How long will christians take this???

Arella Mae wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Two verses down, thousands to go. What about laying in bed with man as man lays with woman? A tad ambiguous. So I can lay in bed with man but not in the "way" a man lays with woman. What way is that?

Before you answer. I understand what this verse is generally taken to mean, having said that, it still requires a interpretation. If the Bible was meant to be read as literal is would have used less poetic phrasing throughout. If it was meant to be literal, it would read like VCR programming intructions.

That verse you quoted is in the old testament. Jesus wiped all of those old rules out. That is why women are no longer second class citizens, you can work on Sunday, and meat is allowed on Friday.

I wonder why the verse you picked is still used as justification for the second class citizenship of homosexuals, but versus that harm women are 'thrown out'.

Nine of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament. They are still applicable. God never did away with the commandment of do not steal did He? Nope.

Secondly, Jesus gave us two commandments:

1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and;

2) Love one another as God loves us.

You are misquoting me.

I was referring specifically to the 'lay with a another man' verse (I can look it up if you like, but you know the one).

Why is that verse still used as justification for the condemnation of homosexual acts, but other verses are thrown out because of Jesus and the NT.

There is nothing in the NT that deals with homosexuality.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

You are misquoting me.

I was referring specifically to the 'lay with a another man' verse (I can look it up if you like, but you know the one).

Why is that verse still used as justification for the condemnation of homosexual acts, but other verses are thrown out because of Jesus and the NT.

There is nothing in the NT that deals with homosexuality.

Hmm, didn't mean to misquote you. I kind of felt that yours and Deist's posts both touched on the law and that is what I was attempting to address.

The Bible, God's Word, says homosexuality is wrong. No getting around it. That doesn't mean we have the right to go out there and be nasty to anyone that is a homosexual. I don't believe you can justify treating anyone in that manner.

0 Replies

Quote:

There is nothing in the NT that deals with homosexuality.

Are you quite serious? Here are 2 that I know without having to search:

Romans 1:26 & 27- "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." This is in a section about God's wrath.

Jude 1:7- "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." I will assume you know why Gomorrah was destroyed.

Lastly, at the beginning of time, God define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. This excludes homosexuality from the ordained natural partnership. We need no more than this.

0 Replies

Run 4 fun wrote:

Quote:
There is nothing in the NT that deals with homosexuality.

Are you quite serious? Here are 2 that I know without having to search:

Romans 1:26 & 27- "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." This is in a section about God's wrath.

Jude 1:7- "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." I will assume you know why Gomorrah was destroyed.

Lastly, at the beginning of time, God define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. This excludes homosexuality from the ordained natural partnership. We need no more than this.

Ok, my bad.

But these are not without controversy, and obviously a fair share of interpretation.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc2.htm

0 Replies

Why in the world would you need to interpret anything? You were just given the scripture that tells you point blank but then you refer to another? Makes no sense to me at all.

0 Replies

Run 4 fun wrote:

Lastly, at the beginning of time, God define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. This excludes homosexuality from the ordained natural partnership. We need no more than this.

Yeah . . . uh-huh . . . sure . . .

Perhaps you will be so kind as to quote for us, chapter and verse, that passage of scripture which unambiguously states that, at the beginning of time, your boy God unequivocally defined marriage "as between 1 man and 1 woman.:

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

Why in the world would you need to interpret anything? You were just given the scripture that tells you point blank but then you refer to another? Makes no sense to me at all.

Did you even read the links that discuss the controversy or the interpretation.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Did you even read the links that discuss the controversy or the interpretation.

No, I had no need to read them. If you think they need interpretation then fine, but I find it very clear as to what the Bible says about this issue.

The only reason there is any controversy on this issue is because people don't want to do what God says.

I don't know if people are born gary or what but that's not the point. The point is God says it is wrong so it's wrong. Yeah, it requires self-sacrifice to not act on homosexual tendancies, it takes self-sacrifice to do right. That's just the name of that tune.

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Did you even read the links that discuss the controversy or the interpretation.

No, I had no need to read them. If you think they need interpretation then fine, but I find it very clear as to what the Bible says about this issue.

The only reason there is any controversy on this issue is because people don't want to do what God says.

I don't know if people are born gary or what but that's not the point. The point is God says it is wrong so it's wrong. Yeah, it requires self-sacrifice to not act on homosexual tendancies, it takes self-sacrifice to do right. That's just the name of that tune.

Your closemindedness is astounding.

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

I don't know if people are born gary or what but that's not the point. The point is God says it is wrong so it's wrong. Yeah, it requires self-sacrifice to not act on homosexual tendancies, it takes self-sacrifice to do right. That's just the name of that tune.[/color]

And according to your bible, even if you do not act on those homosexual tendancies you are still committing a sin by having those tendancies. A sin in your thoughts is the same as a sin in the flesh.

And I'm curious how you feel about all sin being equal

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Your closemindedness is astounding.

A double minded man (woman) is unstable in all their ways. What good is a belief in something if you are going to sway with every wind of change that is out there? God does not change. His word does not change. Call me closeminded, whatever you will but I will stand on the Word of God.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

And according to your bible, even if you do not act on those homosexual tendancies you are still committing a sin by having those tendancies. A sin in your thoughts is the same as a sin in the flesh.

And I'm curious how you feel about all sin being equal

No offense meant maporsche, but why should I continue on in a conversation where you have judged me closeminded and do it, in my opinion, because I don't think or believe the way you do?

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

maporsche wrote:
And according to your bible, even if you do not act on those homosexual tendancies you are still committing a sin by having those tendancies. A sin in your thoughts is the same as a sin in the flesh.

And I'm curious how you feel about all sin being equal

No offense meant maporsche, but why should I continue on in a conversation where you have judged me closeminded and do it, in my opinion, because I don't think or believe the way you do?

Maybe you shouldn't continue to conversations with me......but I've heard you make these threats before and you never follow through for very long.

Besides, you're wrong, I did not declare you closeminded because your beliefs differ from my own. I declared you to be closeminded because you are unwilling to read a different point of view.

0 Replies

Quote:

Perhaps you will be so kind as to quote for us, chapter and verse, that passage of scripture which unambiguously states that, at the beginning of time, your boy God unequivocally defined marriage "as between 1 man and 1 woman.:

there is no verse that says that verbatim, but maybe this is what he is getting at....

Gen 2:22-23 And the rib,which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman,because she was taken out of Man.

genesis 2:24 Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

0 Replies

"...at the beginning, the Creator 'made them male and female' and said 'For this reason man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife; and the two will become one flesh.'" (NIV)

Yep, just like Kate said. Cool

It was on the maporsche's controversy site.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Maybe you shouldn't continue to conversations with me......but I've heard you make these threats before and you never follow through for very long.

Oh, ok, so my interactions with you are not what you are basing your opinion of me on, but on my interactions with others? And sorry, but you are incorrect about the NEVER FOLLOW through for long. I can tell you of one poster in particular I promised I would never directly address or ever post in a thread of theirs again. I haven't broken my word on that. It's a shame that you have to bring up things in the past that have nothing to do with my discussion with you.

In my opinion, once someone makes a statement like: you're closeminded, you're wrong, etc., the conversation is basically over because you now have the mind that is closed to what I may say.

Quote:

Besides, you're wrong, I did not declare you closeminded because your beliefs differ from my own. I declared you to be closeminded because you are unwilling to read a different point of view.

Fair enough. But, perhaps you should rephrase that? You seem to have no problem bringing up my interactions in the past but in this instance you are ignoring the fact that I was very openminded at one time and the posters on A2K had a long, long discussion with me about homosexuality and I questioned my beliefs about it. But, I guess that doesn't count because I ended up still beliving God's word is just what it is. I am assuming that you probably know about that discussion since you seem to know me so well and how I am.

My point was, you were given what God says about this subject in the Bible and it was very clear and didn't need interpreting. But, you didn't accept it. That's fine. I do accept it. This subject has been discussed ad nauseum (I'm sure to many) and it still comes down to the same thing. The Bible says it's wrong and man (the world) wants to make it right. It just doesn't work like that.

0 Replies

Quote:

My point was, you were given what God says about this subject in the Bible and it was very clear and didn't need interpreting. But, you didn't accept it. That's fine. I do accept it. This subject has been discussed ad nauseum (I'm sure to many) and it still comes down to the same thing. The Bible says it's wrong and man (the world) wants to make it right. It just doesn't work like that.

as arella mae has stated "lie" in lev 20:13 means copulation. The hebrew word "bkX" transliterated "shakab" has several definitions. But the tense used in verse 13 and in 11 other verses in leviticus means "to lay down with sexually". And even if one still disagrees, they can take note of romans 1:27, 1cor 6:9, 1 tim 1:10....to see that even outside of the law, God sees homosexuality as wrong.

0 Replies

Since God was OK with David having 700 wives (not to mention 300 concubines) and many other OT characters had multiple wives, I don't know how anyone can claim that there is Biblical support for the notion that God intended marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman.

Arella Mae, you claim that the Word of God does not change, but it most certainly did from the OT to the NT. God had a covenant with the Israelites which imposed very strict dietary and conduct Laws and required transgressors to be stoned to death for certain infractions. Although Jesus said that he was not here to change the Law, Paul decided that the Law no longer applied, and many Christians inexplicably celebrate Easter by eating ham, even though God said that eating pork is an abomination.

Read Exodus 34, then explain to me why the Ten Commandments that were written on Moses' second set of stone tablets are not acknowledged by Christians.

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Did you even read the links that discuss the controversy or the interpretation.

No, I had no need to read them. If you think they need interpretation then fine, but I find it very clear as to what the Bible says about this issue.

The only reason there is any controversy on this issue is because people don't want to do what God says.

I don't know if people are born gary or what but that's not the point. The point is God says it is wrong so it's wrong. Yeah, it requires self-sacrifice to not act on homosexual tendancies, it takes self-sacrifice to do right. That's just the name of that tune.

Mind closed tighter than a clamshell when the tide is out.

So Arella, this was all bullshit then??

Arella Mae wrote:

Wolfie, J_B, flushd,

Wolfie, thanx so much for telling me that. I am so sorry you had any pain caused by anyone because of who you are. And, I am sorry that my mindset and attitude through life has been part of that. Maybe not to you directly, but it's been there.

I have looked at quite a bit throughout this thread and a couple of other things that have shown me some things about myself that I needed to see.

I didn't think I was hurting anyone by the way I felt about this issue. I was completely wrong about that. COMPLETELY WRONG! I cannot apologize enough for my actions.

I can; however, make sure that I don't repeat them. Thank everyone so much for going through this with me and helping me to discover these things.

I was a homophobic bigot. I WAS a homophobic bigot. I am not one now.

Sozobe, thank YOU especially for starting this thread and taking the time to go through this with me. You're a very special person.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1913982#1913982

Arella Mae wrote:

CI,

You are a gentleman. Hi, I'm Momma Angel and I'm glad to meet you.

Mesquite,

Now, I owe you an apology also. This has not been an easy thing for me to do. But, it is definitely something I have found very necessary. I can now see how my attitude and actions deeply offended and most likely hurt you, Mesquite. I wish I could go back and change it, but I can't. Please forgive me for being such a close-minded fool in regard to this issue and others. I hope that you can forgive me and we can go back to that bantering back and forth with a bit of humor and a good dose of reality (usually from you, that is)?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1914089#1914089

mesquite wrote:

No apologies needed MA. It is not what you have said in the past , but what you say in the future that matters.

Concerning the perceived conflict with your religious views, many other devoutly religious people have found a way to reconcile this issue and I sincerely hope that you will be able to also.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1915111#1915111

Arella Mae wrote:

Thank you, Mesquite. I am hoping to reconcile these issues. I think I'm on the right track. :wink:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1915147#1915147

0 Replies

Hey Terry, polygyny was not God's design and just because the Bible says that something happened does not meant that God approved of it. Just as God permitted that the stubborn, rebellious Israelites to divorce, that still does not show that is right in any way. David and Solomon's having many wives cause much trouble for them.

You can read about Peter's vision about the animals on the blanket, the role of Jesus in reconciliation of Gentiles and the law, and the decisions of the early church concerning new Gentile converts as recorded in Acts and the Epistles. That ought to solve your difficulty.

0 Replies

How long will christians take this???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know