How is being gay a sin?

[jaden kendam]

falsethreats

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.

Romans 1:21-30 (New International Version)

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

There is Romans 1:21-1:30. Notice the context now?

Site

1 Corinthians 6:9 >>


NIV© 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

NAS© Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

ISV© You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

GWT© Don't you know that wicked people won't inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals,

KJV Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

AKJ Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

ASV Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

BBE Have you not knowledge that evil-doers will have no part in the kingdom of God? Have no false ideas about this: no one who goes after the desires of the flesh, or gives worship to images, or is untrue when married, or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men,

DRB Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,

DBY Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,

ERV Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

WBS Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

WEY Do you not know that unrighteous men will not inherit God's Kingdom? Cherish no delusion here. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime,

WEB Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,

YLT have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

Corinthians 6:9

1 Timothy 1:10 >>


NIV© for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

NAS© and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

ISV© for those involved in sexual immorality, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for false witnesses, and for whatever else goes against the healthy teaching

GWT© Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings.

KJV For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

AKJ For fornicators, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for enslavers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

ASV for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;

BBE For those who go after loose women, for those with unnatural desires, for those who take men prisoners, who make false statements and false oaths, and those who do any other things against the right teaching,

DRB For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,

DBY fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers; and if any other thing is opposed to sound teaching,

ERV for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;

WBS For lewd persons, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,

WEY fornicators, sodomites, slave-dealers, liars and false witnesses; and for whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching

WEB for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;

YLT whoremongers, sodomites, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that to sound doctrine is adverse,

Timothy 1:10

Neither all versions of Timothy or Corinithians says homosexuals.

Site for both Corinthians and Timothy

falsethreats

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.

Once again, and my dismissive attitude of your statement is highly justified is that quick temper does not always lead to the sin that you said. Your own words even pointed that out. Also, just because you fly off the handle everytime you get angry, does not mean that everyone does. Some peoples temper just stews or they b***h and complain at their computer or they go and hit a punching bag or go for a walk. Doesn't mean they take it out on animals or other people.

falsethreats

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.

I already proved it. Obviously, by taking one verse out of Romans, you can point and say, ebil homos, but when you do that, you lose the context of why the people are being punished. There, I just posted my points for you so that you may be able to refigure them out for yourself.

[Mei tsuki7]

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.

Corinthians is a misinterpretation and Timothy says nothing about homosexuality. Romans speaks of the sin of sex before marriage, adultery and bestiality.

Jesus reestablished most of the OT's laws in the new set of laws. The second half of the first paragraph has no meaning to the discussion. I never said we should sin I said homosexuality isn't a sin and the only sins are those that Jesus spoke of because after all Christians are followers of Christ not followers of Paul or the OT. Bearing that in mind if homosexuality was such a big sin why didn't Jesus speak of it? He spoke of all the other sins.

Christ made new laws and a new covenant. I never said sin didn't exist. I said Jesus redefined what was a sin and what wasn't.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

[Mei tsuki7]

falsethreats

xLady Tsukiyox

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.

Romans 1:27 is talking about women who should be submissive verses dominant.

1 Cor 6:9 is not only a mistranslation but also a misinterpretation. The term effeminate refers to men who are act feminine and in Paul's context it refers to those who are not disciplined. Now the term effeminate doesn't just apply to homosexuals but also to straight males. My best friend is effeminate and doesn't hide it, he cooks, cleans, and sews. He is 100% straight. My dad can do the same, and he is 100% straight.

Romans 1:27 - and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

"Men committing shameless act with men" sounds to me like men sleeping with other men. Even if this is done after marriage it's still an abomination to God.

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

The KJV translation refers to this not as "effeminate" but instead as "abusers of themselves with mankind." The Gill commentary translates this as "sodomites" and several dictionaries define this as a "male homosexual." Going back to Romans 1:27, doesn't the "shameless act" not refer to this passage?

That is your interpretation of those words. It could mean bestiality or even just adultery because they were obviously not married to those men.

Corintians is a horrible mistranslation. It was written in Greek and the Greeks had a word for homosexual that Paul did not use. He used a word of his own creation that was a conjugation of the words "boy" and "bed." It is most likely speaking of ***** and/or the temple prostitutes.

[Herald of Lies]

Akhenaton of man

Herald of Lies

May not be good for my health, but logically if I'm going to have my particular religion I should put it first, otherwise it's most certainly an utter waste of time.

But in the end, could you do that? You can physically get away with violating your religion, but if you violate the law, you will go to jail. It doesn't matter whether you like the law or not, you have to respect the law over your religion because you are forced to.

Well if by respect you include me breaking it and getting thrown in jail, then yes I would be forced to respect the law.

That does not mean I will have to respect the Constitution, I could vote for unconstitutional things and it's possible they'll get by. And though I was talking in general that would be sorta relevant to certain specific cases like this one.

Quote:

Herald of Lies

Not that my religion would call for violence in any particular circumstance I can think of so I doubt it would get to be that bad.

Yeah, but if you start molesting children and hoarding illegal weapons and then open fire on the ATF and SWAT team, then you have no excuse.

Well yeah my religion couldn't possibly call for that short of God changing things majorly between now an then.

[Herald of Lies]

Mei tsuki7

falsethreats

xLady Tsukiyox

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.

Romans 1:27 is talking about women who should be submissive verses dominant.

1 Cor 6:9 is not only a mistranslation but also a misinterpretation. The term effeminate refers to men who are act feminine and in Paul's context it refers to those who are not disciplined. Now the term effeminate doesn't just apply to homosexuals but also to straight males. My best friend is effeminate and doesn't hide it, he cooks, cleans, and sews. He is 100% straight. My dad can do the same, and he is 100% straight.

Romans 1:27 - and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

"Men committing shameless act with men" sounds to me like men sleeping with other men. Even if this is done after marriage it's still an abomination to God.

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

The KJV translation refers to this not as "effeminate" but instead as "abusers of themselves with mankind." The Gill commentary translates this as "sodomites" and several dictionaries define this as a "male homosexual." Going back to Romans 1:27, doesn't the "shameless act" not refer to this passage?

That is your interpretation of those words. It could mean bestiality or even just adultery because they were obviously not married to those men.

Corintians is a horrible mistranslation. It was written in Greek and the Greeks had a word for homosexual that Paul did not use. He used a word of his own creation that was a conjugation of the words "boy" and "bed." It is most likely speaking of ***** and/or the temple prostitutes.

Beastiality? Uh how? Animals are not men...

[falsethreats]

jaden kendam

falsethreats

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.

Romans 1:21-30 (New International Version)

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

There is Romans 1:21-1:30. Notice the context now?

Site

Haha! Do you know that I'm doing an intensive study on the book of Romans, and I'm doing this verse by verse placing context where needed?

The context of this is that God gave them up to their own sinful desires, thus leading men to committing acts of homosexual sex. They refused to follow God's ordained purpose of sexual relations, which is one man and one woman. You still think I'm out of context?

Quote:

1 Corinthians 6:9 >>


NIV© 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
NAS© Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
ISV© You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,
GWT© Don't you know that wicked people won't inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals,
KJV Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
AKJ Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
ASV Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
BBE Have you not knowledge that evil-doers will have no part in the kingdom of God? Have no false ideas about this: no one who goes after the desires of the flesh, or gives worship to images, or is untrue when married, or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men,
DRB Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
DBY Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
ERV Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
WBS Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
WEY Do you not know that unrighteous men will not inherit God's Kingdom? Cherish no delusion here. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime,
WEB Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
YLT have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

Corinthians 6:9

The ones listed in bold refer to homosexual males. If you disagree, might I ask why some translations list the word "homosexual" and others don't? Interestingly, the D-R Bible's translation doesn't actually say the word "homosexual" or anything that refers to homosexuality. But, just because you think it doesn't appear on some translations, are we to reject the ones that do say "homosexual"? As an aspiring theologian, I have to say that this is a poor attempt at trying to disprove the sin of homosexuality.

Quote:

1 Timothy 1:10 >>


NIV© for adulterers and perverts (synonymous with "unnatural" wink , for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
NAS© and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
ISV© for those involved in sexual immorality, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for false witnesses, and for whatever else goes against the healthy teaching
GWT© Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings.
KJV For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind(referring to KJV translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
AKJ For fornicators, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for enslavers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
ASV for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;
BBE For those who go after loose women, for those with unnatural desires, for those who take men prisoners, who make false statements and false oaths, and those who do any other things against the right teaching,
DRB For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,
DBY fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers; and if any other thing is opposed to sound teaching,
ERV for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;
WBS For lewd persons, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
WEY fornicators, sodomites, slave-dealers, liars and false witnesses; and for whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching
WEB for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;
YLT whoremongers, sodomites, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that to sound doctrine is adverse,

Timothy 1:10

Neither all versions of Timothy or Corinithians says homosexuals.

Site for both Corinthians and Timothy

Once again, the words in bold are clear that homosexuality is a sin.

jaden kandam

falsethreats

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.

Once again, and my dismissive attitude of your statement is highly justified is that quick temper does not always lead to the sin that you said. Your own words even pointed that out. Also, just because you fly off the handle everytime you get angry, does not mean that everyone does. Some peoples temper just stews or they b***h and complain at their computer or they go and hit a punching bag or go for a walk. Doesn't mean they take it out on animals or other people.

If you're prone to react very impatiently with a machine, it DOES mean you may be prone to reacting very impatiently with humans. The object of your anger matters not when it's your nature to react to anger impulsively. From my observation, at this point, your reasoning hold no further solidity than mine. Hold not to your unmerited pride!

[falsethreats]

Mei tsuki7

falsethreats

xLady Tsukiyox

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.

Romans 1:27 is talking about women who should be submissive verses dominant.

1 Cor 6:9 is not only a mistranslation but also a misinterpretation. The term effeminate refers to men who are act feminine and in Paul's context it refers to those who are not disciplined. Now the term effeminate doesn't just apply to homosexuals but also to straight males. My best friend is effeminate and doesn't hide it, he cooks, cleans, and sews. He is 100% straight. My dad can do the same, and he is 100% straight.

Romans 1:27 - and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

"Men committing shameless act with men" sounds to me like men sleeping with other men. Even if this is done after marriage it's still an abomination to God.

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

The KJV translation refers to this not as "effeminate" but instead as "abusers of themselves with mankind." The Gill commentary translates this as "sodomites" and several dictionaries define this as a "male homosexual." Going back to Romans 1:27, doesn't the "shameless act" not refer to this passage?

That is your interpretation of those words. It could mean bestiality or even just adultery because they were obviously not married to those men.

Corintians is a horrible mistranslation. It was written in Greek and the Greeks had a word for homosexual that Paul did not use. He used a word of his own creation that was a conjugation of the words "boy" and "bed." It is most likely speaking of ***** and/or the temple prostitutes.

So, you're suggesting that some of the widely accepted translations of the Bible are wrong? Do you not trust in the sovereignty of God, that He is able to pass down the Scriptures, unchanged and inerrant? It's like saying, "God allows His words to be manipulated, misleading millions upon millions."

[CuAnnan]

falsethreats

So, you're suggesting that some of the widely accepted translations of the Bible are wrong? Do you not trust in the sovereignty of God, that He is able to pass down the Scriptures, unchanged and inerrant? It's like saying, "God allows His words to be manipulated, misleading millions upon millions."

Are you claiming God is preventing mistakes from entering the bible?
Since you seem to claim the bible is inerrant, which version is correct?

[falsethreats]

Mei tsuki7

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.

Corinthians is a misinterpretation and Timothy says nothing about homosexuality. Romans speaks of the sin of sex before marriage, adultery and bestiality.

Jesus reestablished most of the OT's laws in the new set of laws. The second half of the first paragraph has no meaning to the discussion. I never said we should sin I said homosexuality isn't a sin and the only sins are those that Jesus spoke of because after all Christians are followers of Christ not followers of Paul or the OT. Bearing that in mind if homosexuality was such a big sin why didn't Jesus speak of it? He spoke of all the other sins.

Christ made new laws and a new covenant. I never said sin didn't exist. I said Jesus redefined what was a sin and what wasn't.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

"Corinthians is a misinterpretation and Timothy says nothing about homosexuality. Romans speaks of the sin of sex before marriage, adultery and bestiality."

Elaborate on that quote.

There is no new set of laws. Do you know anything about the law? I would suggest you read carefully the book of Romans. Paul explains that our works (under the law) could not earn us heaven. Instead, Jesus had to die to become the substitutionary atonement for our sins. Because He died on that cross, He basically fulfilled the law by giving us His righteousness. There is no new set of laws. He does tell His disciples to obey His commands, but those commands are not laws. If they were, then it would mean that we absolutely must follow them in order to get into heaven. What does Ephesians 2:8 say? WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH. By grace alone we are saved. By the grace of God, the Holy Spirit works in us in order for us to be able to follow Jesus' commands. That's how we know we have grace in our lives, by the work of God to will and work for His good purpose (Philippians 2:13.)

We're followers of Christ, yes, but I believe you're confused on who Jesus is. Remember that Jesus was a Jew, and He knew and followed the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law essentially represents the perfection of God, and if Jesus is also God, He cannot contradict Himself. He abides by the Mosaic laws, including the law against homosexuality. If we are truly Christ followers, we will NOT ignore the laws of the Old Testament.

I question your discrediting of Paul by saying we are not followers of Paul. Paul was one who followed Christ, and we benefit much by following his teachings and his example. Furthermore, he's an apostle, so he speaks and writes with the authority of the Holy Spirit.

You never said sin didn't exist, but your words lead to that conclusion. When you said "This gets rid of Leviticus," you're essentially saying that the laws within Leviticus are gone. And, where there is no law, there can be no sin counted against one. This would leave a very misguided believer to conclude that he/she can sin because sin is no more.

I'm greatly frustrated by the lack of understanding of even basic Christian truths and lack of faith in the inerrancy of Scripture evident in so many people on this forum. It is even more upsetting that some of the atheists who post on this subforum are more knowledgeable about Christianity than you. Heed the advice of a theologian: reexamine your basic Biblical doctrine.

[falsethreats]

CuAnnan

falsethreats

So, you're suggesting that some of the widely accepted translations of the Bible are wrong? Do you not trust in the sovereignty of God, that He is able to pass down the Scriptures, unchanged and inerrant? It's like saying, "God allows His words to be manipulated, misleading millions upon millions."

Are you claiming God is preventing mistakes from entering the bible?
Since you seem to claim the bible is inerrant, which version is correct?

I would see it this way: in Christian history, there have been many manipulated versions that people tried to spread through publication. Thanks to the sovereignty of God and the work of his servants, these "bibles" were exposed and never became widely accepted as Scripture. Also, thanks to the tens of thousands of manuscripts that we have for the Bible, we can be sure that any manipulation of the Bible will be exposed. John Piper alone reads his Bible from cover to cover every year, and manages to discuss about the accuracy of ONE word in a random passage! How, then, will a mistranslation be able to go undetected in the midst of thousands of theologians? Of course, none of this would be possible if not for the sovereignty of God.

[xLady Tsukiyox]

falsethreats

xLady Tsukiyox

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.

Romans 1:27 is talking about women who should be submissive verses dominant.

1 Cor 6:9 is not only a mistranslation but also a misinterpretation. The term effeminate refers to men who are act feminine and in Paul's context it refers to those who are not disciplined. Now the term effeminate doesn't just apply to homosexuals but also to straight males. My best friend is effeminate and doesn't hide it, he cooks, cleans, and sews. He is 100% straight. My dad can do the same, and he is 100% straight.

Romans 1:27 - and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

"Men committing shameless act with men" sounds to me like men sleeping with other men. Even if this is done after marriage it's still an abomination to God.

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

The KJV translation refers to this not as "effeminate" but instead as "abusers of themselves with mankind." The Gill commentary translates this as "sodomites" and several dictionaries define this as a "male homosexual." Going back to Romans 1:27, doesn't the "shameless act" not refer to this passage?

Actually the word abusers of themselves with mankind does not refer to the word sodomite or even male homosexual. That's a mistranslation. King James, as we all know or should know by now, sucked at translating latin. It's pretty obvious. I mean how the hell do you get witch out of poisoner? Wouldn't the term apothecary be a more suitable word?

The term abusers of themselves refers to the Hebrew word qadesh or qedesh which actually means Male Prostitute. Prostitution is a major sin in the ancient world because prostitutes use sex as a shameless act and sell their bodies.

So really, what Romans 1:27 and 1 Cor 6:9 are actually referring to are male prostitutes, not homosexuals. I was going based off of memory of what Romans 1:27 said, but in Romans 1 there is mention of women trading their natural roles for unnatural ones which does refer to women being more dominant verses how they're supposed to be, which is submissive.

You have to take into consideration the culture during those times. There were male prostitutes doing their thing on the grounds of the bloody temples for Christ's Sake. Now that right there is shameless.

[AshinnIchneumon]

Ofluckit

I'm Catholic and there's a gay marriage debate at my school tomorrow. I'm for it.

I know, apparently there's somewhere in the bible that says its wrong, but I really don't understand all the fuss. People were born that way. God made them that way. I mean, if we're god's children, why would he let someone be born an "obomination"?

Also, if we do allow gay's to be married, aren't we doing the right thing? Gays will be together anyway and if we don't allow them marriage, they'll have sex before marriage.

For those of you who think its wrong, why?

(Btw lets all keep an open mind because I'm talking about this from a religious viewpoint. I don't want any idiots making fun of my religion, plz.)

... Alright look, if you REALLY want to drag Christianity and God into this, then look closely at the FREE WILL segments... Humans were given free will, meaning that we can do things wether God wants us to or not. It isnt His job to clean up our messes, everything we do with and to eachother is our own fault, and anyone who blames God is a moron trying to deflect blame away from themselves. That being said, if this is a Debate, they will NOT be able to use God as a reason people shouldnt be Gay, because debate is based on logic/provable facts. God is not proveable, therefore He is generally not involved in Debates.

[Akhenaton of man]

Herald of Lies

Akhenaton of man

Herald of Lies

May not be good for my health, but logically if I'm going to have my particular religion I should put it first, otherwise it's most certainly an utter waste of time.

But in the end, could you do that? You can physically get away with violating your religion, but if you violate the law, you will go to jail. It doesn't matter whether you like the law or not, you have to respect the law over your religion because you are forced to.

Well if by respect you include me breaking it and getting thrown in jail, then yes I would be forced to respect the law.

That does not mean I will have to respect the Constitution, I could vote for unconstitutional things and it's possible they'll get by. And though I was talking in general that would be sorta relevant to certain specific cases like this one.

Quote:

Herald of Lies

Not that my religion would call for violence in any particular circumstance I can think of so I doubt it would get to be that bad.

Yeah, but if you start molesting children and hoarding illegal weapons and then open fire on the ATF and SWAT team, then you have no excuse.

Well yeah my religion couldn't possibly call for that short of God changing things majorly between now an then.

But let me ask you. Is it worth going to jail for simply because your religion decided to put forth a dogma that violated state and/or federal law?

[xLady Tsukiyox]

falsethreats

Mei tsuki7

falsethreats

xLady Tsukiyox

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.

Romans 1:27 is talking about women who should be submissive verses dominant.

1 Cor 6:9 is not only a mistranslation but also a misinterpretation. The term effeminate refers to men who are act feminine and in Paul's context it refers to those who are not disciplined. Now the term effeminate doesn't just apply to homosexuals but also to straight males. My best friend is effeminate and doesn't hide it, he cooks, cleans, and sews. He is 100% straight. My dad can do the same, and he is 100% straight.

Romans 1:27 - and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

"Men committing shameless act with men" sounds to me like men sleeping with other men. Even if this is done after marriage it's still an abomination to God.

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

The KJV translation refers to this not as "effeminate" but instead as "abusers of themselves with mankind." The Gill commentary translates this as "sodomites" and several dictionaries define this as a "male homosexual." Going back to Romans 1:27, doesn't the "shameless act" not refer to this passage?

That is your interpretation of those words. It could mean bestiality or even just adultery because they were obviously not married to those men.

Corintians is a horrible mistranslation. It was written in Greek and the Greeks had a word for homosexual that Paul did not use. He used a word of his own creation that was a conjugation of the words "boy" and "bed." It is most likely speaking of ***** and/or the temple prostitutes.

So, you're suggesting that some of the widely accepted translations of the Bible are wrong? Do you not trust in the sovereignty of God, that He is able to pass down the Scriptures, unchanged and inerrant? It's like saying, "God allows His words to be manipulated, misleading millions upon millions."

Actually what we're suggessting is that you look at the original texts, the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic instead of looking at the faulty translation of the KJV. Like I said, King James was a crappy translator when it came to Latin.

[Herald of Lies]

Akhenaton of man

Herald of Lies

Akhenaton of man

Herald of Lies

May not be good for my health, but logically if I'm going to have my particular religion I should put it first, otherwise it's most certainly an utter waste of time.

But in the end, could you do that? You can physically get away with violating your religion, but if you violate the law, you will go to jail. It doesn't matter whether you like the law or not, you have to respect the law over your religion because you are forced to.

Well if by respect you include me breaking it and getting thrown in jail, then yes I would be forced to respect the law.

That does not mean I will have to respect the Constitution, I could vote for unconstitutional things and it's possible they'll get by. And though I was talking in general that would be sorta relevant to certain specific cases like this one.

Quote:

Herald of Lies

Not that my religion would call for violence in any particular circumstance I can think of so I doubt it would get to be that bad.

Yeah, but if you start molesting children and hoarding illegal weapons and then open fire on the ATF and SWAT team, then you have no excuse.

Well yeah my religion couldn't possibly call for that short of God changing things majorly between now an then.

But let me ask you. Is it worth going to jail for simply because your religion decided to put forth a dogma that violated state and/or federal law?

If I'm going to seriously try to be a good adherent of the religion, yes.