learn more about God's plan. It tells us that
homosexuality is biological in origin, that God creates people this way. It also tells us that two people in a
same-sex marriage are not at a greater risk of harm than two people in a heterosexual marriage, so there is no
reason to forbid it.
Seriously?
Ok, Even if you want to simply blot out all of the passages in the new and old testament that condemn Homosexuality,
You must concede to the point that Homosexuality involves a sexual act. (It's apart of the word so there is no point in
debating this.) So Again, If for some reason you are correct, and the bible does not speak against Homosexuality
specifically (Even though it does), It still speaks against sex in any form outside the confines of a sanctified marriage.
That includes Same sex or opposite sex. So That make Any Sex (Including Homo-Sex) a sin.
So really it doesn't matter how you want to classify your sexual activities, you need to know and accept that All Sex
outside of marriage is a sin...
This evidence leads to two possible conclusions. One is that God does not prohibit same-sex marriage. The
alternative is that God creates people a certain way, then forbids them from acting according to the way he
created them, even though acting according to their created nature causes no harm. If this second hypothesis
is true, it means that God would have to be arbitrary and a tyrant, which is inconsistent with his character.
Welcome to the reality that is basic sin and righteousness. Your observation is not only true for the homosexual
community, but it is true for all of us. We are all born into sin, so that means the bodies we occupy crave it. This is not
something reserved only for gay people all people are faced with this dilemma. But there is a way out of sin, and that is
through the atoning sacrifice the Jesus Christ offers. All one has to do to to receive this cleansing sacrifice is to accept it
by repenting and turning from sin. So again it's not a gay thing, it's a sin thing.
__________________
God is my judge.
Last edited by drich0150; 26th July 2010 at 10:32 AM.
26th July 2010, 12:18 PM #91

My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
Ok, Even if you want to simply blot out all of the passages in the new and old testament that condemn
Homosexuality, You must concede to the point that Homosexuality involves a sexual act. (It's apart of the word
so there is no point in debating this.) So Again, If for some reason you are correct, and the bible does not
speak against Homosexuality specifically (Even though it does), It still speaks against sex in any form outside
the confines of a sanctified marriage. That includes Same sex or opposite sex. So That make Any Sex
(Including Homo-Sex) a sin.
56 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
So really it doesn't matter how you want to classify your sexual activities, you need to know and accept that All
Sex outside of marriage is a sin...
Welcome to the reality that is basic sin and righteousness. Your observation is not only true for the homosexual
community, but it is true for all of us. We are all born into sin, so that means the bodies we occupy crave it.
This is not something reserved only for gay people all people are faced with this dilemma. But there is a way
out of sin, and that is through the atoning sacrifice the Jesus Christ offers. All one has to do to to receive this
cleansing sacrifice is to accept it by repenting and turning from sin. So again it's not a gay thing, it's a sin
thing.
You've produced no evidence that same-sex marriages are forbidden -- either scriptural evidence or real-life evidence.
Without such evidence your arguments catastrophically fail.
__________________
26th July 2010, 12:29 PM #92
Join Date: 28th August 2008

AdamKane Location: Heaven
OceanSoul Posts: 230
22 Blog Entries: 1
Reps: 620,287,695,050,134 (power: 620,287,695,052)
You've produced no evidence that same-sex marriages are forbidden -- either scriptural evidence or real-life
evidence. Without such evidence your arguments catastrophically fail.
Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations
for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust
for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion."
Does this help?

__________________
If you think satellite internet should be cheaper in the United States, then sign my petition here! Why on
Earth can I not delete my posts here? I can on every other vBulletin forum.
26th July 2010, 12:43 PM #93

Jase
Posts: 2,878
Angel of Music
My Mood
27 Reps: 1,412,796,286,125,681 (power: 1,412,796,286,135)
57 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Originally Posted by AdamKane
Does this help?
Nope, it doesn't help. If you would have read previous posts, you would see the Hebrew meaning of Lev 18.
The first "lie" in that verse is a word in Hebrew used to refer to non-consentual sexual relations. The second "lie" refers
to the beds. That verse, in context, in the original Hebrew, is saying for a man not to force or subject another man into
the sexual position of a woman. Such actions were shameful in a patriarchal society. This aligns with the context of the
whole book, warning against Caananite pagan sex rituals where this practice was common.
__________________
26th July 2010, 12:52 PM #94

34 My Mood
Reps: 30,053,369,919,146,188 (power: 30,053,369,919,151)
You've produced no evidence that same-sex marriages are forbidden -- either scriptural evidence or real-life
evidence. Without such evidence your arguments catastrophically fail.
actually I have. i have given a few different scripture that very specifically outline what a marriage relationship looks
like in the eyes of the Lord. (Perhaps This is an opportunity for you to re-read old posts.)These definitions do not include
a same sex partnership in any way shape or form. If you intend to insist that a same sex partnership is permissible by
scripture then the burden of proof is on you to provide Book chapter and verse that shows God does indeed endorse a
same sex marriage.
Without such evidence or scriptural endorsement your argument catastrophically fails, and you must concede this
argument to the truth of the matter. That Homosexuality is a sin. And like all sin it is one that needs repentance, and
forgiveness.
__________________
God is my judge.
26th July 2010, 12:55 PM #95

My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
Originally Posted by AdamKane
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged
natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women
and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in
themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Does this help?
All it shows is that you did not read post #84, and that you merely read scripture superficially.
Cheers!
58 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
__________________
26th July 2010, 12:59 PM #96

My Mood
32 Reps: 2,649,427,645,479,334 (power: 2,649,427,645,486)
actually I have. i have given a few different scripture that very specifically outline what a marriage relationship
looks like in the eyes of the Lord.
I have skimmed through the thread several times and don't see them.
I'm sure, however, that if you're so confident that they solidly support you, you wouldn't mind sharing them with us
again.
__________________
26th July 2010, 01:10 PM #97

MariaRegina Location: The land of the ever grinding tectonic plates
Love is patient; love is kind; love does no evil Posts: 45,828
Blessings: 4,903,520,600 [Bless]
My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,854,828)
Mod Hat on
59 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM
Closed for staff review

Mod Hat off
__________________
Virgin Theotokos, rejoice!
O Mary, Full of Grace;
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
For thou hast borne the Savior of our souls.
+++++
Glory to Jesus Christ!

Glory Forever!
O Giver of Life, Glory to Thee!
Member of the Awesome Christian Forums' Moderating Team
CF Ministry Rocks
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
60 of 60 08/01/2010 10:14 AM

CF Homosexuality Right or Wrong

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CF Homosexuality Right or Wrong

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Homosexuality right or wrong?

[moved from Exploring Christianity]

Homosexuality right or wrong?[moved from Exploring

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

18th July 2010, 10:16 PM #1

lucen15 Join Date: 12th June 2010

Homosexuality right or wrong?[moved from Exploring Christianity]

18th July 2010, 10:45 PM #2

Join Date: 16th March 2008

Originally Posted by lucen15

How do those in the media know who goes to heaven or hell?

Last edited by drich0150; 19th July 2010 at 03:39 PM.

18th July 2010, 10:49 PM #3

lucen15 Join Date: 12th June 2010

Blessings: 2,508 [Bless]

18th July 2010, 10:50 PM #4

lucen15 Join Date: 12th June 2010

19th July 2010, 12:13 AM #5

Join Date: 24th May 2010

No. Next question?

19th July 2010, 08:45 AM #6

Join Date: 20th April 2006

Originally Posted by lucen15

you do you go to heaven?

Last edited by 98cwitr; 19th July 2010 at 08:58 AM.

19th July 2010, 09:06 AM #7

Join Date: 24th February 2007

Originally Posted by lucen15

19th July 2010, 11:09 AM #8

lucen15 Join Date: 12th June 2010

19th July 2010, 12:00 PM #9

Join Date: 24th May 2010

Good questions! You've certainly narrowed the focus here.

19th July 2010, 03:53 PM #10

Join Date: 16th March 2008

This where I got the opening paragraph.

19th July 2010, 03:58 PM #11

Join Date: 16th March 2008

Originally Posted by lucen15

19th July 2010, 04:20 PM #12

Join Date: 16th March 2008

Originally Posted by lucen15

19th July 2010, 05:00 PM #13

Join Date: 20th April 2006

Originally Posted by drich0150

19th July 2010, 05:13 PM #14

Join Date: 16th March 2008

Originally Posted by 98cwitr

Actually no, Paul in Romans 7 Outlines this separation:

19th July 2010, 08:47 PM #15

oi_antz Join Date: 26th April 2010

Originally Posted by lucen15

To enter heaven Jesus says this is criteria:

Understand what it means:

19th July 2010, 09:03 PM #16

Join Date: 6th July 2004

Originally Posted by lucen15

Why would you get your theology from the media?

19th July 2010, 10:57 PM #17

Bryanfromiowa Join Date: 3rd June 2008

Reps: 613,219,160,009,288 (power: 613,219,160,012)

19th July 2010, 11:20 PM #18

Join Date: 24th May 2010