another gay thread, cause I know u all love it!

[FriendofTomO]

Lets Clarify

Lets Clarify

Hello again, well guys I first want to say to Heartless adam, I appologize if I misunderstood your post, Also just to clarify, I pointed out Romans chapter one to show homosexuality is in the Bible and it does say that it is wrong. I am in turmoil becauseI I love the Lord and need council on how to become free from this sin, However that is my personall battle and I do not point the finger at anyone else who is gay and does not want to change I just pray that God free's them as well. Also MY point was completely proven with this thread, bcause allthough there were several responces to my post, Not one you offered any solution or hope, just continual debate against who says what to whome, One would think that as I said before in a Forum of "Smart Guys" who are supposed to know the Bible that you would remember the verse in Corinthians that speaks of how you can have knowledge abounding, but if you have not Love you have nothing and not be so condeming against gays, adulterers, or whatever else you point the finger at.....And one more thing, I am also not for gay rights and I do not go to marches or hold up picket sighns.....But I do pray for those that do....

 

[asilentskeptic]

Well i don't think homos where campaigning for equal rights in biblical times, yet it still got a mention.

As did all of the other sins mentioned. Adultery, dishonesty, eating shrimp, cutting the hair on the side of your head. Yada yada. It's one sin in a giant list of them. The Bible mentions a LOT of sins, It's just an easy sin to focus on and discuss because of current social and political climate. Probably wasn't as heavily discussed 150 years ago as it is now due to the culture at the time. If it was kept private (as I think most sex topics should be), and NOT displayed in public, it would get a lot less discussion. But it is displayed in public, and it is put on placards and signs during marches and protests. So people are talking about it. Natural reaction. If you brought your dog out and carried a sign that wanted equal rights for you and your animal "partner" you would get the same reaction.

 

[Evee]

How about polygamy? I've been thinking about getting myself a second wife. The one I currently have is fine with that as long as the new one isn't younger, prettier, or a redhead. :grave:

BTW, this is an issue in which the left is extremely hypocritical. They'll rally all day around gay rights, but ask them about a man with two wives or a wife with two husbands and they'll run you out of town... IMO, if you're going to advocate one, you better be willing to advocate all, or just shut up.

ROTFL a second wife huh that will cost you. :dead:

 

[Daniel50]

ROTFL a second wife huh that will cost you. :dead:

:juggle:

 

[Mr Fields]

ROTFL a second wife huh that will cost you. :dead:

You betcha. One at home armed with a credit card is enough trouble. I couldn't fathom two. Besides, my wife tells me that if we got a second wife, she's not sure if she and the other wife would share each other with me. Hmmm... Wonder what the anti-homo crowd on here will do with that one?

 

[Servo]

Jesus said if you divorce and remarry you commit adultery. Period NO exception. " He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Did you even read Turbo's post?

But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.Matthew 5:32

 

[HerodionRomulus]

Did you even read Turbo's post?

I would say that the Mark passage allows for no exception. Matthew introduces an exception and later Paul allows several.
Since Mark is generally considered the oldest text and therefore more reliable, then it should be considered the most accurate statement of what Jesus said.
And people today make more and more excuses for allowing divorce. If only infidelity is an allowable reason, then why do women divorce husbands who beat them?

And Mark clearly says that remarriage is adultery. No other place is it considered differently. Therefore, regardless of whether or not you make excuses for divorce, remarriage is still a Top Ten Sin.

As to claiming that no one approves of divorce and adultery? :cow:

According to the standard of Jesus regarding remarriage, Ronald Reagan was a practicing adulterer. Jane Wyman is alive and well.
I have never heard so-called conservative Christians condemn him--far from it, they practically idolize him.

Ditto on divorce. Rev. Charles Stanley is divorced, but Lifeway books still prominently displays his books and crap for sale. Does that sound like disapproval.
Unlike you, God has never said He hates gay people or their sexuality. But "I hate divorce, says the Lord" Mal 2:16 nrsv

How many people cling to every word of Rush Limbaugh, now on his 4th or 5th marriage.

Pat Robertson once did a puff-piece on Mickey Rooney on the 700 Club. What a great man of God yada yada yada. This despite the fact that Rooney has had 8 or 9 wives and is a member of North Hollywood Church of Religious Science.

Those who remember the tv program Touched By An Angel will probably rant about what wonderful values the show promoted. I recall that churches encouraged people to watch it because of these alleged good values. The star, Della Reese was an ordained minister in the Church of Religious Science.

Do you demand a constitutional amendment against divorce. Against adultery? I've yet to hear of it?
Does your church cancel the membership of divorced people?
Do you support laws forbidding divorced people to remarry?
Do you promote laws allowing work place discrimination against divorced people? Adulterers, shrimp eaters? against people who wear polycotton garments?
Should the Armed Forces give dishonable discharges to divorced people?

Hypocrisy. my point is hypocrisy. A far worse wrong, especially religious hypocrites.

 

[HerodionRomulus]

Whoever said the Jewish law was to be "tossed away"? Jesus certainly didn't.

It was later fulfilled by Jesus and then ceased.
II Cor 3:12ff "abolished" QJV
Col 2:14 "set...aside" NRSV
Heb. 7:18 "abrogation"; 8:13 "obsolete" NRSV

 

[TomO]

I would say that the Mark passage allows for no exception. Matthew introduces an exception and later Paul allows several.
Since Mark is generally considered the oldest text and therefore more reliable, then it should be considered the most accurate statement of what Jesus said.
And people today make more and more excuses for allowing divorce. If only infidelity is an allowable reason, then why do women divorce husbands who beat them?

:squint:Oh, I see....it is you who is the arbiter of what within the Bible is Scripture and what is not.........thank you, I was so confused.......I thought that the whole book was Scripture. Thank OUR LORD for those such as you who will "divide" the Word of OUR LORD for us.

Hypocrisy. my point is hypocrisy. A far worse wrong, especially religious hypocrites.

Indeed, but false teachers are far worse than even this.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

You betcha. One at home armed with a credit card is enough trouble. I couldn't fathom two. Besides, my wife tells me that if we got a second wife, she's not sure if she and the other wife would share each other with me. Hmmm... Wonder what the anti-homo crowd on here will do with that one?

We'd probably start calling you Ross.

 

[Wessex Man]

Whoever said the Jewish law was to be "tossed away"?

Paul
or whoever wrote the epistles attributed to him.

 

[Wessex Man]

OH BTW, God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorah for eating pork!

I've have read in several places that in fact in the original hebrew that it probably wasn't meant as homosexuality.

How do we know that? He said so.

So tempting.......but I won't correct you.

 

[Wessex Man]

Well i don't think homos where campaigning for equal rights in biblical times, yet it still got a mention.

In most of the ancient world they wouldn't of needed too.

 

[Delmar]

I've have read in several places that in fact in the original hebrew that it probably wasn't meant as homosexuality.

So tempting.......but I won't correct you.

If I'm wrong I should be corrected

 

[Wessex Man]

If I'm wrong I should be corrected

I was just gonna say the pseudonymous gospel baselessly attributed to Matthew says this,it of course doesn't mean Jesus said it ,he might not have even existed,this is however off-topic.

 

[Delmar]

I was just gonna say the pseudonymous gospel baselessly attributed to Matthew says this,it of course doesn't mean Jesus said it ,he might not have even existed,this is however off-topic.

Wow, you sure showed me!

 

[Wessex Man]

Wow, you sure showed me!

The truth always shines through.

 

[HerodionRomulus]

QJV?

Joke. King James I of England was gay=Queen James Version.

Um, ok. You have there is a passage about individuals being forgiven for their sins, nothing at all about the law being set aside.

Col 2:13-15 (ESV)
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

the "legal demands" are what "this" sets aside.

Both 7:18 & 8:13 are a part of a longer discussion of the end of the need for the Aaronic/Levitcal priesthood following the death resurrection of Christ and in no way comments on the moral aspects of the law.

Those portions of the law regarding sacrifices, the temple, and ritual cleanliness related to those things were not overturned or forbidden by the death and resurrection of Christ, they were simply no longer needed as Christ's sacrifice fulfilled the purpose of every one of those sacrifices from then until the end of time. It is in this sense that those portions of the law are obsolete.

Sorry but I don't buy this invented notion that some of the Law was eliminated and some was not. Is the prohibtion against blended fabrics still valid? How about usury?
This is pick-n-choose. The (singular) Law was "abolished"
It was replaced by one imperative I John 3:23: love God love people.
Murder is not love, discrimination is not love, bigotry is not love, war is not love, adultery is not love, poverty is not love, oppression is not love etc etc

And I didn't even mention Galatians!

 

[HerodionRomulus]

:squint:Oh, I see....it is you who is the arbiter of what within the Bible is Scripture and what is not.........thank you, I was so confused.......I thought that the whole book was Scripture. Thank OUR LORD for those such as you who will "divide" the Word of OUR LORD for us.

When two passages do not agree, what criterion do you use to determine which has more validity?
I merely applied the standard used by reputable scholars and commentators.

 

[TomO]

When two passages do not agree, what criterion do you use to determine which has more validity?
I merely applied the standard used by reputable scholars and commentators.

I tend to use the criterion utilized by truly reputable Christian Scholars and compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

:readthis: If you will compare the passages : you are referring to (I suppose) you will see that Mk.10:1-12 and Mat.5:31-32 are two different occurances......The passage that Matthew records were the words of OUR LORD during the Sermon on the Mount.......the passage that Mark records were the words of OUR LORD at a different time, a time when Pharisees came to HIM to test HIM.
oly: If you have any further confusion on the matter you can turn to Mat.19:1-9.....the same occurance which is recorded in Mark is recorded here in Matthew.......you will notice that the passages agree.

:think:Regarding the further teachings on divorce by Paul you may see that he says many things that OUR LORD did not.......this does not necessitate that a contradiction exists.