Homosexuality in the Bible

[Adstar]

By "cute", I was referring to how you side-stepped the point: "To live as less than God created one is to live in sin." You seem to have side-stepped that point once again. Could you address it?

Well please say what you mean. It makes for more efficient communication.

We all fall short of what God created humanity to be when we obtained the knowledge of Good and evil. So yes all humans live in sin. God is longsuffering to our faults because of His will to salvage humans from destruction. He has made it possible for humans to be salvaged by our agreement With Gods means of salvage, The Messiah Jesus.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

God finished God's creation and called it good. If God created some of us homosexual, are we not in violation of your passage to call homosexuals evil?

Note: homosexuality is not called "evil." Read the passages again: Lev.18:22 and I Cor. 6:9. "Abomination" and "wrongdoer" are used -- not "evil." The Isaiah passage does not apply here.

Please refer to above post.


All Praise The Ancient of Days

 

[Adstar]

OK. I'm gonna be rude here That's just a really dumb thing to say. I have no interest in that job description (the hours are endless, the pay is lousy, and quite frankly, I'm not that paranoid nor obsessed to require unconditional love from my friends), nor have I ever decalred myself as some omniscient, omnipotent deity.

Posting anything in online forums is an exercise in vanity. If you did not operate from the position that what you had to share was important or worthwhile, you would not be here. It's vanity to believe that your perspective is more relevant, or proffers greater (or penultimate) insight, to the exclusion of all others.

"I'm here to share 'THE TRUTH'!" ANY perspectives that contradict/deviate from my understanding of that "truth" are WRONG (and *snif*..."Oh well...", damned).

If you wish to disabuse yourself from any collusions/associations with vanity, I suggest you follow the advice of Jesus, renouncing all earthly possessions and temptations of the flesh, and become a monk or priest. Otherwise, I assure you, your declarations and protestations of suffering the the maladies incumbent/imposed upon "true believers" will fall upon deaf and unsympathetic ears.

"Blame the messenger"? If you continue to present yourself as the lone (or rare) truthful arbiter of "God's Word", I practically guarantee that you will turn more people away from your God, than you will ever bring unto His fold of faithful and abiding adherents. Beelzebub would be pleased...

Proverbs 11:29

I posed:
If vanity is self-deceit, and lies separate minds from "the truth", to what or whom should they turn, or trust? Perhaps to someone that already claims (or infers) for themselves to understand "the truth" (and there's certainly no vanity in that position)?

You both ironically and ineptly replied:

Or maybe - and note the irony in application here - verity is circumspectly observed in that: "Because your mind tells you that anyone who disagrees with what you deem as truth is a fool".


I never suggested that numbering of Scripture should change meaning/interpretation of Scripture itself. But, matters of "convenience" are certainly accommodations of the needs of men, not of service to or for the needs of a divine instigator, who initially chose to impart His will and Word most notably absent such references.

Duh.

I understand the "why" of C&V notations, but was His Word in need of "divine inspiration" in amending such editorial discretions? Does perfection require revision or enhancement? Are such changes divinely inspired, or are they wrought at the hands of sinful men? If man was meant to fly of his own volition, would not God have lent him wings? If the Gospels were meant to sustain human editorial discretions/refinements in subservient service to "God's Word", should not they have been written as such from the outset? Does such willingness to accommodate the wanting qualities of man allow for further "divinely inspired" changes to Scripture in the future?


I note that you carefully evaded any provision of specificity in naming a particular translation of Biblical Scripture as being the lone accurate" source of "God's Word"? Of all people, surely wayward and repentant Christians would like to know just which Biblical accountings of "God's Word" they should hold fast and dear as "the truth". Won't you at least help these lost souls find the truthful way to "God's Word"? Must I quote from more than a dozen differing translations of the same C&V, simply to earn your candid reply of (specifically) which translation of "God's Word" that you deem as "true"? Or is it your understanding and assertion that all Biblical translations are both 100% accurate and faithfully representative of "God's truthful Word"?

If it is (posited) to be understood that "God's Word" can be accurately gleaned from any English Biblical translation, then what purpose do multiple "interpretations" of the very same "message" serve in matters of divinely proscribed "truth"? Time to start naming names. Do the NKJV, NASB and/or NIV, all testify to the exact same "truth" of "God's Word"? If so, how so? If not, why not? And, if not, which version/translation should "true believers' both quote and cite as definitive expositions of "God's Word"?

This is not just a qualitative summary conclusion to be made here. "Good, Better, Best" evaluations ain't good enough. We need THE "truth".

Let's say that I have six different road maps, outlining differing routes to a specified and desired destination. Three of these maps were published predicated upon the available information of the day, back in the 1970's. One map was published in 1985. One was updated to reflect the changes to infrastructure change and enhancement as of 2005. The last map is an ancient and barely readable document that is accountably almost 2000 years old.

If you're lost, and simply wish to achieve your desired destination, which map would you rely upon? Is there any element of ancient historical record that can hope to trump (or accommodate) the veritably existent changes to our world (or necessitated journeys/travels)? Are we to summarily reject any changes in amending contemporary maps from the originals as being inherently "false"? As lies? As Satanic influence?

All I request is provision of the one, and most accurate (definitive) roadmap, to the destination of "truth". No two maps are exactly alike. Either multiple [albeit dissimilar] maps can ultimately lead to the same desired destination, or that is pragmatically (and dogmatically) impossible. All I want to know is, who publishes the road map you are following to the land of "truth"? Rand McNally? MapQuest? FMCA? MapNation? National Geographic? They all differ in some subtle to substantial way. Can they all be correct and accurate, or do they each evince some fundamental flaw in comparison to the map you wield? Nobody wants to be lost, so don't be shy. C'mon. Which version of what map is the "right" one to follow to "God's Word"?


It's far easier to mock those that claim to speak on behalf of their Savior as incorruptible prophets of His "truth". Jesus warned of many false prophets that would arise in His wake, and in His name. Your credentials as a qualified corrector seem...lacking.


Indeed. Please present your authentication/certification as His endowed/blessed proctor of this test. Perhaps the version/translation of Scripture you use has an additional chapter or two that provides this alluded test.


How pleasing to know that not all sarcasm and sardonics are beyond your rational capacities. It's not your evident piety that I mock, or even question - it's your manifest manipulations of your own Savior's message that is both sad, and therefore worthy of righteous ridicule.

Yet, I applaud your zealotry, vainglorious pride, and assumptive arrogance in confident assertion and subsequent conclusion that I am a "true atheist". I envy your unfettered insight and certitude in the absence of any established fact or tested hypothesis.

If you say it's so...it must be true.

Such a weighty document when all you had to say is "i think you are a fool Adstar."

Do you think your message has more power because it is delivered with many words?

You reject the message i give. So be it. I accept that. I am only here for those who are willing to hear. You have played the ball they way you deem fit and have shown yourself to be a rejector of the message. You have exercised your free will. As it must be when it comes to God and faith, Love cannot be forced.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[sojourner]

Such a weighty document when all you had to say is "i think you are a fool Adstar."

Do you think your message has more power because it is delivered with many words?

You reject the message i give. So be it. I accept that. I am only here for those who are willing to hear. You have played the ball they way you deem fit and have shown yourself to be a rejector of the message. You have exercised your free will. As it must be when it comes to God and faith, Love cannot be forced.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Why are you only here for those who are willing to hear? If you are, indeed, concerned about the plight of the homosexual's eternal soul, shouldn't you be here for "those who have not heard?"

 

[Evandr2]

God finished God's creation and called it good. If God created some of us homosexual, are we not in violation of your passage to call homosexuals evil?

Note: homosexuality is not called "evil." Read the passages again: Lev.18:22 and I Cor. 6:9. "Abomination" and "wrongdoer" are used -- not "evil." The Isaiah passage es not apply here.

The belief that homosexuality is ok in the sight of God because a person that God created is driven to prefer and persue is like saying that bestiality, pedophilia, Sadism, racism, and murder (the list could go on) are also OK because a person takes pleasure in it.

You are right about one thing, God did not call homosexuality evil, He called it an abomination.

The scriptures warn against homosexuality. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example. I bring this into your thinking because of the circumstances that justified its destruction. I suggest that you read Leviticus, the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters, and Deuteronomy 23:17, Romans 1:27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Homosexuality is the sin that was most abhorred in the sight of God and which brought down the vengeance of heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah. This horrific story is one that should strike terror to us as we contemplate that similar things are happening among us today in an even greater degree:

God gave a command. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

What justifies the debate of so plain and straight forward a commandment. It is plain that He is talking of homosexuality and the practice of it. To say "Though shalt not" is to command. An abomination is a sin that brings more than sadness to God toward the sinner, but kindles His anger because of its destructive power. The family is the central theme of the great plan of salvation and homosexuality makes a mockery of it.

1 Corinthians 11:11
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

We must love the sinner but abhor the sin. We cannot condone homosexuality in any fashion. We must seek the help of God to know how to deal with homosexuality and those to which is leading down a most sure path to destruction.

Vandr
www.faithandevidence.com

 

[Dentonz]

We have been purified by Jesus. The Leviticus passage regarding homosexuality says nothing about death...it lists it with other sins that defile (make impure). Therefore, Jesus has put aside the impurity associated with homosexuality...

I've heard of loose translations, but come on.

Levitcus 20: verse 13 " If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Yes we are purified by the blood of Jesus if we repent of our sins.

 

[Dentonz]

Dentonz,

I have made some theological statements concerning your predilciction to assume God's place and you have failed to answer them. I'll repeat them again and remind you that you are scriptually commanded to answer questions when put to you.

Of course not all are in the form of a question. Many are made as points of scripture but they have the prepositional question "Do you understand" or "Don't you believe".

If the man in question is a friend of mine and he professes to be a Christian and professes to be a glutton in oposition to what the Bible says, then yes I will confront him. If there is just an overweight man walking down the street or a homosexual walking down the street; of course I'm not going to confront them. But if they happen to walk into my congregation, I'm not going to water down what the Bible says to appease their feelings.

There is a time and place for everything; I'm not going to chase anybody down the street and beat them with the Bible. But if someone I know claims to be a Christian and falls into a lifestyle of sin, I will attempt to bring it to their attention. It is not my job to attempt to change the hearts and minds of the world, but for those of us who claim not to be conformed to the world; we must police ourselves in accordance with the word of God so not to allow his grace to become lasciviosness.

Jesus is Lord

 

[Pah]

The belief that homosexuality is ok in the sight of God because a person that God created is driven to prefer and persue is like saying that bestiality, pedophilia, Sadism, racism, and murder (the list could go on) are also OK because a person takes pleasure in it.

You know, don't you, that it is not behavior that defines the gay community. It is the sexual preference.

The belief that homosexuality is even mentioned in the Bible is erroneous. The term was not used and not identified untill 1929 - almost 2000 years after the New Testaments So the Old testament is what? - a thousand years earlier? The Bible speaks of something other than homosexuality as we know it.

You are right about one thing, God did not call homosexuality evil, He called it an abomination.

Here the error is in the implication of abomination. The Hebrew word has no such connotation. "Unpure" is the more correct translation.

That's two errors so far.

The scriptures warn against homosexuality. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example. I bring this into your thinking because of the circumstances that justified its destruction. I suggest that you read Leviticus, the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters, -

Already discussed and your assumptions are found in error.

- and Deuteronomy 23:17, Romans 1:27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Homosexuality is the sin that was most abhorred in the sight of God and which brought down the vengeance of heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah. This horrific story is one that should strike terror to us as we contemplate that similar things are happening among us today in an even greater degree:

First of all, the greatest sin, the only unpardonable sin is the denial of the Holy Ghost. Dont give us that "most abhored" bit. A third error here.

I suggest you read Leviticus and begin to under stand that Leviticus 11, Leviticus 12, Leviticus 13, Leviticus 14, Leviticus 15, Leviticus 16, Leviticus 17 all deal with purity. That the punishment for being unclean was washing, being apart from people and offering sacriface. Levitcus 18 is the only chapter that deals with sexual union and that is confined to incest and that punishment is banning. The fourth error.

The fifth error is supposing that homosexuality is what caused the destruction of Sodom. Judges 19 tells the tale of a traveler given lodging in Gibeah. A crowd gathers and Judges 19:22 says ""Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." Instead a virgin daughter of the host to the traveler is offered and refused. The traveler's concubine was then sent to the men and they gang raped the concubine. She died from it

The city was not destroyed even though more evil was done by a crowd than at Sodom. You had better correct your error for Sodom becuase it was not what you think it was.

God gave a command. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

What verse? What was the meaning of the Hebrew word?

What justifies the debate of so plain and straight forward a commandment. It is plain that He is talking of homosexuality and the practice of it. To say "Though shalt not" is to command. An abomination is a sin that brings more than sadness to God toward the sinner, but kindles His anger because of its destructive power. The family is the central theme of the great plan of salvation and homosexuality makes a mockery of it.

What is plain is an ignorance of scripture

1 Corinthians 11:11
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

The New International Version translates it as "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman" and I can find THAT meaning in what you used. Not an error this time but still possibly wrong

We must love the sinner but abhor the sin. We cannot condone homosexuality in any fashion. We must seek the help of God to know how to deal with homosexuality and those to which is leading down a most sure path to destruction.

You don't know what the sin is. It is NOT today's same-sex intercourse

 

[Pah]

... of course I'm not going to confront them. ... I'm not going to chase anybody down the street and beat them with the Bible. ...

But you are in favor of law and/or will work to pass law that denigrates people you don't know. Won't you?

 

[evearael]

Vandr... from your quote "Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," I take it that you follow ALL the commandments listed in the Old Testament. I'm sure you follow the commandment that says not to wear fabric that is a mixture of plant and animal sources. I'm sure you follow the commandment that says not to boil a kid in its mother's milk. I'm sure you follow the commandment that says never to eat flesh with the life blood in it. I'm sure you follow the commandments that specify which animals are clean to eat. I'm sure you'll agree that if the laws given by God in the first five books of the bible or either valid or not. I'm sure you are not picking or choosing commandments to rally about while disregarding the rest out of convenience.

 

[Mister_T]

The belief that homosexuality is ok in the sight of God because a person that God created is driven to prefer and persue is like saying that bestiality, pedophilia, Sadism, racism, and murder (the list could go on) are also OK because a person takes pleasure in it.

This argument has been beaten to death. It is baseless and holds no water. Read earlier posts about this. The things you listed lack one thing....consent from both parties.

 

[Dentonz]

But you are in favor of law and/or will work to pass law that denigrates people you don't know. Won't you?

Absolutely not!! I don't believe this is a political thread anyway.

 

[Evandr2]

This argument has been beaten to death. It is baseless and holds no water. Read earlier posts about this. The things you listed lack one thing....consent from both parties.

I just knew that my posting on this subject was going to stir up some debate and controversy and that is OK. A good debate must have controversy.

You claim that this argument has been beaten to death, maybe so, maybe it is so hotly considered because it is true. The fact that it has been paralleled with the practice of homosexuality and then slammed with every bit of wordplay that can be conceived by the mind of the gay advocate does not invalidate it.

I believe that all of mankind has an inherent knowledge of right from wrong. It is one of the gifts that we inherited from our first parents – Adam and Eve. Some sins don’t have to be hard to recognize and homosexuality is one of the most glaringly easy to see and one of the most abominable in the sight of God. It is no wonder that Satan puts so much effort into promoting it. It is also no coincident so many nations, prior to ours, that have risen to great power and embraced homosexuality as an acceptable condition of society has been destroyed off the face of the earth. Our turn is coming.


Isaiah warned of the danger of perverting the word of the Lord:

Isaiah 5:20-24
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe unto the wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
22 Woe unto the mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink;
23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

We, as a people, are in a monstrously uncontrolled downward spiral, being guilty of exactly what Isaiah warned of. We are heading for the righteous judgments of God. There have been several huge and powerful civilizations during the history of the world whom have gone down the same dead end path that we are currently on and we will be just as surprised as they when our mighty nation chokes on its own bile and falls by the wrath of a just God.

Be very careful of how you justify sin. Your arguments in defense of homosexuality are weak at best and very transparent.

Vandr

 

[Mister_T]

Be very careful of how you justify sin. Your arguments in defense of homosexuality are weak at best and very transparent.

I'm not trying to justify sin. I was trying to show how ridiculous and ignorant that argument is. Judging by this quote

You claim that this argument has been beaten to death, maybe so, maybe it is so hotly considered because it is true

I'd say I've proven that to be right. The only thing that is true is that comparing homosexuals to racism, paedophillia, and murder, is that it's the WORST argument ever conceived for justifying the treatment that gay people receive by fundamentalists. What's transparent, is that you use holy scriptures to mask your prejudice against a group of people.

Out of curiosity, is that your own quote that you have at the bottom of your post?

 

[Mister_T]

Isaiah warned of the danger of perverting the word of the Lord:

Well Jesus said let him with out sin cast the first stone and warned people about passing judgment on others. Preaching law, and passing judgement on people who didn't follow the law, was an activitey of the Pharisee's. And we all know what he thought of them.

But now I'm just repeating stuff that has already been posted. Read the previous posts if you havn't done so already.

 

[Evandr2]

You know, don't you, that it is not behavior that defines the gay community. It is the sexual preference.

You miss the mark with this statement because it is the sexual preference of the gay community "shapes" it's behavior. Otherwise the gay community would feel no great need to defend their sexual preference.

The belief that homosexuality is even mentioned in the Bible is erroneous. The term was not used and not identified untill 1929 - almost 2000 years after the New Testaments So the Old testament is what? - a thousand years earlier? The Bible speaks of something other than homosexuality as we know it.

Here the error is in the implication of abomination. The Hebrew word has no such connotation. "Unpure" is the more correct translation.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. A sin is still a sin regardless of how we verbally clothe it

Already discussed and your assumptions are found in error.
First of all, the greatest sin, the only unpardonable sin is the denial of the Holy Ghost. Dont give us that "most abhored" bit. A third error here.

Your argument does not wash. Although denial of the Holy Ghost is "The" greatest sin, the commission of which will make a person a son of perdition, God does not give but a very few of mankind the ability to deny the Holy Ghost. Mankind cannot deny unto condemnation that which they need rely on faith to acknowledge. I do not intend to split hairs with you. If you insist on playing word games with me then let me rephrase that to "ONE of the most abhorred sins"

I suggest you read Leviticus and begin to under stand that Leviticus 11, Leviticus 12, Leviticus 13, Leviticus 14, Leviticus 15, Leviticus 16, Leviticus 17 all deal with purity. That the punishment for being unclean was washing, being apart from people and offering sacriface. Levitcus 18 is the only chapter that deals with sexual union and that is confined to incest and that punishment is banning. The fourth error.

Try Again! The ultimate punishment for being unclean is the denial of the right to live in the presence of God because no unclean thing can live in His presence. If you die in you sins, being unrepentant, than all the washing in all the universe cannot wash away your guilt.

The fifth error is supposing that homosexuality is what caused the destruction of Sodom. Judges 19 tells the tale of a traveler given lodging in Gibeah. A crowd gathers and Judges 19:22 says ""Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." Instead a virgin daughter of the host to the traveler is offered and refused. The traveler's concubine was then sent to the men and they gang raped the concubine. She died from it

An interesting story to be sure but Sodom was not destroyed because of the acts of a few or even a mob. The people as a whole called evil good and good evil. That was the predominant philosophy and it got them destroyed.

The city was not destroyed even though more evil was done by a crowd than at Sodom. You had better correct your error for Sodom becuase it was not what you think it was.

What verse? What was the meaning of the Hebrew word?

Your still splitting hairs and grasping at straws to defend your position.

What is plain is an ignorance of scripture
The New International Version translates it as "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman" and I can find THAT meaning in what you used. Not an error this time but still possibly wrong

Is your ability to defend your position so weak that you must start looking to new versions of scripture for argumentative content. I assume that that is what you are referring to by The International Version. Any new version of Scripture is not scripture at all. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water!

You don't know what the sin is. It is NOT today's same-sex intercourse

Sexual relations between a man and a woman is a sacred trust between mankind and God wherewith we are privileged to bring into this world his children. We are entrusted to teach them of Him, to ensure that they know Him and keep His commandments so that they can return to him. Sexual relation is to be kept within the bounds that the Lord has set. Sexual sin does not require a man and a woman to be sin. When we pervert that sacred right and privilege with acts of abomination and disrespect for the laws of God, it is no wonder that it kindles such anger from a righteous Heavenly Father.

Vandr

 

[Evandr2]

I'm not trying to justify sin. I was trying to show how ridiculous and ignorant that argument is. Judging by this quote I'd say I've proven that to be right. The only thing that is true is that comparing homosexuals to racism, paedophillia, and murder, is that it's the WORST argument ever conceived for justifying the treatment that gay people receive by fundamentalists. What's transparent, is that you use holy scriptures to mask your prejudice against a group of people.

Out of curiosity, is that your own quote that you have at the bottom of your post?

I was not comparing homosexuality to these other grievous sins. What the argument does do is bring to light the fact that the gay community is promoting the idea that some sin is sin and some is not.

To promote that idea is to profess that the Lord is a respecter of flesh and a partial judge, giving leeway to some offences and none to others. prejudice against a group or people has nothing to do with my argument. I have gay friends that I work with and I respect them and their right to freedom of choice and they know that. They also know my position with regard to their sexual preference because I made it known with care and respect when they brought up the subject.

I will some day have to answer to God and I don't want to be found guilty of sitting by and not raising my voice against that which I believe will chain a man or woman down to destruction as well as being degenerative to the whole human family. I would expect you to do nothing less.


Yes, it is my own quote

Vandr

 

[s2a]

Any new version of Scripture is not scripture at all.

Woohoo!

Perhaps you'll be the first (all others previously entreated have evaded lending any specificity in reply) to name which version/translation of Scripture as THE definitive version. (I can't promise any valued door prize, but you may earn a bit of due credibility and respect in so doing).

By your quoted commentabove , you obviously regard (by amorphous implication) some "older" version of Scripture as [being] definitive and ultimately authoritative.

In order to fairly rebut your faith-based perspective/rationale, it would be only fair (and incumbent upon you) for you to qualify which translation/version (name names please) of the particular BIble you deem as authentic "Scripture".

I hope you won't disappoint, or evade in lending specificity. I just want to insure that we're all playing on the same level field. I anxiously await your declaration/qualification as to which version/translation of Scripture you deem as valid and "true".

If you will, we'll progress from that point...

 

[s2a]

Such a weighty document when all you had to say is "i think you are a fool Adstar."

Do you think your message has more power because it is delivered with many words?

I might have been less inclined to reach such a conclusion had you offered any sort of a salient rebuttal. To impotently offer: "Your arguments are too 'wordy', therefore I choose to categorically evade/dismiss/ignore what they say". Just to state, for the record; I have neither sought to either limit nor characterize either the length nor the "wordiness" of any of your lent commentaries as marking qualifiers of merit or value. If you've got the time, I've got the beer. If you can't run with the big dogs, then stay on the porch.

"'impotence', noun:
- the quality of lacking strength or power; being weak and feeble."
Source: WordNet ® 2.0

Can you not, or will you not offer rebuttal to the salient questions put to you? I could wither and simply defend myself in characterizing your commentaries as being "irrational" and "faith-based", therefore dispersively unworthy of thoughtful and candid reply...but I didn't. Just know that if you choose to run away, you lose and I win.

You reject the message i give. So be it. I accept that. I am only here for those who are willing to hear. You have played the ball they way you deem fit and have shown yourself to be a rejector of the message. You have exercised your free will. As it must be when it comes to God and faith, Love cannot be forced.

I'll reiterate, since you can't (or willingly won't) even acknowlege my base assertion. Maybe you're just a really lousy "messenger", and your God has a better one on the bench just waiting to get to the plate to take a swing at making me a confessed sinner and redemptive soul. Maybe you just suck as an evangelist for Christ. That's OK...maybe it's just not what you're "called" to do as an adherent "true believer". Maybe Jesus doesn't reward His followers that promote intolerance, prejudice, and fear with sewn-on merit badges of redeemed souls. Maybe He's testing you, in hopes that you'll eventually come to understand (and live) His teachings.

Until that moment occurs, you'll just have to endure the frustrations inherent to your ingrained sense of righteous indignation, and suffer the vacuous bounties of the crops you safely choose to sow.

You have my sympathies, absent any due respect.

 

[Pah]

You miss the mark with this statement because it is the sexual preference of the gay community "shapes" it's behavior. Otherwise the gay community would feel no great need to defend their sexual preference.

How does sexual preference shape the behavior of a chaste priest? Is virginity thus to be deemed "asexual"? You don't have a preference until you "do it"?

There need be no defense of sexual preference - it is not a choice. And, in fact, it is a creation of God throughout nature.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. A sin is still a sin regardless of how we verbally clothe it

The severity of a crime is measured by the punishment give for it's commission and conviction. A "white" lie is less severe that a "malicious" lie. The Seven Deadly Sins, are less sinful that denial of the Holy Ghost. Wearing mixed fiber is the sin of impurity and is less agregious than working on the sabbath.

Your argument does not wash. Although denial of the Holy Ghost is "The" greatest sin, the commission of which will make a person a son of perdition, God does not give but a very few of mankind the ability to deny the Holy Ghost. Mankind cannot deny unto condemnation that which they need rely on faith to acknowledge. I do not intend to split hairs with you. If you insist on playing word games with me then let me rephrase that to "ONE of the most abhorred sins"

Theology IS the splitting of hairs.

A debate, and if you choose to indulge in one, requires a degree of precision.

Denial of the Holy Ghost is pervasive. It happens every time you doubt the action or thoughts of others with faith acting with the Holy Ghost.

Your idea that faith must be present first is in error. Does not the denial of the message of the faithful constitute a denial of the spirit that delivers it?

Try Again! The ultimate punishment for being unclean is the denial of the right to live in the presence of God because no unclean thing can live in His presence. If you die in you sins, being unrepentant, than all the washing in all the universe cannot wash away your guilt.

Was that the manner of Jesus - go away until you are clean? Wasn't his sacriface the "grand washing"?

An interesting story to be sure but Sodom was not destroyed because of the acts of a few or even a mob. The people as a whole called evil good and good evil. That was the predominant philosophy and it got them destroyed.

Let's see - homosexual sex was not mentioned at Sodom. Homosexual sex was mentioned at Gibeah. If Gibeah was spared, then your evil, your supposed evil of the city , was really, if not "good" at least palatable. Homosexuality at Gibeah was palatable, but at Sodom was unmentioned and unaccepted?

Your still splitting hairs and grasping at straws to defend your position.

You directed this comment at my statements "What verse?" and "What was the meaning of the Hebrew word?"

I'm splitting hairs when I seek a scriptual verification of what you said?

I'm grasping at straws when I ask what the original word, in the language of the original work, means?

These two things are essential to your point. If you don't know them, admit it

Is your ability to defend your position so weak that you must start looking to new versions of scripture for argumentative content. I assume that that is what you are referring to by The International Version. Any new version of Scripture is not scripture at all. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water!

I didn't seek a specific version of the Bible to refute your points; I used the default version presented by the Bible Gateway.

You imply that there is a translation of the Bible that "IS" scripture. I can't imagine how you arrive at that conclusion. All English versions are not in the original language. The original language brings you closer to the Word. I'm sorry that your version, whatever it is, is thought to be sufficient for you and superior to other versions. Even the version in the original language is not the original work and therein, the first manuscript, lies the actual Word of God. Everything else, EVERYTHING, is the work of man.

We now get back to the work of the Holy Ghost, for it is he that brings the relevation from God that a work, a Bible, is correct. Where you find and condemn difference in revealed meaning of the Word, you deny the spirit of God.

Sexual relations between a man and a woman is a sacred trust between mankind and God wherewith we are privileged to bring into this world his children. We are entrusted to teach them of Him, to ensure that they know Him and keep His commandments so that they can return to him. Sexual relation is to be kept within the bounds that the Lord has set. Sexual sin does not require a man and a woman to be sin. When we pervert that sacred right and privilege with acts of abomination and disrespect for the laws of God, it is no wonder that it kindles such anger from a righteous Heavenly Father.

If it is God's creation, then the biological functioning of the body is God's gift to humankind. The body has two functions relevant to sex - procreation and pleasure. If marriage is God's gift as well, sexual pleasure is one of the prime elements to maintaining a strong marriage (procreation is not). The sexual bounds are the limits of consenting sex as marriage is the consenting union.

You have not made your points in refutation.