Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Guild for Believers of Salvation through Christ

Back to Guilds

 

 

Reply The Guild for Believers of Salvation through Christ
x Goto Page: [] [<<] [<] 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

i like burnination

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:11 am


PirateEire
Not a good debate method, though... To basically say "that doesn't count" when you don't like a source I have cited.

i never said i didn't like Aristotle. i'm just saying that using philosophers might not be the best way to go, especially concerning word usage.

plus,
Aristotle = Ancient Greek
Bible = Koine Greek

two different types of Greek.

btw, that was a good one Row. :]
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:34 pm


i like burnination
btw, that was a good one Row. :]


thank you. looking back, I guess being deliriously tired when you log on can lead to some interesting brain blasts.....

Rowena Marion
Captain


PirateEire

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:17 pm


Then I concede the point about Aristotle, as sources do confirm that he used a different Greek than the Bible. Though a source would be nice next time so I don't have to look it up all by myself. ;_;

@Rowena: The only flawed part of what you wrote that I could pick out is that you first agreed that there was no homosexual identity in Paul's time and hence, no mention of it in what he wrote--then you said that we should regard what the Bible says about said homosexual identity, and take clues from what is considered "right" by the Bible.

The traditional family, of course, is "right" by the Bible, but does that make non-traditional families wrong? We live in a society with less and less traditional families. Premarital sex is no new thing, interracial marriage is acceptable, as well as interreligious marriage... Women not being subserviant to their husbands is also not all that uncommon, and the relation between children and their parents is far from what is Biblically labeled as "right." Some of that, you may agree, is "wrong" by the church and by your own personal beliefs. Some of it is perfectly fine, and despite mentions against things such as interracial and interreligious marriage/relations, is perfectly fine nowadays.

Point is, what makes homosexuality any different than any of those other qualifiers for the traditional family? What makes it so important that some people would not only adopt it as an important "sin" to focus on above any other defiances of the Biblical traditional family, but one that is important enough to ensure that a discriminatory, unfair law stay in place. Why not try to get a law to outlaw sex out of wedlock if one is so focused on saving the traditional family, the sanctity of marriage, and the salvation of the souls of sinners...?

The only thing I really, in all honesty, see behind these people wanting to make sure that homosexual marriage remains illegal is hate, disgust, and prejudice. Nothing is being protected. The rights of people are being denied--the rights to be recognized as legally equal to straight people, the rights to be allowed the same titles as any married man and woman, and the rights to be financially secured as any married man and woman are (and no, civil unions do not grant the same benefits).

So then Burn, Xairip, ShadowCat. One of you, please tell me, in plain English, what the motive and the reason is for denying people's rights in this manner, and for focusing so heavily on homosexuality over things that seem to have even more emphasis in the Bible as far as sexual crimes go, such as adultery/premarital sex?

Before I blow up, I think I'll end this post. I am the master of pissing myself off.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:59 pm


PirateEire
@Rowena: The only flawed part of what you wrote that I could pick out is that you first agreed that there was no homosexual identity in Paul's time and hence, no mention of it in what he wrote--then you said that we should regard what the Bible says about said homosexual identity, and take clues from what is considered "right" by the Bible.


Ah…the identity, as in, “I am a homosexual” did not exist…the bible does however mention how it feels about homosexual acts, however. And we get many pictures of what the family should look like—Ephesians 5 talks about the wife and her husband, Colossians 3 has a section about Christian households—In both, they speak of a wife and a husband. Proverbs 31 gives us a complete account of the ideal Godly woman. Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs, depending on the translation) is nothing but a story of love between a lover and beloved—some of it is down right pillow talk,--again, between a man and a woman. That is, for some, considered enough evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is not the ideal form of relation for God.

Going back to my analogy about Google…no specific mention of Google, but not even search engines existed back then. The closest thing to a search engine would be a very well read scholar. So in order to come up with an answer about Google, we would have to look at verses about scholars and/or scholarly things. Like, Proverbs 15:14 says “The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.” Obviously encouraging us to seek knowledge. Psalm 119 says that the author with praise God as he seeks to learn his law. Nothing is said (as far as I can find) about how to acquire such information, so, Google could be deemed alright in certain circumstances.

PirateEire
The traditional family, of course, is "right" by the Bible, but does that make non-traditional families wrong? We live in a society with less and less traditional families. Premarital sex is no new thing, interracial marriage is acceptable, as well as interreligious marriage... Women not being subserviant to their husbands is also not all that uncommon, and the relation between children and their parents is far from what is Biblically labeled as "right." Some of that, you may agree, is "wrong" by the church and by your own personal beliefs. Some of it is perfectly fine, and despite mentions against things such as interracial and interreligious marriage/relations, is perfectly fine nowadays.


The bible is certainly clear on it’s message about premarital sex—it is a no-no. *shakes finger* While interracial marriage is no issue today, I still believe that an interreligious marriage would be against the word, which clearly states not to be yoked with an unbeliever. In Hebrew time, interracial marriage meant interreligous marriage—as the Israelites were not only a religious group, but a nation of people. The bible doesn’t label woman as having to be suberservant any more than a man, and in fact in many places suggests that marriage is indeed a partnership—the Proverbs 31 woman (a wife of noble character) not only cares for her family but conducts her own business and is quite independent and efficient apart from her husband. As far as children not obeying their parents…well, the bible says, clearly “Children, obey your parents.”


PirateEire
Point is, what makes homosexuality any different than any of those other qualifiers for the traditional family? What makes it so important that some people would not only adopt it as an important "sin" to focus on above any other defiances of the Biblical traditional family, but one that is important enough to ensure that a discriminatory, unfair law stay in place. Why not try to get a law to outlaw sex out of wedlock if one is so focused on saving the traditional family, the sanctity of marriage, and the salvation of the souls of sinners...?

The only thing I really, in all honesty, see behind these people wanting to make sure that homosexual marriage remains illegal is hate, disgust, and prejudice. Nothing is being protected. The rights of people are being denied--the rights to be recognized as legally equal to straight people, the rights to be allowed the same titles as any married man and woman, and the rights to be financially secured as any married man and woman are (and no, civil unions do not grant the same benefits).

So then Burn, Xairip, ShadowCat. One of you, please tell me, in plain English, what the motive and the reason is for denying people's rights in this manner, and for focusing so heavily on homosexuality over things that seem to have even more emphasis in the Bible as far as sexual crimes go, such as adultery/premarital sex?

Before I blow up, I think I'll end this post. I am the master of pissing myself off.


Let me make this clear—I am not talking about using the bible to say “homosexuality is wrong, therefore, homosexual marriage should not be legal.” That is NOT my issue. I just piped up to say “Hey, that verse you keep asking for—it doesn’t exist. For the same reason that there is such a narrow amount of material for a biblical stance against the thing this non existent verse says. So I can’t give you concrete proof. I can show you how my opinion and beliefs are grounded biblically, but I can’t give you concrete, scriptural proof that what I believe should be right or wrong based on my holy texts.”

I’m pretty sure I stated earlier in this very thread that the bible and my religious beliefs have nothing to do with the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that is the responsibility of our nation’s judges. Do I think homosexual marriage is wrong? Well, sorry, yes. I do—for the same reason I think adultery, pre-marital sex, and interreligous marriage are wrong—It is outside of God’s ideal for the lives of his people.

Do I want to stop people who don’t have my beliefs from doing something they believe is right, acting out of love. No. I do not. I don’t agree with it—but I don’t agree with a lot of things people I care about do—You know I care about you, you know I don’t believe what you are doing is okay, but you know it isn’t going to stop me from caring about you.



All that’s left is….



Luffs on the Pirate! *luffs* heart heart pirate mrgreen




We don’t agree on whether or not it is morally acceptable…but we do agree that to deny the right is unconstitutional, and I have no right to infringe on your freedoms based on my religious beliefs. So until (and if) marriage is legally defined by the federal government one way or the other—we are on the same page there.

I hope this clarifies a bit.

Rowena Marion
Captain


i like burnination

PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:19 pm


i agree with everything Row said, and what Shadow said in response to Ter's question.

i have a way with words, i know. XD sweatdrop
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:40 pm


I have some gay and bi friend's.I feel i should say something about that to them,but i don't know what to say. gonk

Kat Killjoy


PirateEire

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:27 pm


MistWolfGirl
I have some gay and bi friend's.I feel i should say something about that to them,but i don't know what to say. gonk
How about you don't interfere with their choices so long as they are not harming someone else nor themselves, hm?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:16 am


Rowena Marion
Whether or not it should be legal and whether or not I agree with it are two entirely different things.

I don't agree with gay marriage.

I do think it should be legal, based on our constitution and my (albeit somewhat limited) knowledge of civil liberty and the pattern of granted rights in our history.

THE US constitution is against discrimination....and telling two people they legally can't marry is discrimination. I can sit around until the cows come home thinking about how I believe they shouldn't, but I have no right to tell them they can't.


I beg to differ.

By not allowing a man to marry another man, we are not discriminating. Anybody can get married, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one, regardless of sexual orientaion, may marry someone of the same sex. I see no discrimination.

Now what IS discrimination is not allowing someone into the army based on sexual orientation. See the difference?

asdjkflp


Kat Killjoy

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:11 pm


PirateEire
MistWolfGirl
I have some gay and bi friend's.I feel i should say something about that to them,but i don't know what to say. gonk
How about you don't interfere with their choices so long as they are not harming someone else nor themselves, hm?
Hmm.......i still think it's really bad.But thanks for speaking your mind about it.
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:04 pm


JesusFreak60148
Rowena Marion
Whether or not it should be legal and whether or not I agree with it are two entirely different things.

I don't agree with gay marriage.

I do think it should be legal, based on our constitution and my (albeit somewhat limited) knowledge of civil liberty and the pattern of granted rights in our history.

THE US constitution is against discrimination....and telling two people they legally can't marry is discrimination. I can sit around until the cows come home thinking about how I believe they shouldn't, but I have no right to tell them they can't.


I beg to differ.

By not allowing a man to marry another man, we are not discriminating. Anybody can get married, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one, regardless of sexual orientaion, may marry someone of the same sex. I see no discrimination.

Now what IS discrimination is not allowing someone into the army based on sexual orientation. See the difference?
Do you not see the lack of logic in this statement?

Anybody can get married, whether they are black or white, they just have to marry within their own race.

How would that be non-discrimination? If you see the flaw in the above statement, then surely you see the flaw in your own statement. You're basically saying that everyone has the right to get married--but not everyone has the right to get married to the person of their choice. That, my friend, is discrimination and an infringement of rights.

PirateEire


OnceAgain89

3,050 Points
  • Forum Explorer 100
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Person of Interest 200
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:01 pm


Honestly on this topic I'm kind of at a standstill of uncertainity for either side. I do see the gay lifestyle as wrong and sin. But as for the marriage I'm not sure. I mean marriage in itself was meant for man and woman alone. Not for man and man or woman and woman. BUT! I do see the side of free will. This isn't as black and whtie as an abortion issue would be because this has biblical evdience to back it up, but to back it up as sin. But no where does it say that it's ok for us to take their free will....So yea thats my view on it and as you can see it's complete confusion...

And towards JesusFreak whether we like it or not it is discrimination. We aren't allowing them to marry who they love. We are denying them of who they are, (if you want to say that...Not going into my whole beliefs of this topic, as this isn't the place.) But yes it is discrimination. How would you like if you loved some but for whatever reason tichnicality(sp) you couldn't marry that person, because yall didn't meet the "criteria", would you consider it discrimination?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:49 am


First I would like to state that I did not type this. It is from http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17364783

Secondly, I relize this will be a very extensive post (three actually due to the stupid character limit) however I would appreciate if you read through everything before commenting. For those with short attention spans, try reading it little by little taking breaks ect.
----------

Some very repetitive and popular things keep coming up in the ongoing fight of "Christianity vs. Homosexuality".

Some of these popular responses:

"Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." - Insinuating Adam and Eve as the only humans on the Earth in the beginning, and all humans are children of Adam and Eve.

"Leviticus says:" - Insinuating that all of Leviticus is still to be used by Christians.

"God burnt down Sodom for homosexuality!" - Insinuating that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexual sex.

"The New Testament says:" - Insinuating that the New Testament specifically says that homosexuality is a sin.

"Gays marrying is against God!" - Insinuating that marriage is a Christian rite and that homosexuality is a sin.

"My Bible says:" - Insinuating that a certain translation of the Bible is correct.

Well, I'm here to show you that you're wrong. And here's why:

Crunchy Spice

Shirtless Informer


Crunchy Spice

Shirtless Informer

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:51 am


Topic 1, Adam and Eve: The Only Humans?

Genesis 2:4-6, NIV
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


Genesis 1:9-13, NIV
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.


As Adam was made before vegetation was on the Earth, he was made during the third day: After the water, but before the veggies. However:

Genesis 1:26-30, NIV
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.


More humans were created on the sixth day. Also:

Genesis 4:16-17, NIV
So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.


Cain found a wife in the land of Nod, a place where Adam and Eve had not been, thus proving there were more humans.



Topic 2, Leviticus: Christian Law?

Leviticus 19:27, NIV
Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.


So. Those that shave are sinning.

Leviticus 19:19, NIV
Keep my decrees.
Do not mate different kinds of animals.
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.


So. Those that crop in cycles, wear polyester cotton mixes, or breed mules are sinning.

Leviticus 15, NIV
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any man has a bodily discharge, the discharge is unclean. Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring about uncleanness:

" 'Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches his bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever sits on anything that the man with a discharge sat on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'If the man with the discharge spits on someone who is clean, that person must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Everything the man sits on when riding will be unclean, and whoever touches any of the things that were under him will be unclean till evening; whoever picks up those things must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'A clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden article is to be rinsed with water.

" 'When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest. The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the LORD for the man because of his discharge.

" 'When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

" 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

" 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

" 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

" 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

" 'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them.' "

These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who lies with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.


So. Semen is "unclean". Women on periods must be cast out due to their uncleanliness.

Leviticus 11, NIV
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.

" 'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

" 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales-whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water-you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

" 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

" 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

" 'You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Every animal that has a split hoof not completely divided or that does not chew the cud is unclean for you; whoever touches the carcass of any of them will be unclean. Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. They are unclean for you.

" 'Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon. Of all those that move along the ground, these are unclean for you. Whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean till evening. When one of them dies and falls on something, that article, whatever its use, will be unclean, whether it is made of wood, cloth, hide or sackcloth. Put it in water; it will be unclean till evening, and then it will be clean. If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean. Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean. A spring, however, or a cistern for collecting water remains clean, but anyone who touches one of these carcasses is unclean. If a carcass falls on any seeds that are to be planted, they remain clean. But if water has been put on the seed and a carcass falls on it, it is unclean for you.

" 'If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Every creature that moves about on the ground is detestable; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is detestable. Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

" 'These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.' "


So. You can't eat lobster or crawfish. Or pork.

So why just pick at the verses against homosexuals? Oh, by the way. Christians do not have to follow Levitican Law.

Acts 10:10-16, NIV
He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of fourfooted animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

“Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.


Suddenly the animals aren't unclean. Oh, and here.

Acts 15:24-29, NIV
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul– men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.


If you are Christian, you are not to follow the Levitican laws, as mentioned in Acts 15. If you are Jewish, either follow all the laws, or just realize that you're not doing so hot as a Jew and don't follow any.



Topic 3, Sodom: Burned For Homosexual Sex?

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is as such: Lot, the nephew of Abraham, was living in the city of Sodom. Abraham had pleaded to God to spare the city under the condition that 10 righteous men were found there.

Genesis 18:32-33, NIV
Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.


Unfortunately, that condition was failed to be met. However, God felt compassion towards Lot, and sent two angels to warn him of the impending doom of the city before its destruction. When they arrived, however, they were accosted by citizens of Sodom.

Genesis 19:4-30, NIV
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."


With these verses, a couple of key things are to be noted. First, note that Lot mentioned the men were protected. Second, note that he offered his daughters. The protection is to be noted because inhospitality was a grievous offense. Just as in the Roman myth of Jupiter and Mercury visiting Baucis and Philemon, hospitality was rewarded as you never knew who would be in your house. Lot offering his daughters shows that, as he was their father and thus their consent, that he was offering them consenting sex as opposed to rape. Also:

Genesis 18:20-21, NIV
Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."


God mentions an outcry that reached him. Would men consenting to homosexual sex cry out to God? No. Would people being raped repeatedly cry out to God? The answer is yes. Also, why would the sin of homosexuality be so grievous back then that it was worthy of razing an entire city, but is today not worthy enough for anything? The reason is that homosexuality was not the sin mentioned. The sin is rape and, slightly lesser, inhospitality. Note:

Ezekiel 16:48-50, NIV
As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.


Arrogance, gluttony, and apathy. Not helping the poor and needy, or being inhospitable. Haughty: Above the law. And detestable things? Rape. Case 2:

Luke 10:10-12, NIV
But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.


If you are not welcomed into a town, it says... If they are not hospitable to you, then they will suffer pains worse than that of Sodom.

I'd say that about clinches the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, wouldn't you? Don't assume that since we have this word sodomy to refer to a**l sex that Sodom's sin was sodomy.



Topic 4, New Testament: Condemning Gays?

Some will say that homosexuality falls under the category of sexual immorality, as mentioned in Acts 15:29. But commonly mistranslated for homosexuality is a section in Romans:

Romans 1:24-27, NIV
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

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.


In these passages, it blatantly states that lust was the cause behind their sin. Not only is lust a sexual immorality, but so is sleeping around.

1 Corinthians 6:12-18, NIV
"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.


This verse says to "flee sexual immorality", but it only mentions whoring yourself. Further, to prove that God condones ALL forms of love, including homosexual love:

1 John 4:7-12, NIV
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.


These verses, properly interpreted and read, not misquote or drug out of context, show that God is behind all forms of love, and that lust and prostitutional fornication are the sexual sins mentioned.



Topic 5, Gay Marraige: UnChristian?

I don't even need Bible verses for this. As I've already proven that homosexuality is not a sin in accordance to the Bible, there should be nothing wrong. However, if that's enough, picture this:

Christianity was formed approximately 2000 years ago. Jesus has been judged to die at around 28 AD (Born in 5 BC). Marraige has been a concept since ancient Sumeria. Which is much older than two thousand years. Or, even better: The Roman Empire, founded 57 BC I believe. Before Jesus. Marraige happened. Better than that: Judaism, the religion that Christianity started upon? Marraiges occured.

Obviously, marraige is not a Christian concept. Holy matrimony was made into a Catholic rite long ago to sort of take over marraige, but America is not a Christian nation. Therefore, Christianity would have no control over the marraiges in America anyways. Since homosexuality is not a sin, marraige is not a sin, and Christians have no control over marraige, it can be drawn, then, that homosexual marraige is not a sin, or unChristian.
Reply
The Guild for Believers of Salvation through Christ

Goto Page: [] [<<] [<] 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum