jaden kendam
falsethreats
Mei tsuki7
Homosexuality is not against the Bible.
Firstly Christians do not have to follow the OT because Jesus came and fulfilled the old laws and old covenant and made new laws and a new covenant. That gets rid of Levitucus.
There is nothing in the NT that speaks of homosexuality being a sin.
Therefore homosexuality is not a sin.
Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10
rolleyes
I absolute loathe how you interpret Jesus' saying that he came to fulfill the law. Truly we are saved by grace and we live under grace, but that doesn't mean that sins defined in the Old Testament cease to be sins. That's why Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law." Before the law, sin did not count (Romans 5:13,) but Jesus didn't get rid of the law. Paul teaches in Romans 6 that we are dead to sin and alive in Christ. Therefore, we no longer live in sin. Does this not mean that we ought to fight our sinfulness? Or, would you prefer to be like Anne Hutchinson and say "You're saved, so go out there and live like the devil. You'll still go to heaven"?
Christ did not get rid of the law. The law still exists, and therefore sin still exists and it still displeases God. His righteousness has fulfilled the law which condemns us and we are presented before the Father as justified. Our position in Christ is perfect righteousness but our condition in Christ is sanctification by the Holy Spirit to conform to Christ's image. In other words, if your desire to be a child of God, He will work in you to abandon your sins, including homosexuality.
Wow, you even took Mathew out of context for that tripe. Put Romans in context. Taking the bible out of context to justify your hate is despicable. Put Corinthians against other English versions of the bible and you will see that they don't all say what you are saying they do. As for Timothy, I will get to it in time when I am not busy.
jaden kendam
falsethreats
jaden kendam
falsethreats
jaden kendam
That establishes no credibility. "I don't reject black people cause of their skin. I have a number of black friends." Does that sound familiar? Does he list his use of scripture to support his statements?
Also, could you point to me where having a temper is a sin in scripture?
Except being black is not a sin. >_>
Really? Neither was shown homosexuality to be. But one might have thought that the statements are the same in their value of credibility. Which is to say that there is none.
Homosexuality is not a sin? Then correctly disprove my reasoning that homosexuality is a sin, with full use of Scripture.
I already disproved you based on the fact that you took Romans out of context. You have lied as to what it says. And yes, taking it out of context to fit your needs is lieing about the message behind it.
falsethreats
Quote:
But it doesnt always lead to unreasonable anger, so that point is moot as well. Also, from experience, some people are quick to anger, but not against people or animals, only computers. Does that mean that them calling the computer a piece of s**t is a sin?
Oh really? Are you able to correctly assess a situation in which you are getting angry about in less time than it takes you to be quick to anger? No. Quickness to anger does not allow you time to think through the situation. It doesn't matter if you get angry at your computer or your toaster or any inanimate object, because if you're quick tempered, how you react to these things will reflect how you react to actual people or animals.
Try agains. This time with actual proof that quick tempered means you get mad at all things equally.
Face it, your argument and the person who took from, argument failed when I pointed out those two things. Saying having a temper is a sin is a lie about what th bible says. Saying you dont hate gays, cause you have gay friends does not lend anything to credibility. My counter example proved that.
1) Why not explain to me why I put these things out of context instead of telling me to put them into context? If there's something I'm genuinely missing about these passages, why not explain instead of accuse? This is entirely what you're doing here, and it gets us nowhere in this discussion.
2) Your dismissive attitude fails to back up your statements. Further explanation for the guy who doesn't seem to use logic: I question any person who claims to be quick-tempered towards inanimate objects and not at people. Quick-temperedness does not allow you time to think (as I pointed out earlier) so will a person be given time to make distinction between animate and inanimate when getting angry? Do you rely so much on your sub-conscience to guide your anger correctly? When I become quick to anger, I only later realize how unreasonable I become towards the object of my anger, animate or inanimate.
3) Okay, so supposing that my credibility is not solid from what I said about having homosexual friends. If that's so, then Scripture will be my credibility. You accuse me of taking Scripture out of context, but I counter this by the many years I've spent studying Scripture and systematic theology. Unlike most people, I strive to understand Scripture the way God intends for it to be studied. This is not based on my own personal prejudices, otherwise I would have rejected God a long time ago. Do you think I sit well with the fact that the magnitude of my sins is as great as the dignity of God? It's absolutely depressing, even as a Christian saved by grace! Do you think any human would truly personally accept the concept of the holiness and justice of God? I've seen many people reject the gospel, the substitutionary atonement, the supremacy and sovereignty of God, and many other things because they cannot come to terms with reality under the Scripture. I accept all of these not because it personally fits with me, but because God is not subject to my will, but instead I am subject to the will of my Father. If you are so sure of your accusations against me, then prove, with evidence, that I am incorrect, rather than do nothing but spewing accusations without backup.
