Same Sex Marrige By a Church.

[McBell]

The god you seem to want is one that will be just like yourself ---- perhaps even yourself? I'm glad that my GOD is far better than anyone could imagine.

You know absolutely nothing of the god I want.
Your god is not one I want anything to do with.

If you take offense to that fact, then that is YOUR problem.

I'm glad that my GOD is far better than anyone could imagine.

To each their own.

 

[Autodidact]

The god you seem to want is one that will be just like yourself ---- perhaps even yourself? I'm glad that my GOD is far better than anyone could imagine.

Assuming there is any such thing, of course.

btw, is this the same God who commands His followers to kill babies? Because I don't find that quite as attractive as you do.

 

[Archer]

Actually in the OT there were times when it was kill all and burn it. This just shows that God don't play.

There were other times when all the males were killed and the women taken.

Was this metaphorical? IDK, if it says it happened it happened. I don't question it as it is meant to be a lesson about something.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually in the OT there were times when it was kill all and burn it. This just shows that God don't play.

There were other times when all the males were killed and the women taken.

Was this metaphorical? IDK, if it says it happened it happened. I don't question it as it is meant to be a lesson about something.

Yes, so pardon me if I don't share Little Nipper's view that such a God is greater than can be imagined. On the contrary, such a God is more horrific than can be imagined.

 

[Smoke]

The god you seem to want is one that will be just like yourself ---- perhaps even yourself? I'm glad that my GOD is far better than anyone could imagine.

He sounds remarkably like you to me.

 

[DallasApple]

That's wild you would make stuff up like that, since in fact two women having sex violates NO scripture. Not a word of it. Isn't that wild? And yet you continue to impose your own hateful and bizarre interpretation of scripture to say it does.

I suppose you also feel that prohibiting slavery is a gross misapplication of God's law? Cuz, y'know, that's what the Bible says.

What's your position on divorce and the Bible? Polygamy? Slavery? Trimming your beard? Women speaking in church?

There is no mention of two girls being together because GUYS like that!Heterosexual men are TURNED ON by two girls together

Thats why its not "forbidden" Because guys get turned on by it..

Hetero guys on the other hand are TERRIFIED that another guy would stick a suasage in their butt hole.

I told ya'll this already..and no one believes me..Its not "homosexuality" its their butt holes!!

LOve

Dallas

 

[Sunstone]

Heterosexual men are TURNED ON by two girls together

Not this heterosexual man. Lesbian action is no turn on.

 

[sojourner]

Taken by any one literal translation. If you cant find a translation of the Bible that supports or condones directly the subject of the thread then you have nothing but an opinion like everyone else.

There is no such thing as a "literal translation."
The Bible, is, itself, the opinion of the authors, supplemented by the opinion of the translators, editors, compilers, etc.

 

[sojourner]

It is fumy if I ask a question that you cant answer and off of the wall crap is pulled. It is not in the bible. If anyone can find it in a legitimate biblical translation of what was in the cannon I will never post on this forum again otherwise stop wasting time.

@Storm I never cast a stone. I asked if it could be found in the Bible. Do you fear one who is following the Lord so much that you must try and make a mockery of them?

Which canon? There are several legitimate ones. Jesus mentions homosexuality not one single time. But he does talk about money a lot. Would you ban the collection plate on Sunday morning?

 

[LittleNipper]

You know absolutely nothing of the god I want.
Your god is not one I want anything to do with.

If you take offense to that fact, then that is YOUR problem.


To each their own.

Have it YOUR OWN WAY! Bye.

 

[LittleNipper]

Yes, so pardon me if I don't share Little Nipper's view that such a God is greater than can be imagined. On the contrary, such a God is more horrific than can be imagined.

Everyone is going to die and after that will come judgment ---- including that of your own.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which canon? There are several legitimate ones. Jesus mentions homosexuality not one single time. But he does talk about money a lot. Would you ban the collection plate on Sunday morning?

Based on my reading of the Bible, it seems to me that Jesus would have more of a problem with bingo in the church basement than he ever would have with homosexuality. In the Gospels, the only people who Jesus was ever violent against were the people who engaged in commerce in a house of worship.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is no mention of two girls being together because GUYS like that!Heterosexual men are TURNED ON by two girls together

... Actually, I think that it's because female homosexual contact does not adversely effect the survival of a family / clan / city, because these women can still marry and have children.

Male homosexuality is much more of a threat because these men would refuse to have sex with women / wives and have children.

It's all about the control of property. Men controlled the property, so women were dependent on men for their livelihood, so they married and had children even if they were gay. Gay men, on the other hand, had control over their property and did not have to marry to sustain themselves, so it threatened the continuation of the family and threatened survival of cities and clans (etc).

 

[sojourner]

... Actually, I think that it's because female homosexual contact does not adversely effect the survival of a family / clan / city, because these women can still marry and have children.

Male homosexuality is much more of a threat because these men would refuse to have sex with women / wives and have children.

It's all about the control of property. Men controlled the property, so women were dependent on men for their livelihood, so they married and had children even if they were gay. Gay men, on the other hand, had control over their property and did not have to marry to sustain themselves, so it threatened the continuation of the family and threatened survival of cities and clans (etc).

But isn't that POV counterbalanced by the fact that homosexual men can play the guitar just as well as heterosexual men?

 

[Archer]

Which canon? There are several legitimate ones. Jesus mentions homosexuality not one single time. But he does talk about money a lot. Would you ban the collection plate on Sunday morning?

Yes, stop the plate!! Those who will give will give, those who can not may come to church as they may not feel pressure.

 

[challupa]

Yes, stop the plate!! Those who will give will give, those who can not may come to church as they may not feel pressure.

Archer, I just wanted to say that I truly think you are a good person trying to do what you think is right. I don't agree with you on the literalness of the bible, nor your views on homosexuality, but that's just how it is.

 

[challupa]

... Actually, I think that it's because female homosexual contact does not adversely effect the survival of a family / clan / city, because these women can still marry and have children.

Male homosexuality is much more of a threat because these men would refuse to have sex with women / wives and have children.

It's all about the control of property. Men controlled the property, so women were dependent on men for their livelihood, so they married and had children even if they were gay. Gay men, on the other hand, had control over their property and did not have to marry to sustain themselves, so it threatened the continuation of the family and threatened survival of cities and clans (etc).

This is my view of the "abomination" verses too. It was very important for the Hebrew to go forth and multiply because they were a small tribe surrounded by some very aggressive and successful nations. Their survival was always at risk. It really didn't have anything to do with it being a sin. It had everything to do with survival. And yes, it wouldn't be an issue with women because they were property and if they didn't comply, they could always be raped and then they would have children anyway whether they were gay or not.

 

[Archer]

Archer, I just wanted to say that I truly think you are a good person trying to do what you think is right. I don't agree with you on the literalness of the bible, nor your views on homosexuality, but that's just how it is.

Thank you. Each of us had a role to play in this world, I am playing the one I was given and there is nothing I can do about it.

 

[Storm]

The thing is Archer, that interpretation of the Bible is inevitable, and it's not your place to say how churches other than your own should interpret it.

 

[McBell]

The thing is Archer, that interpretation of the Bible is inevitable, and it's not your place to say how churches other than your own should interpret it.

I agree.
Though I also do not see anything wrong with his disagreeing with other interpretations.