Homosexuality and Scripture

post-it said:

You have to admit that Paul had some sexual hangups.

No we don't. Why? You're not going to start quoting from that crank Spong, who claims Paul was a repressed homsexual who converted to Christianity to find the love and forgiveness denied by his fellow Jews, are you?

You can set your watch by the reliability of the pro-homo liberals to suddenly change the subject whenever serious exegesis of the Biblical data comes up. Y'all are so predictable.

 

222 posts and still no clue!

ho-hum

While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.





HankD

[ September 26, 2002, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Truly my heart goes out to you sir.You may feel that you were born with these kinds of desires, like many others have suggested.</font>[/QUOTE]If you have read my arguments you would know I'm not gay therefore, I can assume you are trying to create a red herring on this issue. You poor ablility to argue your point may have lead you to this type of tactic. I don't really care if you think I am or not. I will continue to support the homosexual's right to be a Christian less the guilt of sin.

Hang around and learn, you may develop the ability to present a scripture based argument on the subject.</font>[/QUOTE]Give me a legitimate scriptural argument in favor of allowing someone controlled by their lust, to believe they follow Christ, then as poor as I know I am I will attempt to give a scriptural plea to the contrary, though it might take me awhile you know I hate to argue.Methinks I hit a cord with you sir, even with a small ability as mine!

 

I don't think I or anyone here has claimed that someone contolled by their "lust" is justified. However, acting on lust is a different thing. Have you, as a Christian, acted on any lust for any reason? Will you continue acting on any lust in the future. If you answer no, then we know you are decieving us. If you answer yes, then you know the difference between controlled and day to day sinning that we all will continue to do.

However, the Bible does not placed certain homosexual acts in the catagory of sin. So what was your point?</font>[/QUOTE]My point is this ROMANS 1:27 says "they burned in their lust for one another." Now I would contend that my lust is sinful and I denounce it in my life.But if one comes to the body of Christ, under the banner of his sexual preference, prouldly denying that it is no sin to lust after other men, I could not in good faith allow him to continue in his error seeing that it is doing him harm.Now if you would say to me what if they were married, I would have to have a "thus says the Lord." on that.Why would you let these souls continue in slavery when Jesus could set them free?You hate the same people you pretend to defend.

 

I don't know what bible you're reading out of post it, but from what I've read of your "queer theology," you might as well have left it on the shelf for all the good it's done you. It really would be more intellectually honest of you to just go ahead and admit you don't believe what the bible has to say regarding homosexuality than vainly attempting to wrest what the scriptures clearly say into something they don't.

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html

Russ &lt;&gt;&lt;

 

I doubt that. Every commonly accepted bible translation we have today translates the passages in question the same way. They are unambiguous. What you would have us all to believe is that you are more qualified to translate Greek than the hundreds of biblical scholars that have given us the translations we enjoy today? You're kidding right? The most scholarly (for lack of a better term) pro-homosexual apologist to date was Boswell, and you're no Boswell. However "scholarly" his work, it has since been shown for what it is, bad exegesis . Post it, your argument cannot be scripturally supported and I refuse to engage you in debate because it is useless. Jesus Christ could appear to you tonight and tell you you're wrong and you wouldn't believe it. So I think I'll heed the scriptures, in particular Titus 3:10-11.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9t2/9t2030.html

Russ &lt;&gt;&lt;

 

Out of curiousity - after 16 pages of "dialogue" has anyone who has participated in this thread learned anything? changed their opinions about anything? gained any insight into the other side? If not, I'm not sure why we're continuing.

Joshua

 

Well... I've been checking in from time to time to see if any scripture showing that homosexuality is not sin would ever be presented here. If none will be presented then I see no need to continue, the ones who stand on the side where scripture was presented that show that homosexuality is a sin seem to have been prevailing. I will say that where God's Word clearly teaches on a subject, I will stand there, I can do no other. God is not a man that He should change. That being the case, I'll trust in, and stand on His eternal Word.
...John 15

 

If sin isn't sin, what do we need Jesus for?

 

Is the issue that Scripture must be provided stating that homosexuality is not sin, or is it that Scripture cannot be used to state that it is sin?

Some of us have been saying that Scripture does not show that homosexuality (or more specifically, that not any and all male same-sex acts are sin), yet the desire from "the other side" is for us to show where Scripture shows specifically that it is not sin, or that it is good.

What is the standard, then? Several threads rest on this issue, I think. Certainly there have been requests for specific Scripture stating that drinking alcoholic beverages is not sin. I just wonder what is being looked for . . . do you want to see a verse that states "Homosexuality is not sin?" Is that how we determine truth when dealing in grey areas (speak generally here, if you will at all . . . I understand that many believe that homosexuality is NOT a grey area, but I'm trying to figure out the methodology being used, or required, as the case may be)?

 

post-it said:

What was Paul's wife's name again?
Was it Paul who had no need for sex or women?

Paul says he was single in 1 Cor. 7. That is not evidence of a "sexual hangup," nor does it disqualify him from dispensing advice about sexual matters.

 

Rev. Joshua said:

Out of curiousity - after 16 pages of "dialogue" has anyone who has participated in this thread learned anything?

Yep. You can always tell a liberal, but not much.

changed their opinions about anything?

You'll have to do better to change my opinion.

gained any insight into the other side?

About the subject matter? No. About the rebellion of liberal "Christians" to the revealed will of God, and the depth to which their humanistic presuppositions are sunk in? Oodles.

If not, I'm not sure why we're continuing.

Just to show how shallow error is when set against the truth.

 

Also as history has it...Soldiers were really not to marry. And he did have rank in the Army. As he stood by and guarded while Steven was being stoned and beaten. It was because they moved from town to town continuously. Yes some were married. But most soldiers weren't. Paul was a soldier on the way to Damascus to persecute those "In The Way", when Jesus met him on the road. This is why Paul was probably not married. Peter was. Jesus visited her and her mother. His mother-in-law had high fever and Jesus helped her, then she got up and made them something to eat. So I am missing the point of the discussion why Paul is not married that it has to do with homosexuality.
Get a new arguement this one does not even hold up...post it!

Sherrie