Sin of yesterday or not...

[Blazin Bones]

Incorrect. Show me where Matthew 28:18 says when the Authority was given.

Jesus says this after he was resurrected. Before he died, he in Matthew 5:17-20 that the law was still in effect and nothing would change in it. He says "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." So it would be hypocritical for him to start changing these perfect and eternal commands.

Again, show me where it says this authority was given. Secondly, you're still neglecting the fact that He is God. Try telling God what he can and can't do.

[quote:1606c] I'm not following this logic because this logic is flawed.

1. You said 2 Kings 9:30, says she painted her face to be seductive. Prove it with that passage, and I'll continue.

2. I'm still waiting for a passage that says jeans are men clothing, or even mentions the word jeans.

Quath, feel free to use the same logic I am when a pentacostal tells you this. Tell them to prove their point with scripture.

1. She was a fornicater so she is associated with seduction.

2. Jeans have in recent history been associated with men while dresses and skirts were associated with women. Men and women could not wear the same clothes by this belief, so the jeans went to the men and the skirts went to the women.

I agree it seems easy to show it makes no sense. I could show that historically, that women did wear jeans and that this passage may refer to pagan rituals or living as a transvestite. Yet they just say that by faith and the Holy Spirit guiding them, they know they have interpreted it tuthfully.[/quote:1606c]

1. Nothing in 2 kings 9:30 supports what you claim. Change you scripture or change your arguement.

2.All mans doing, hence I gave Pslam 118:8.

Quath, I just told you, if a Pentacostal tells you that, tell them to defend it with scripture. In otherwords, they are letting their deisre to make rules get in the way of true interpretations. I'll leave the rule making to God.

[quote:1606c]1.If that's what their law says, yes.

2.Incorrect. Let's use the KJV as an example, because a less literal translation doesn't shed the same light.(Berean, that was for you. :wink: ) In Leviticus 11:12 it says eating of finless or scaleless sea life "shall be an abomination unto You." This differs from what is written in Leviticus 18:22 where it just says, "this is an abomination." The you in 11:12 implies that God was speaking directly to the nation of Israel(Moses the representative). As God's chosen people, this was part of the deal. In 18:22 there in no word directing this law to a specific group. Therefore, one "sin" was just something that Jews, being God's chosen people could break. The other is general, and applies to all mankind.

1. So this would be sinful people casting stones (making judgement). Can he who is with sin cast judgement?

2. Lev 18:1 says "The LORD said to Moses" so the "you" is not needed since He was addressing the leader of the tribe.[/quote:1606c]

1. Sinner have been casting judgements for a long time. It doesn't make it right. However, Christ taught that we are to respect our government to the extent that is does not tell us to disobey God. You're missing the point because you're trying to force a contradiction into the matter.

2. So does Leviticus 11:1. This makes you're counter point mute.

[quote:1606c]Well, You missed what I said the first time. We do have a rule with which to follow. and It's golden.

So by this golden rule, can you kill your neighbor's daughter for premaritial sex? If you can't, then the OT laws did not follow the Golden Rule and Jesus could not have reduced them down to it. [/quote:1606c]

Again, you're trying to force a contradiction into the matter. A true Christian would never do such a thing, because it is sin. However, if a christian will not kill himself, he then has no right to kill another.

[quote:1606c]It's only a contradiction if you don't recognize that Christ was God. Christ did not tell them they could not stone her, but he did ask that the one who is pure to throw the first stone. The pharisees had no one pure amongst them, so they could not stone her.

Then Christ, forgave her, because as God he could. Then, later on the cross, he took the punishment this girl, and everyone one of us from adam to now have deserved. Quath, until you accept that Christ is God, you won't understnad the idea. For you, you don't even believe God is God, so good luck with trying to understand him.

Jesus should have stoned her then to follow God's law. But by forgiving her before he had fulfilled the law, he sinned.

If Jesus could forgive the laws before his death, then he did not need to die at all. He could just say all was forgiven.

I am just looking at this as a story and seeing if it makes sense. If I believed the OT, then I would have to conclude that Jesus was a false messiah and God warned people of them. (Of course, I would not want to worship God either from the OT since He is too bloodthirsty for my taste.)

Quath[/quote:1606c]

Leviticus 20:10, right? Show me there where it says that no one may take their Penalty?

Incorrect, your missing the point again. Someone was still going to die for the sins committed before his death. Blood was required for the forgiveness of Sin. he chose to forgive this girl, and then shed his blood on the cross to complete her, and everyone's forgivness.

He only becomes a false Messiah, because you don't want to understand what is being said in so many of the threads in this forum. It's clear and can be understood, but you just don't want to make the last step.

 

[bibleberean]

The law of Moses was in force for Israel. Jesus did not change the law to say only sinless people could enforce it.

The men who wanted to stone the women were convicted in their hearts of sin.

These men were tempting Christ and Christ was too smart for them...

John 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.


John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?


John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

John 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

John 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

Jesus never changed the law nor did He say the law was wrong.

I am writing this for the benefit of believers and to refute the logic of fools...

No matter what evidence is presented wisdom and common sense will elude those who have no heart for either.

Proverbs 17:16 Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?

And again only an apostate alleged Christian would vote for thereby condoning changing the law to allow (condone) marriage between two Sodomites.

That is the way it is...

Isaiah 5:20 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!

And the answer to the original question of this post still remains the same.

Men committing sex acts with men or women with women was a sin then. It is a sin now and it will always be a sin.

Cause God says so

 

[Quath]

Again, show me where it says this authority was given. Secondly, you're still neglecting the fact that He is God. Try telling God what he can and can't do.

If Jesus is God, then he contradicts Himself. He can't make a perect rule and then break it every time it does not work out. It means His rules were messed up and they shouldn't have been ordered in the first place.

Imagine you are a Jew and you see someone claim to be sinless. And then they go against the perfect word of God. They know the OT says that frauds will come forth and do that. So who does God warn of false messiah and then commits the deed He warned against.

Just makes no sense.

1. Nothing in 2 kings 9:30 supports what you claim. Change you scripture or change your arguement.

2.All mans doing, hence I gave Pslam 118:8.

Quath, I just told you, if a Pentacostal tells you that, tell them to defend it with scripture. In otherwords, they are letting their deisre to make rules get in the way of true interpretations. I'll leave the rule making to God.

1. 2 Kings says that a woman of fornication puts on makeup. We both agree on that. They go further and believe that makeup is a sign of a prositiute or seducer. You can agree or disagree, but they felt led by faith to believe that. Do you think that people should not be led by faith?

2. It is up to man to try to understand God. They tried and determined that men and women can not wear the same type of clothing.

It is not up to just scripture since Christians come up with diffent ways to view life and they all quote scripture. You can support anything with the Bible.

By scripture I can say the whole NT is false. You disagree. So it seems that people throw interpretations in it to try to massage the scripture to reflect what they wanted to believe in the first place.

1. Sinner have been casting judgements for a long time. It doesn't make it right. However, Christ taught that we are to respect our government to the extent that is does not tell us to disobey God. You're missing the point because you're trying to force a contradiction into the matter.

2. So does Leviticus 11:1. This makes you're counter point mute.

1. So when should sinners judge others then? Just when Jesus is not around?

2. It is slightly different. He is talking to two people in chapter 11 and just 1 in chapter 18. I don't know enough about Hebrew to know when "you" means something different. However, your point seems to be that Chapter 11 is for just Israelites and Chaper 18 is for everyone. However, God does not state it is for everyone and since He is just talking to Moses, it seems it must just be for Israelites. If it was for everyone, then God should have said this to everyone and not just one person.

Again, you're trying to force a contradiction into the matter. A true Christian would never do such a thing, because it is sin. However, if a christian will not kill himself, he then has no right to kill another.

So you are saying that God did not teach Christian values in the OT. And yet God is suppose to be Jesus and is never suppose to change. I see a huge contradiction in that.

I agree with you that you can not love someone and kill them (unless it is mercy killing). So there is a contradiction in the OT where God says to love your neighbors and also says to kill them.

Leviticus 20:10, right? Show me there where it says that no one may take their Penalty?

Incorrect, your missing the point again. Someone was still going to die for the sins committed before his death. Blood was required for the forgiveness of Sin. he chose to forgive this girl, and then shed his blood on the cross to complete her, and everyone's forgivness.

He only becomes a false Messiah, because you don't want to understand what is being said in so many of the threads in this forum. It's clear and can be understood, but you just don't want to make the last step.

The rule was to kill her. Jesus told people to ignore that rule and he ignored it himself. I don't think we disagree on that. You seem to say that it didn't matter because Jesus would die for her sin in a little while. I see 2 problems with it. The first is that Jesus still encouraged sin by telling people to ignore God's rule. The second is if the death penality could be ignored because Jesus would die in the future, it could have been ignored from the start. In other words, God didn't need to make the death penality because He knew He would sacrifice Himself to Himself later on to forgive these people.

Jesus never changed the law nor did He say the law was wrong.

By not enforcing the law and telling people to ignore the law, he broke the law. Even if everyone turned away, he should have killed her as God proclaimed should be done.

The men were tempting Jesus by reminding him of his duty to the law of God. They may have had ulterior motives, but they were legally correct.

They didn't follow the law either, but we already knew they were sinful. Jesus does not have such an out.

Quath

 

[bibleberean]

No individual or group of individual Jews could stone a person any time they wanted to.

Jesus did not break the law nor did he condone anyone else to break the law.

There was due process in Israel.

The Jews were occupied by the Romans. They were a conquered and occupied nation. The ability to put people to death was taken away from them.

The Jews were trying to trick Jesus into doing something that would place Him in jeopardy.

John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

We don't know what Jesus wrote on the ground but it very could have been names and dates when the accusers of the woman committed adultery themselves.

They left convicted in their own conscience.

Not one word that Jesus said the law was wrong nor that you had to be sinless to obey the law.

He simply made a statement and no one took Him up on it.


It doesn't matter what is written to explain the bible and a situation that they pretend they don't understand a person who is as hardened in their atheism as some people are will not see it.

They don't want to and they are not going to see anything but their own foolish outlook on the bible and God.

As to the original topic on this thread perverted sexual relationships were wrong then and are wrong now and will be wrong in the future.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Reading these insane defenses of homo lifestyle, I can say that ultimately what you approve of you will have to answer for.

Sputnik: I would have expected a little more savvy in your post, antitox. My particular post had NOTHING to do with defending ANY practice. Please read it again.

As for BB ...maybe 'thou protesteth too much', BB ... You're beginning to make me a tad suspicious.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Again, show me where it says this authority was given. Secondly, you're still neglecting the fact that He is God. Try telling God what he can and can't do.

If Jesus is God, then he contradicts Himself. He can't make a perect rule and then break it every time it does not work out. It means His rules were messed up and they shouldn't have been ordered in the first place.

Imagine you are a Jew and you see someone claim to be sinless. And then they go against the perfect word of God. They know the OT says that frauds will come forth and do that. So who does God warn of false messiah and then commits the deed He warned against.

Just makes no sense.

It makes no sense to you because you are denying the fact that God made us like him. You will never understnad God until your recoginze his sovereignty. The rule was not broken, but paid for by someone else. Again, you try and tell God what he can't and can do.

[quote:a85d9]1. Nothing in 2 kings 9:30 supports what you claim. Change you scripture or change your arguement.

2.All mans doing, hence I gave Pslam 118:8.

Quath, I just told you, if a Pentacostal tells you that, tell them to defend it with scripture. In otherwords, they are letting their deisre to make rules get in the way of true interpretations. I'll leave the rule making to God.

1. 2 Kings says that a woman of fornication puts on makeup. We both agree on that. They go further and believe that makeup is a sign of a prositiute or seducer. You can agree or disagree, but they felt led by faith to believe that. Do you think that people should not be led by faith?

2. It is up to man to try to understand God. They tried and determined that men and women can not wear the same type of clothing.

It is not up to just scripture since Christians come up with diffent ways to view life and they all quote scripture. You can support anything with the Bible.

By scripture I can say the whole NT is false. You disagree. So it seems that people throw interpretations in it to try to massage the scripture to reflect what they wanted to believe in the first place.[/quote:a85d9]

1. When did I agree with you. I said change your scripture or change your arguement.

2. Can you give the passage that mentions Jeans or not?I tell you the same thing I tell every rule making "Christian". Prove It with scripture, or concede your point.

You do not know the Holy spirit, therefore you would only interpret scripture in a manner pleasing to yourself. I'm not making scripture say anything more than it does, unlike the pentacostals who make rules about jeans which were never mentioned in the Bible.

[quote:a85d9]1. Sinner have been casting judgements for a long time. It doesn't make it right. However, Christ taught that we are to respect our government to the extent that is does not tell us to disobey God. You're missing the point because you're trying to force a contradiction into the matter.

2. So does Leviticus 11:1. This makes you're counter point mute.

1. So when should sinners judge others then? Just when Jesus is not around?

2. It is slightly different. He is talking to two people in chapter 11 and just 1 in chapter 18. I don't know enough about Hebrew to know when "you" means something different. However, your point seems to be that Chapter 11 is for just Israelites and Chaper 18 is for everyone. However, God does not state it is for everyone and since He is just talking to Moses, it seems it must just be for Israelites. If it was for everyone, then God should have said this to everyone and not just one person.[/quote:a85d9]

1. Jesus taught that no one should judge another and that Judgemnet belongs to God alone. There is no point for anyone to judge anyone. However, a sinner has no problem sinning, so they can go ahead and judge whoever they like. It will only hurt them.

2. Thank you for acknowledgeing the fact that the passages differ. I never said my Idea was definitive, but it is logical. As I said before, you can choose to force a contradiction there, but you're only adding to your distane for the God who will judge the Righteous and unrighteouss. The Question is, when will you choose to live the life of the righteouss.

[quote:a85d9]Again, you're trying to force a contradiction into the matter. A true Christian would never do such a thing, because it is sin. However, if a christian will not kill himself, he then has no right to kill another.

So you are saying that God did not teach Christian values in the OT. And yet God is suppose to be Jesus and is never suppose to change. I see a huge contradiction in that.

I agree with you that you can not love someone and kill them (unless it is mercy killing). So there is a contradiction in the OT where God says to love your neighbors and also says to kill them.[/quote:a85d9]

Where did I say anything near, "God did not Teach Christian values in the OT." Nowhere is that even implied. Your need to make God fake creates the contradiction. If you can stop placing yourself above God, you might have a hope of correctly reading what I wrote.

[quote:a85d9]Leviticus 20:10, right? Show me there where it says that no one may take their Penalty?

Incorrect, your missing the point again. Someone was still going to die for the sins committed before his death. Blood was required for the forgiveness of Sin. he chose to forgive this girl, and then shed his blood on the cross to complete her, and everyone's forgivness.

He only becomes a false Messiah, because you don't want to understand what is being said in so many of the threads in this forum. It's clear and can be understood, but you just don't want to make the last step.

The rule was to kill her. Jesus told people to ignore that rule and he ignored it himself. I don't think we disagree on that. You seem to say that it didn't matter because Jesus would die for her sin in a little while. I see 2 problems with it. The first is that Jesus still encouraged sin by telling people to ignore God's rule. The second is if the death penality could be ignored because Jesus would die in the future, it could have been ignored from the start. In other words, God didn't need to make the death penality because He knew He would sacrifice Himself to Himself later on to forgive these people.[/quote:a85d9]

Leviticus 20:10, right? Show me there where it says that no one may take their Penalty?

Show me where Christ told them to ignore the rule in John 8:7.

Problem one: Your creating the problem because at no point did Christ say they were to ignore the law. Prove your point with the passage.

Problem two: Prove where it was Ignored. He took the Penalty. Thus setting the new standard.

Quath, until you stop telling God what he could and could not do, you have no hope to strengthen your arguement.

 

[bibleberean]

Brutus,

How is an atheist going to recognize God's sovereignty?

They are in darkness they cannot admit that there is a God let alone that God is sovereign...

"It seems like there is one topic several users enjoy discussing, homosexuality. So let's do it right. Some claim it's still a sin, some claim it's a sin of the past, still others claim it's natural(which can not be proven). Where do you stand?"

Here is where God stands.

It was a sin against Him yesterday. It is a sin against Him today and it will be a sin against Him tomorrow.

The rest of this discussion is really irrelevant to the topic.

I mean who cares what a fool thinks?

God is the only one who matters.

Jeremiah 9:23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:


Jeremiah 9:24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

Proverbs 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Are you this fanatical with EVERY perceived sin, BB? I suspect that you're carrying a lot of baggage, my friend.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

The OP asks if homosexuality is a sin today. The answer is yes.

I am someone who used to be a homosexual. The wonderful thing is that those who are in Christ are a new creature and this is no longer who I am. Now, I will not say that there is never temptation but I am learning to give that to God and when I do, it goes away. Also, as I run this race further, those temptations become less severe and are diminishing exponentially. God is faithful and will give us victory. He does not just say this is sin so deal with it but will give us the power through His Son to overcome it. I know this firsthand.

Homosexuality is no different then any other sin that I or anyone else commits. It does not change because the world does. God still cannot look on sin with the least amount of acceptance and is not concerned with being politically correct or progressive. He showed me how wrong my lifestyle was and has given me the grace to overcome it, but only when I was willing to do so. He will do this for the murderer, the thief, the adulterer, the blasphemer, and every other sinner just as well.

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is not something you are born with other then every one of us is born a sinner and is something that God wants to give us victory over.

 

[antitox]

What do you think the word sanction means? I think it means "To give official authorization or approval to" like my dictionary says.

Just like arguing with Quath..... now I have to explain basic simple things to you like I have to do with him. The second definition of sanction is "support;approval" which was my use of the word and it's the way I've ALWAYS used it on this board.

If you agree with my definition, then you should agree that the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is clearly sanctioning (giving official authorization) the sin of idolatry.

This has NOTHING to do with establishment of religion. That's the liberal default for sanctioning immorality. Whether something is considered immoral or not does not signify religious control. It is simply a standard irregardless of who supports it.

So, that led me directly to the conclusion that our founding fathers sanctioned immoral behavior.

No they didn't. You are grossly misled, carrying the banner of the extreme liberal.

Hence, it appears that the words you wrote, when intepreted with a standard dictionary, imply that our founding fathers, who sanctioned immoral activities, were propagating and endorsing evil.

I've already responded on the definition.
You are terribly misguided on our founding fathers as with most extreme liberals to the point that anything goes. Freedom is not a pretext for evil, yet the liberal mind sees it as a license.
In conclusion, it is apparent that you condone immorality. Need I say more?

 

[cubedbee]

What do you think the word sanction means? I think it means "To give official authorization or approval to" like my dictionary says.

Just like arguing with Quath..... now I have to explain basic simple things to you like I have to do with him. The second definition of sanction is "support;approval" which was my use of the word and it's the way I've ALWAYS used it on this board.

Well, the two definitions are really similar if you ask me, but fine, let's go with yours.

[quote:bf206]If you agree with my definition, then you should agree that the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is clearly sanctioning (giving official authorization) the sin of idolatry.

This has NOTHING to do with establishment of religion. That's the liberal default for sanctioning immorality. Whether something is considered immoral or not does not signify religious control. It is simply a standard irregardless of who supports it.[/quote:bf206]I have no clue what you are talking about here. The 1st amendment has EVERYTHING to do with the "establishment of religion" since it uses those very words. The rest of your paragraph is babble that seems to have no relationship to anything I have been talking about.

[quote:bf206]So, that led me directly to the conclusion that our founding fathers sanctioned immoral behavior.

No they didn't. You are grossly misled, carrying the banner of the extreme liberal.[/quote:bf206]Yes, they did. You are grossly misled, carrying the banner of ignorance. The first amendment gives sanction, support and approval, from the US government, to citizens who commit idolatry. It's so plain and simple I cannot fathom how you can fail to grasp this.

You are terribly misguided on our founding fathers as with most extreme liberals to the point that anything goes. Freedom is not a pretext for evil, yet the liberal mind sees it as a license.

Well, I have a liberal mind, I know I have the freedom to commit many sins, but I don't see that freedom as a pretext or a license to do so. So, looks like your making false generalizations. God's going to hold everyone accountable--the question is whether are government should do so far all sins, or whether the government should allow some sins and let God do the reckoning. From day 1, our founding fathers have chosen to allow the freedom for certain sins. This is not condoning, supporting, giving license, giving pretexts, or any other of the garbage you like to spout---it is supporting freedom.

In conclusion, it is apparent that you condone immorality. Need I say more?

No, you needn't, because it's clear there won't be a fruitful conversation with you. And no, it's not apparent that I condone immorality, since I oppose it. Rather, it's apparent that I condone freedom and personal accountability.

 

[bibleberean]

Antitox wrote:

"Freedom is not a pretext for evil, yet the liberal mind sees it as a license. "


BB agrees:

It is interesting to me how the liberal mind can take a straight forward question such as the original question in the OP and turn it into a pitch to support "Sodomite marriage".

The bible supports your statement...

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

They are very clever...

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

2 Corinthians 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

As citizens of this nation and caring Christians we should not condone nor support the corruption of the institution of marriage.

The world is going down hill fast. Jesus said it would get worse and worse.
It had better be in spite of us not because of us.

Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

Luke 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

We need to be ministers of righteousness not priests of Satan.

 

[antitox]

I have no clue what you are talking about here.

Of course you don't; that is exactly the problem here.

The 1st amendment has EVERYTHING to do with the "establishment of religion" since it uses those very words. The rest of your paragraph is babble that seems to have no relationship to anything I have been talking about.

Now let's remove the liberal haze. When I said that it doesn't have anything to do with religion, you disregarded the other things that I said. Now let's try and see if you can get this:

Taking a stance on a particular issue on one side or the other does not denote religion. Can you perceive that? I wouldn't be surprised if you forgot what I just said.

No they didn't. You are grossly misled, carrying the banner of the extreme liberal.

Yes, they did. You are grossly misled, carrying the banner of ignorance. The first amendment gives sanction, support and approval, from the US government, to citizens who commit idolatry. It's so plain and simple I cannot fathom how you can fail to grasp this.

I do not deny that they promoted freedom of religion. You are now comparing apples to oranges. We are talking about immorality (and on a grand scale here), not religious freedom. Stick to the subject at hand.

Well, I have a liberal mind, I know I have the freedom to commit many sins, but I don't see that freedom as a pretext or a license to do so. So, looks like your making false generalizations. God's going to hold everyone accountable--the question is whether are government should do so far all sins, or whether the government should allow some sins and let God do the reckoning. From day 1, our founding fathers have chosen to allow the freedom for certain sins. This is not condoning, supporting, giving license, giving pretexts, or any other of the garbage you like to spout---it is supporting freedom.

Yes, God will hold everyone accountable, but that is certainly not an excuse to lower the bar so that corruption can increase.

(Prov 25:26) "Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked."

No, you needn't, because it's clear there won't be a fruitful conversation with you.

Correct, if fruitful means agreeing with you.

And no, it's not apparent that I condone immorality, since I oppose it. Rather, it's apparent that I condone freedom and personal accountability.

Well, if you believe in morality as you claim, then there is no evidence that you support it.

 

[Quath]

It makes no sense to you because you are denying the fact that God made us like him. You will never understnad God until your recoginze his sovereignty. The rule was not broken, but paid for by someone else. Again, you try and tell God what he can't and can do.

It seems that if Jesus could die for the adultrous woman, he could have died for all the adultrous women that were killed in God's name. So none of them had to die since Jesus would eventually die for them.

I am not saying that God couldn't do it, it is just inconsistent and breaking His own rules for Him to do so.

1. When did I agree with you. I said change your scripture or change your arguement.

2. Can you give the passage that mentions Jeans or not?I tell you the same thing I tell every rule making "Christian". Prove It with scripture, or concede your point.

You do not know the Holy spirit, therefore you would only interpret scripture in a manner pleasing to yourself. I'm not making scripture say anything more than it does, unlike the pentacostals who make rules about jeans which were never mentioned in the Bible.

1. If you don't agree with me, then which part don't you agree with? Was it that Jezebel was not a fornicator or that Jezebel did not put on makeup? If you agree there, then do you agree that in the Bible, a seducer (whore or fornicator) wears makeup? Should people emulate fornicators in how they present themself? This last one you may disagree with (as I do). However, they feel the Holy Spirit led them to this belief.

2. Here is the problem. You believe the Protestant version of the Bible, but not the Catholic. Can you prove that with scripture? No, because it would be circular argument (My Bible is true because my Bible says it is true.) So you say it requires faith to understand what God wants. Yet when others use this logic, you disagree.

1. Jesus taught that no one should judge another and that Judgemnet belongs to God alone. There is no point for anyone to judge anyone. However, a sinner has no problem sinning, so they can go ahead and judge whoever they like. It will only hurt them.

2. Thank you for acknowledgeing the fact that the passages differ. I never said my Idea was definitive, but it is logical. As I said before, you can choose to force a contradiction there, but you're only adding to your distane for the God who will judge the Righteous and unrighteouss. The Question is, when will you choose to live the life of the righteouss.

1. That makes no sense to me. You say a sinner can judge, but then you say that noone can judge but God. Are you talking about two different things?

2. I see way too many problems in the Bible beyond this. I would be lieing to myself to even pretend to believe any of this reflects reality.

Where did I say anything near, "God did not Teach Christian values in the OT." Nowhere is that even implied. Your need to make God fake creates the contradiction. If you can stop placing yourself above God, you might have a hope of correctly reading what I wrote.

You said it when you said that a Christian has no right in killing another. Yet God said His followers did have the right to kill others. So which is it?

Leviticus 20:10, right? Show me there where it says that no one may take their Penalty?

Show me where Christ told them to ignore the rule in John 8:7.

Problem one: Your creating the problem because at no point did Christ say they were to ignore the law. Prove your point with the passage.

Problem two: Prove where it was Ignored. He took the Penalty. Thus setting the new standard.

Quath, until you stop telling God what he could and could not do, you have no hope to strengthen your arguement.

Leviticus 20:10 says for people to kill adulters. Show me where it says that someone may die in their place and take the penality.

The law from Moses was clear that she should die by stoning. If everyone ignores the command of God, then they have sinned. Even if all the people left, it was Jesus duty as a sinless person to follow the rule of God and kill her.

What you propose is a loophole that lets people ignore all of Gods rules by people just not following them.

I am not telling God anything (because it He does not exist as far as I am concerned). I am talking with you about some logical inconsistencies I see.

The Jews were occupied by the Romans. They were a conquered and occupied nation. The ability to put people to death was taken away from them.

Show me in scripture where God says that His rules for the death penality can be ignored if they are a conquered people.

Quath

 

[cubedbee]

Taking a stance on a particular issue on one side or the other does not denote religion. Can you perceive that? I wouldn't be surprised if you forgot what I just said.[/color]

Of course I can perceive this. I never said or implied otherwise. Not sure why your bringing it up.

I do not deny that they promoted freedom of religion. You are now comparing apples to oranges. We are talking about immorality (and on a grand scale here), not religious freedom. Stick to the subject at hand.

The subject at hand, at least the subject I was trying to pursue, is whether or not Christians can or should legalize some forms of immorality. Freedom of religion is the legalization of idolatry, hence it is a pertinent example of a legal immorality.

Yes, God will hold everyone accountable, but that is certainly not an excuse to lower the bar so that corruption can increase.

(Prov 25:26) "Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked."

Well, back to my example, the founding fathers could have declared Chrisianity the only legal religion, but instead "lowered the bar so that corruption could increase". What's the difference between their desire to legally safeguard the freedom of idolaters and my desire to legally safeguard the freedom of homosexuals?

 

[bibleberean]

Thanks for the excuses.

Homosexual practices were a sin yesterday are a sin today and will be a sin tomorrow...

 

[Lyric's Dad]

BB, thanks for bringing this back around.


For others in here, this thread was opened to discuss the issue of homosexuality and if it is still a sin. Lets get back on topic please.

 

[bibleberean]

BB, thanks for bringing this back around.


For others in here, this thread was opened to discuss the issue of homosexuality and if it is still a sin. Lets get back on topic please.

Good idea... :D

 

[SputnikBoy]

So, as long as homosexuality IS a sin ...then, other than rubbing one's nose into lashings of scriptures that are presented for no other reason than to point out to them how rotten they are, how do you professed Christians plan to help in a practical way someone who might be struggling with homosexuality? Is there a chance at all that you could put down your weapons (Bibles) for long enough to do some constructive thinking of your own?

No offense, but I can't imagine for a moment that some on this thread will ever convert ANYONE to Christianity based on the contents of their posts. Wasn't it Ghandi who once said, "I'd possibly BE a Christian if it wasn't for Christians ..."? While I AM a Christian I must confess to having an understanding of the concept underlying this statement that seems to be held by any number of nonChristians. Such condemnation by some of you toward others who may well be struggling with their homosexuality just might come back to bite you.

As I've stated previously, the condemnation from many of you toward this particular group of people DOESN'T come from the Bible. One doesn't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to figure this out. It begins in the heart of the individual. Then, and only then, is the Bible used as a means to condemn.

 

[antitox]

Of course I can perceive this. I never said or implied otherwise. Not sure why your bringing it up.

Really? Maybe you should consider the fact that you are politicizing this over religion when the issue is about immorality (homosexuality) and the approval of it and then you say you don't know why I just made that last statement?
This is the repeated practice and behavior of the atheists on this board and you are doing the EXACT SAME THING. If you ever stay focused on the real issue it will be a miracle.

The subject at hand, at least the subject I was trying to pursue, is whether or not Christians can or should legalize some forms of immorality. Freedom of religion is the legalization of idolatry, hence it is a pertinent example of a legal immorality.

Lets stay on topic.

The sanctioning of homosexuality by the state is not the equivalent to freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion is not the sanctioning of immorality. You may use the word idolatry, but excluding the element of immorality.

Immorality is wrong. The state was never privy to it from its inception. Just because liberal thinking/dogma has made its way into government circles by people like you and the ACLU's out there, it does not license you or anyone to make such twisted claims about the history of our government in order to further immoral activity.

Well, back to my example, the founding fathers could have declared Chrisianity the only legal religion, but instead "lowered the bar so that corruption could increase". What's the difference between their desire to legally safeguard the freedom of idolaters and my desire to legally safeguard the freedom of homosexuals?

You really are confused. None of those people intended to further immorality. You need your head examined.
Please do not claim to be a Christian on this board. A truly level-headed believer doesn't advocate immorality. You try to redefine history and defend the acceptance of immorality/homosexuality as though it was your treasure. :o